LogoSm
LogoLg
rotatingimage
SPACER Home > Bioelectronics > Rife-Bare Devices > Rife Bare Tech Notes > Tuning
 

Tuning

> I spent a fair amount of time playing with my tube wrapping method and
> with what I wrap the tube with. These SWR's are about the best that
> I can get. Am I risking burning out/overheating my equipment with
> a SWR of 2.5?

> fred

Hi Fred!
Sorry for cutting in on someone's conversation.
Couldn't help noticing the part about the SWRs.
I too spent a lot of time playing with different tube wrapping methods;
then I had to rewind the internal balun in my MFJ-949E, the insulation
was scorched so there must have been shorts galore.
First I rewound with 22 gauge, but could not get SWR below 1.75 1.8 and
forward power between 130W to 150W.
Last night I took it appart and rewound it with 20 gauge wire and
depending on the square wave freq, I'm getting forward power between
175W to 200W and SWRs between 1.5 and 1.25.
Since we are all experimenting so much given the fact that we are using
analog communication devices for purposes they weren't primarily
designed for, I'm thinking of getting different ferrite cores and making
different external baluns.

Take Care
Walther


Bob,

Sorry to hear of your difficulties. To run at below 300 hz you must increase
the output of the function generator to 1.8 volts to over ride the frequency
limiter circuits in the CB. The other trick is to move your clamps closer
together on the tube. I can get very good SWR's by doing these two things
and have not damaged a linear. The tube will also "blink" very nicely at
these low frequencies. As you point out it is important that the off cycle
be matched too or things will get damaged.

A trick is to set your SWR with the audio generator on then turn off the
audio generator and reset the SWR. Then turn back on the audio and reach
something of a compromize between the on and off state where the SWR tends
to stay under 2.

Jim

ps - MRF 455's are available from communication concepts at 14.00 each. That
of course doesn't include shipping or installation. 937-426-8600


----------------------

A little while ago, somebody asked for suggestions on reducing SWR. In
my reply, I forgot to mention that it is important to clean the RF
connections! You should use emory cloth. If you use ultra-fine
steel-wool, be SURE that all of the pieces of steel are cleaned off! A
piece of steel in the wrong place will fry your transmitter! Also, be
sure to clean the connections with alcohol before re-assembling. 
It is also important that the RF connections are VERY TIGHT! Tighten
the connections with pliers.
Best regards,
Warren Daniels

Greetings Rifers,
You can use a silver based conductive paste from the Cool-Amp
Conducto-Lube Company. You can reach them at 503-624-6426 in the USA.
You need only a very thin coating to reduce the resiance by at least
an
order of magnitude.

Here is the URL for Cool-Amp Conducto-Lube Company:

http://www.thomasregister.com/olc/cool-amp/

Mark Nelson

> You can use a silver based conductive paste from the Cool-Amp
> Conducto-Lube Company. You can reach them at 503-624-6426 in the USA.
> You need only a very thin coating to reduce the resiance by at least an
> order of magnitude.

Be VERY careful using this stuff. You could accidently cause a short circuit
between ground and high level. You can then kiss your rig goodbye.
Personally I think there is no substitute for clean terminations. If you are
keen, then use "Cramolin". Otherwise neutral alcohol for cleaning all
connections. Of course this stuff looks excellent (at what cost?!!), but be
very careful.

Hi Kent & list,

----------------------------


Did a little expirementing and on my B-R system (using conventional
components & set up per Bare manual) I find the clamp spread (distance) has
considerable effect on SWR's. Wide spread, in my case, 11 1/8" between
clamps, gives lowest SWR's. Moving a half inch makes a difference- find best
position.

This is simply something to expirement keeping in mind I have no idea
how clamp spread affects physiological aspects. Also, systems are
different and tubes are different so the distance may vary
considerably. Also, there may be other spreads on the same tube that
work as well.

