• We Dont Share Your Info

Rife Machine Comparison

Dr. Rife never wanted his name put on any equipment. Regardless, a lot of companies have put his words on their equipment.

If you’re curious about exactly what he said about this – press play to hear him:

The use of function generators for what Dr. Rife was doing began in 1957. John Crane and John Marsh took an off-the-shelf function generator and changed the face plate as shown in the photos below.

The comparison chart below first starts with Dr. Rife’s #3 * instrument that was built with the Colin B. Kennedy equipment that he used from 1923 to 1935. The #3 instrument was called the Rife Ray #3.  The second instrument on the chart is Dr. Rife’s 1935 #4 * instrument. It was called the Rife Ray #4. We will not compare Dr. Rife’s first instrument because very little is known about it. His second instrument became his third instrument when he increased its power level from about 10 watts to 50 watts output.  Dr. Rife’s Colin B. Kennedy equipment was just off-the-shelf standard frequency generating equipment of the 1920s. Many frequency or function generators sold today can output the same frequency range that Dr. Rife used but they lack sufficient power. Only about 1/5 of 1 watt (0.20 of 1 watt). Below is a comparison of features of many of the instruments sold today. If you wish to have a greater understanding of Dr. Rife’s instruments we suggest that you read the paper “A History of Rife’s Instruments and Frequencies.” (you get this free when you register on this website) Pages 11 through 27 deal with the Rife Ray #3 Kennedy equipment. Pages 28 through 31 deal with the Rife Ray #4 instrument.

Why Power Output Is Important In A Frequency Generator

Rife Machine Comparison Chart

comparison-chart

Rife Machine Comparison RF and

EM type Ray tube instruments

RF instruments have a carrier frequency and EM instruments do not.

comparison-chart22

When comparing the various instruments power outout is a very important consideration.

The first pad instrument developed by John Crane and John Marsh worked quite well but were underpowered like most of the pad instruments built today. John Crane and John Marsh tried to overcome the power problem with larger pads. The mistake they made was they didn’t use an RF carrier frequency. Because the off-the-shelf generator they used didn’t have a carrier frequency they no longer used one. Without the RF carrier frequency they couldn’t get the same results as the ray tube instrument. This is the reason I prefer to use a machine with a carrier frequency so that the power of a ray tube can be incorporated into whatever type of instrument it is, whether it’s a pad type or a ray tube type instrument.

The power output of the pad instruments on the market today that do not use an RF carrier frequency is only about 0.20 of 1 watt. With the use of an RF carrier many more watts can be used safely, even up to 10 watts. As you can see compared to 2/10 watt, 10 watts will deliver 50 times more power. The simple fact is that the skin cannot handle this much power in the lower frequency range so RF comes in handy.

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

Val Holt April 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm

I went to AZ in February to help my Mum get treatment for cancer. Long story short, we found “this” & her antigen tests have come down 174 points within three months. We will have more info next week from ultra sound tests on her improvement. I am so glad to have found you & hope that I can find some help up here in the North country. I live in a semi remote area in interior BC. Any suggestions will be welcome indeed. Keep up the great work. God Knows we need our TOOL s.
Cheers,
Val Holt

rob d September 11, 2010 at 6:42 am

Hi do we know 100% what kind of gas was used in the tube and also the metal used for the anoid and cathoid and the back sheelding??

Guy Lloyd September 27, 2010 at 7:45 am

Great information ….. I am working with Dr’s from around the globe and have found your information very valuable I have a RIFE and am located in Northern Saskatchewan. The results of RIFE speak much louder than words and the Dr’s are toally impressed with the results we are seeing …… keep up the great work .

Andre Bouterey September 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Hi
My name is Andre I am an electrical engineer,I dabble in biology,and I think you are an extreemly remarkable young man.I live in Tauranga New Zealand and have been studying Rife and others for many years now. I know you are telling the truth,I also know that when they do, and they will, develope a microscope that can magnify to 150 micron,that you and your friends wil justifiably reap the rewards, of your lifelong endeavours. We dont have the same constraints in NZ, and when I can afford your equipment, I will be purchasing it.
ALL THE BEST
KINDEST REGARDS
ANDRE BOUTEREY

Joshua Parker October 15, 2010 at 2:27 am

We know Rife’s favorite gas to use was Helium but he also stated that other gases worked fine but that Helium tended to last the longest. I do believe that the electrodes were made out of tungsten. That’s what most of them are made with but one thing for sure about these tubes with internal tungsten “phanotron” electrodes is that they eventually burn out due to the electrodes burning a coating inside the glass.
-Joshua

Terry Wilson July 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm

Joshua

As far as AM interference and the “original machines,” why wouldn’t a Faraday
cage be a work-around for both the interference and frequency issues that are introduced with the later machines and harmonics and interpretations of the MOR’s?

O. Despe August 15, 2011 at 7:20 am

What would be useful to know are the power levels of the M.O.R. frequencies
required to kill or deactivate each microbe type. As I understand it, the carrier
frequency is just the means to deliver the M.O.R. frequencies that are actually
modulated into the carrier signal.

It would seem that r.f. power levels applied directly to the body via contact pads
can be significantly less than the required signal that is broadcast or radiated
from an antenna or ray tube to produce equivalent effectiveness. Are there
studies that look into this issue?

scott September 8, 2011 at 9:18 am

How do i find the “Ideal” generator? and how much is it going to cost?

Ruth September 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Hi – we are borrowing a Rife machine to use for my husband’s Lyme disease. It came in a silver metal briefcase. Inside, there is the bulb with the terminals in it, and a wood case with about 6 knobs on it. On the side, are terminals where a volt meter is attached. There is no name or model information on it. Can you help us figure out what type of Rife machine it is, and how to operate it? I can send you a picture of it if that would help. I haven’t seen one quite like it on the google image searches I’ve done. Any help would be awesome. Thanks so much, Ruth

Suellen October 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm

When using the gbXXXX, should I not have the amplifier hooked up when using low audio frequencies?

Joshua Parker October 20, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Hi Suellen,
That really depends because “low frequencies” in the audio range make up the majority of the frequencies being used these days and if they are running through an RF Carrier (such as in RF mode) then the amplifier should be used because it increases the power output. When using the low (audio) frequencies in audio mode without any RF carrier the amplifier shoudn’t be used.
-Joshua

Joshua Parker October 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm

Hi O.
Unfortunately studies like this are not typically funded so they don’t exist. I personally agree that the broadcast systems, especially vacuum tube driven systems, deliver a much stronger pulse for delivering the required power output. Give me a call sometime and we can discuss this more extensively. 1-541-434-0318
-Joshua

Joshua Parker October 20, 2011 at 7:19 pm

Hi Terry,
We haven’t had a lot of issues with interference up to this point – but yes, a faraday cage is an ideal solution for the potential interference with AM radio.
-Joshua

Leave a Comment