• 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 }

Leave a Comment