Rife inventions

[popsy]

I have read some discussions of radionics, due to a friend's belief that radionics will cure his cancer. One of the things I've come across is this: "Royal Raymond Rife ...had a keen interest in optics and developed a microscope of extraordinarily high magnification." Rife is said to be one of the inventors of radionics.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/rife.html

Is anyone familiar with this microscope and why scientists are not making use of this *wonderful* invention? I think I understand that it doesn't live up to its billing, but I'm wondering, specifically, what makes it less than useful? I imagine it must be a conspiracy by scientists against Rife to get back at him for working outside the scientific community, even if it means not using a tool that would be very valuable to them. (JK)

[arcticpenguin]

I've never heard of Rife or his microscope. A little bit of Googling turns up some sites liek this one: http://www.rife.de/mscope/mscope1.htm

That site has a report by the Smithsonian Institute: http://www.rife.de/mscope/mscope6.htm#Top


It is only a reasonable supposition, but already, in one instance, a very successful and highly commendable achievement on the part of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife of San Diego, California, who, for many years, has built and worked with light microscopes which far surpass the theoretical limitations of the ordinary variety of instrument, all the Rife scopes possessing superior ability to attain high magnification with accompanying high resolution.
Note that it is claimes to exceed the theoretical limits of other microscopes, not just their actual performance.


"In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease."
...
The virus of the Bacillus typhosus is always a turquoise blue, the Bacillus coli always mahogany colored, the Mycobacterium leprae always a ruby shade, the filter-passing form of virus of tuberculosis always an emerald green, the virus of cancer always a purplish red, and so on. Thus, with the aid of this microscope, it is possible to reveal the typhoid organism, for instance, in the blood of a suspected typhoid patient 4 and 5 days before a Widal is positive.
That's pure unadulterated BS.

Science Museum report:
http://www.rife.de/mscope/mscope5.htm#Top

Perhaps the most significant part of the story [in the opinion of the curator] was that neither here nor in the United States was there known to be a single extant microscopical preparation worked on by Rife, Gonin or anyone else. With the possible exception of one picture of a phage there is no proof that any photomicrographs were ever taken with any of the Rife microscopes.
...
There is little in the papers about the claimed performance of the Rife microscope, but Hubbard does say something about it in a letter to a professor in Britain. Hubbard refers to about the only detailed contemporary paper about the Rife microscope, which appeared in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol 237, Feb 1944, pp 103-130, and also in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 1944, pp 193-219, entitled "The New Microscopes" and written by R E Seidel and M E Winters. [The paper deals with a lot more than just the Rife
microscope: the text of the two versions seems to be the same but the illustrations and references differ.] There were some photomicrographs printed with this paper, and Hubbard claimed to have seen the original negatives of these images when he had visited Crane. He reckoned they showed features about 10 nanometres in size. (Barer had already pointed out that the limit of resolution of a light microscope was reckoned to be about 200 nanometres.) Crane compared these images very favourably with electron micrographs made 20 years later, using specimen preparation techniques
which had not been available at the earlier date. Barer's letter, which was an answer to a query from a journalist called Christopher Bird, was sceptical: he was not closing his mind to the possibility that Rife had come across an interesting an useful optical phenomenon but could not comment without much more information. He did point out that it was sometimes possible to detect the presence of detail smaller than the resolution limit, such as viruses, by techniques such
as phase contrast, but not to resolve those details and describe their true shape.
...
Although there is an implication in various places in the papers now at the Science Museum that the Rife microscope was useful for studying viruses and cancer-causing organisms there is nothing clearly describing its use in this way.
...
The Rife Universal microscope was quite similar in configuration to the instrument in London [Rife 5], but was larger and had more screws and knobs on it. It gave the impression of complexity for the sake of complexity, that Rife just loved making all those things. Functionally, the two were comparable. Cowden tended to agree with colleagues in the United States who pronounced it a flawed design at best.
...
Cowden mentions very briefly some other who had experimented with super-resolution microscopes. He ends by asking whether this strange man, Rife, could have muddled into something far before its time in what might be called a "low-tech" manifestation. He concedes it is possible, but not very probably.

Based solely on the reading I found in my google search, I would guess that claims for Rife's microscopes exceeded reality.

[popsy]

"Based solely on the reading I found in my google search, I would guess that claims for Rife's microscopes exceeded reality."


Yeah, that's what I figured but I was unable to find anything that stated specifically some reason why it didn't work the way he envisioned. The buzz on the Rife sites seem to imply that he actually used it to find that viruses were forms of bacteria.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by popsy
"Based solely on the reading I found in my google search, I would guess that claims for Rife's microscopes exceeded reality."


Yeah, that's what I figured but I was unable to find anything that stated specifically some reason why it didn't work the way he envisioned. The buzz on the Rife sites seem to imply that he actually used it to find that viruses were forms of bacteria.
Well, when he claimes it exceed the theoretical limits of the other scopes, that implies he had a new theory. Or that he was full of pseudo-scientific BS. Since we have no record of his adding to the theory of optics, I'd go with the latter. There are definite theoretical problems with imaging something smaller than the light waves you are using to illuminate it.

