Many many questions, a couple months into this

Hello All,

I have many many ideas, and many questions as well. I have only been zapping for a month or two, and have no prior experience or knowledge whatsoever, as may be evident. First off, just as a followup to my water contact post from earlier in the Zapper Forum , I did some resistance tests the results were as follows:

Description Resistance in K ohms current (micro Amps)
Gator clips on dry hands 330 32
Dry copper paddles 72 162
Wet copper paddles 12.5 840
" " " held under saline 8.3 1265
Feet in plastic saline baths 7.3 1438
(separate tubs, 3 in depth)

Note calc current based on parazapper uzi spec 10.5 volt rating continuous

There are several things to talk about here most notably how much better the conductance is when using the salt water plastic tubs. I can really feel much more sensation when the voltage is applied as well. I only did the dry tests out of curiosity btw. However, Beck says in his video lectures that only 50 to 100 uA are needed to kill ALL fungus, bacteria, viruses, (not sure if he said parasites, but I think he does). This was based on the university study that got him going on his blood electrifier to begin with. But, that study was done in vitro. We all know that the current from one wet foot to another in my case, will divide and the amount of current flow through any given vessel is who knows what? As the current travels up through and down the thicker parts of limbs, it is likely to converge at bigger vessels where parallel currents will actually add and the killing effects could possibly be multiplied ( to 14-28x the amount needed as per the study). I guess the point I'm making is this is really the wild wild west, no one really seems to know what were doing or what we are really going for, technically, that I am aware of. I'm not really complaining, as I have always valued experience and anecdotes way beyond most people. But the point is, what do you design for? Why did beck choose 30v? Why did he choose 4 hz? Is it pos offset square wave though? The people at Sota didn't really answer me on that.

Is 4 hz dangerous? This sodium potassium pump that Beck referes to, and the opening caused by electropolation that allows 20-30x the amount of a toxin or herb into a cell? Wow! Is this the reason people say to start zapping at the higher frequencies? Does this phenomenon exist at croft 15hz? Sounds dangerous, but Could this be used to purposly help get things like glutathione into the cells?

If I were to take a zapper or BE and 999 silver and use this material as the contact for zapping. Would I not be making ionic silver inside my tissues? is this a bad thing? What about copper, are we getting any free copper ions? In the case of silver ions, whether in the "colloidal silver" glass or free ions somehow getting into the body or being produced therein, are these ions pos or neg charge (cation or anion)? Do the ions have a free electron or are they looking to gain one. This leads to my next point because if they are looking to gain an electron that makes them oxidants whereas they would otherwise act as an antioxidant (with a free electron).

My next dilema centers around the theory of electron flow and antioxidants vs prooxidants as explainded by Dr. Levy who got his ideas from the guy that discovered vitamin C in the 30's. There is little doubt that zappers, blood electrifiers, and pulsing magnetic fields mechanically stimulate electron flow, which in and of itself is most likely a good thing, However, do any of these result in any net gain or loss of electrons. I cannot see that they can do that, other than, in the case of dosing up on antioxidants from foods or supplements, the mechanically induced electron flow could possibly push free electrons into places/tissues that they otherwise would not have made it into which could potentially be a very good thing.

And this begs the question, can we optimize a device to supply the body with free electrons or are such things already out there? As we know electron flow is from neg to pos batt terminals. We might know or recall that particularly on old car batteries it was the pos post that tends to have the most issue with corrosion (think "+ "is electron taker = oxidant, "-" is electron donor = antioxidant). So if you buy into this idea then you want to design something that avoid oxidative damage caused by the positive post of your battery system (corrosion=oxidative stress=pulling free electrons from the body). I don't know yet how to do this. The main question is will a negative battery terminal donate its free electrons (which in theory would act like antioxidants in the body) WITHOUT a current path back to its positive terminal and the answer is? I don't know but I don't think it will. Perhaps if you create a pos ground system like some old tractors and you "switch ground" to yourself while holding the negative terminal constant to the load (your body) a potential difference might exist between you and the negative terminal even when the ground is not applied and therefore you would gain electrons AND possibly the nature of a positive ground system, especially if it were an earth ground, may negate the corrosive effects of the positive terminal or confine them to an area outside yourself? Once again, I don't really know much and I'm sorry for saying that but ideas are ideas and they more I learn, the more I wonder.

As you can see, what I am thinking of is the opposite line of thinking, the device I imagined is "negative offset" square wave. Yet I have read that negative spikes are harmful. Why is that?

Peace

Alert Webmaster & Moderators

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question