*** UPDATE ***
Finally bought a selection of plasma tubes. Phanatron, straight tube and U tube. All work well and all arrived intact. Initial feeling is that the Phanatron tube is the most effective at localised work - eg: a well defined part of the body. The U tube and straight tube though seem to offer a more "blanket" spread and are perhaps better at dealing with things in a holisitc way - in other words, where whole body treatment is desirable.
Tried the ignition coil idea. Not great, huge variation on output depending on frequency. Tried a switch mode supply with much more satisfactory results. Based on a circuit from Aubrey Scoon but the mods from TTL to CMOS and a couple of other very minor changes. I have had problems with the series inductor insofar as it seems to limit power to the unit. This HAS to be due to the inductance as essentially it is nothing more a foot or so of 2mm copper wire. On som frequencies however it can more than halve the output. Not good. Now using without.
Ended up purchasing a Digimess Sig genny for the waveform, simple to use and PC programmable via the RS232 port. It handles frequency sweeps itself but the sweep is rather too fast even on the slowest setting. As a result sweeping is now performed by the PC rather than the genny.
*** End of Update ***
Just wondering if anyone else has been playing around with Rife / Bare / Doug devices and variations on a theme.
I have been trying to work out what the plasma tube does (when you realize it can apparently operate as effectively when there is a wall between it and the person, it kinda suggests it has nothing to do with the emitted light per-se). The system also fails to work (properly at any rate), if the tube is replaced with nothing more than an aerial.
I'm wondering if the tube is acting as little more than a "pretty spark gap", allowing a very sharp pulse to be emitted during discharge of each modulated pulse. Also, as it seems that a 10% duty cycle seems by many to be more effective than a 50/50 mark space ratio, it also seems possible that it is the transition period that is doing the work - rich in harmonics of course.
IF the light output is purely incidental to the system (as would appear to possibly be the case), then I would be fascinated to know if someone has tried replacing the plasma tube with a "standard" fluorescent tube. Although the phosphors will mask any visible pulsing more than a few tens of hertz, the instantaneous discharge *should* be unaffected. Will a fluro tube work as well? Or a large strobe tube? I have been playing with a weird fluoro tube (more info later) and I am keen to see how effective it may be.
Other thoughts are along the lines of: If it IS only (or chiefly) the transition period that is of value, then does the tube need an RF carrier in the first place? After all, when I poke 1 HZ over the tube, it still discharges sharply - even if the tube appears "unpowered" until the cycle repeats.
Once the frequency rises by more than about 10 Hz, the tube emits ample light - though as I have already stated, I am doubtful that the light is relevant.
Anyone else been playing around with different tubes? There are replacement strobe tubes around which are up to about 18" long - and not cheap either, but I am wondering they might be pressed into service too (getting plasma tubes in the UK seems difficult). If I do experiment with the strobe tube, I will place the tube in something like a spaghetti jar to avoid injury in case the tube is driven to the point that it explodes. I gather strobe tubes can be rather nasty if they go.
At the moment, I do not have a plasma tube, but I DO have a weird fluorescent which does NOT have the usual phosphor coating. It came from an old photocopier and emits a greeny-blue light when powered. At present, I am doing some playing around with a coil in series with the tube, partly to act as a choke to limit tube current and partly as I believe that the Doug device had merit too.
Having detonated my recent driver (back EMF diode failed when I was driving just the coil, and shortly afterwards, so did the output trannies), I am in the process of building a new driver. The idea at the moment is to use the SOUND command in GWbasic to provide me with a highly stable output from 32 Hz to 32768. Although the onboard speaker cannot handle the extremes, the signal to the speaker is accurate. The idea is to use a 4093 schmitt NAND gate to buffer the output and make it into a square wave. The clever bit comes next.
As it can be useful to go below 32 HZ, the idea is to drive some 4017 (decade / 10 counters) and to have the following ranges. Clearly as the frequency is divided up, two extra functions become possible. Firstly, increments of less than 1 Hz are easily achieved and secondly, a mark/space of between 10% and 90% becomes easy to (using different outputs from the 4017 and a spare NAND gate or two) The parallel port can then be used to switch the driver signal to the rest of the system to the appropriate divider stage.
.032 Hz > 32.768 Hz - using three divide by 10 stages
.32 Hz > 327.68 Hz - using two divide by 10 stages
3.2 Hz > 3276.8 Hz - using one divide by 10 stage
32 Hz > 32768 Hz - using direct feed
Using a PC, (housed in a 4U rack mount case for portability) also means that programmable sweeping is VERY simple to achieve - and without the cost of purchasing an RS232 controlled signal generator. The ONE shortcoming of this method that I can see, is I am unable at present to work out how to alter the mark space ration of frequencies above 3278.8 Hz - where of course, there are no divide by 10 stages being used.
Just to make the unit as flexible as possible, I will include a simple NAND gate based oscillator and a frequency counter again to allow "standalone" operation. (this is what the original device consisted of basically).
Another idea I am considering, is to provide an input from a tape recorder / CD. convert the incoming signal to a sqaure wave and use that to drive the system. This would allow various programs to create wav files of exact frequencies, complete with variable mark/space rations - and then burn the signal to a CD or record to tape.
I would be very interested to know how other people are testing the effectiveness of the system - unless they are fortunate (!?!?) to have a bacterial infection themselves that they wish to experiment on. So far, the only thought I have for doing a good test is to buy a yoghurt maker, make up the yoghurt mixture and then "process" half of the culture with the machine and leave the other half untouched. Then see if the control pots turns to yoghurt in the machine (they should) and the pots which were exposed to the machine should fail to "yoghurtify". Hardly scientific I grant you, but would still give a fair indication that *something* was killing the bacteria in the pots. Only problem I anticipate is that the range of the machine can be considerable - so I may need to take the control pots out of the house while the other pots are being "processed".
There is a RIFE group on (I think) Yahoo, alas it is "on approval" only and I think people daring to suggest deviation from the "original" are not admitted. Perhaps a "free for all" group should be started for people to compare designs and circuits rather than just concentrating on who's "cured" what with which frequencies!
If you have an interest in Rife / Bare / Doug / Clark(e) devices, it would be great to hear from you. <<Please contact me here>>