I would guess he was secretive about his scopes, and only allowed them to be used by uncritical colleagues, and that they were never mass-produced.

Viruses a form of bacteria? Ha, ha!

[popsy]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Well, when he claimes it exceed the theoretical limits of the other scopes, that implies he had a new theory. Or that he was full of pseudo-scientific BS. Since we have no record of his adding to the theory of optics, I'd go with the latter. There are definite theoretical problems with imaging something smaller than the light waves you are using to illuminate it.

I would guess he was secretive about his scopes, and only allowed them to be used by uncritical colleagues, and that they were never mass-produced.

Viruses a form of bacteria? Ha, ha!

Thanks for the response.

I assume that you aren't familiar with 'radionics therapy'? My friend has prostate cancer. He decided to go with radionics rather than mainstream therapies. He went in every so often. They had him sit on a seed germinator (to help keep his energies alined) and exposed him to a 'special' kind of light bulb that was tuned to the exact wave length of his cancer and would therefore cancel it out. His PSA dropped at the end of the therapy. He did not have another biopsy. And guess what, his PSA went up again. So they bought one of the Rife machines so they could administer constant therapy. Aren't they lucky they could afford to buy it? :rolleyes: BTW the 'therapy' was only the cost of a usual visit to his homeopath. Of course, his meds were extra. :wink:

[arcticpenguin]

Sorry to hear that.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Sorry to hear that.

Same here...

Oh, and BTW articpenguin...

Here is another link on rife:

http://www.sftesla.org/Topic/Rife.htm



There apparantely was a "clinical trial" testing Rife's Beam Ray Device.

I have done lots of looking around on Rife's stuff.

I have even read several books on him.

As for his equipment...

Let me just sum it up right here.


Original Rife Beam Ray Device = Could possibly work... not enough testing done on it to say either way.

What is being marketed by most new age alternative healers like popsies friend went to = Utter Bullsh**! The frequencies are not even close to the 50,000,000 hz range that Rife had for his beam ray device!


Rife's light microscope = Conceivable... Yet, nobody has built one in a very long time :( There are however plans on the internet for making his microscope... Yet they are extremely hard to find :(

[Theodore Kurita]

Oh, and I almost forgot these links.

This site has been able to reverse engineer and reconstruct the original 1939 Rife Beam Ray Device:

http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/index.htm


And this site is the most complete site of Rife Research to this day (ignore any John Crane Bull**** that they have, he was the fraud that invented the So Called Rife Machine that most alternative healers use today):


http://www.rife.org/

[Theodore Kurita]

And last but not least...

A picture of Rife's Microscope:

http://www.xenophilia.com/zb/zb0012/univ.jpg

[popsy]

Now that is an impressive-looking chunk of machinery.


I found here http://www.rifetechnologies.com/body.html this information:

Dr. Rife was able to exceed 30,000 diameters of magnification with full resolution using his prismatic design. Some people say this is impossible, as one cannot resolve beyond the wavelength of light used to illuminate the specimen. This is a false assumption! Recent research at the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg France, and at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, NJ has shown that light can be squeezed through holes as much as 10 times smaller than it's wavelength! NEC is now producing a fiber image guide that offers submicron resolution using this principle.


Please understand that no one that I know of has used this set of plans to construct a microscope. I believe that these plans are a good starting point, but without the actual Rife prism arrangement the microsope may not work as well as Rife's. The blueprint is wall poster size at 2' X 3', and costs 24 dollars,which includes shipping in the USA and Canada. Out of US shipping is an additional 6 dollars. Please go to the Order Page to Order.

[Suezoled]

Viruses a form of bacteria? Ha, ha!

Damn. arcticpenguin beat me to it.

[davefoc]

I don't know anything about Rife or his microscopes.

scanning near-field optical microscopy has been around for awhile. I don't know how common it is. I wasn't able to find a good link, but here's a little discussion.

http://www.uni-konstanz.de/quantum-optics/nano-optics/publications/j-app-phys.pdf

The basic idea is to scan the target with an illuminated optical fiber that has a very fine point. Then set up a detector to capture the light. Resolutions much greater than those allowed by standard optics are possible.

The idea is similar to STM (scanning tunneling microscope) except that the probe is a light beam instead of an electrical current.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by popsy
Now that is an impressive-looking chunk of machinery.


I found here http://www.rifetechnologies.com/body.html this information:
... NEC is now producing a fiber image guide that offers submicron resolution using this principle.

Is that all? At the numerical apertures usually used for good quality conventional objectives, you can get submicron resolution out of a 20X. A 100X usually gives close to 0.2 microns.

edited to add: Before anybody jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that resolution is a function of magnification...just that the N.A.'s typically used for such objectives produce these resolutions (other conditions permitting).