Here is another point I hesitate to mention since when someone makes a
suggestion others pounce on the perpetrator like a cat on a mouse and pummel
that person to no end. This is simply something to expirement with and is
definitely contrary to Bare construction but for those who are having
problems getting their system to operate within a reasonable range of SWR's,
it's worth a try and you can easily change back to the original construction
concept. Again, I have no idea what it does to physioligical effects and
there is reason to believe it may actually be detrimental to physiological
effects but it might bring down the SWR's if you are encountering a problem
giving you a chance to reduce problems until you can get system in a good
operating range then go back to Bare manual.

Coil:
Using 4 inch drain tube I cut 4 pieces 7 inches long - attached 2 together
with plastic tie straps so looking at end view it is figure 8. Wrap your 18
foot coax cable around the tubing: one turn coax, one turn plastic tubing (
I
used 3/8 clear- as a spacer). Attach first and last wind with tie straps to
hold in place. This forms an air coil.

I attached a plastic bar (plastic sprinkler tubing) to rear of set up and
hung coils on bar. For some reason they worked best (on my system)
horizontal\ parallel to components.

I have 2 sets of coax, one coiled as above, the other loose coil as per
Bare manual, and have tried system both ways and personally cannot
tell difference in effects. All I know is my system appears to be
working and has given me results (with the coil arrangement) although I
have swapped back and forth trying to determine if there is a
difference in effect. Theoretically, the coil is not proper and the
loose coil is best. You decide!
GF



Anything you do to stop or reduce the Rf leakage (radiation) from the
leads between the balun and the tube will result in more RF power going
into the tube. There's not too much you can do about the RF radiated by
the tube plasma itself, but that's going to be pretty much constant no
matter what you do with the leads or RF feed system.

You won't get any indication of RF using the florescent tube on the
outside of the coax cables - the RF is contained inside the cable. If
you do get an indication of RF outside the cable, the most likely reason
is that the RF is being radiated elsewhere and the cable is acting a an
antenna and re radiating the RF energy.

As far as changing the load or resistance, the amplifier/tuner does
not care if the load is the Rife tube, a resistor, an antenna, the balun
wires, or your fingers. (BZZZT! Oops!) All the power will go somewhere,
just the division between the tube, the radiated energy and losses will
change as you make adjustments and changes. The idea, of course, is to
minimize losses and unwanted RF radiation, and maximize the power fed to
the tube.

As the tuner is adjusted, it will accept whatever the complex load is
that the tube/feed system presents and match it to the amplifier. In
the process, it will deliver the most power the amplifier can produce to
the load. It is, of course, possible to mis adjust the tuner so as to
overload and damage the amplifier, but that's why the VSWR meter is
there. Adjusting for the lowest VSWR will automatically ensure the
correct match between the amplifier and the load, no matter what the
load actually is.

Ralph W5JGV

The most likely cause of RF leakage with a coax cable is a
poor connection on the shield. The shield is generally
grounded to the chassis on either end. If for some reason
you are using an old (surplus) cable or a poorly
constructed one this is a definite possibility.

A low voltage neon bulb is a good indicator of RF. It will
glow at a significantly lower power level than a florescent
tube...

Regards,
George Martin

------------------------------------


> I use RG 58/U coax cables that are only 12" to 15" long.
> My SWRs go down to 1.1 with no signal load.
> With signal load, SWRs max at about 1.4

> All components are next to one another except switching power supply.
> I have no problems.

> I use #14 bare copper wire coils, 4 turns each, one clockwise and the other
> counter clockwise, on the tube in place of hose clamps, about 2" from the
> electrodes. They work well. Two 15", #14 stranded Monster speaker Wires,
> Radio Shack, are attached to the copper coils and go to the 912 balun posts.

> I use the Kinnaman FG for all units, because it is small and programable.

> I use a "U" tube with 100% Argon. Lights easy and plasma is mauve.

> Enjoy your posts.

> Paul



--------------------------------

Radio Shack sells a "Snap-Together Ferrite Data Line Filter",
number 273-105. They aren't cheap (over $9 CDN/each, including taxes).

Does anyone know of a cheaper source for these? (Aside from buying the
non-snap-together type, and putting them on in the first place when
first making a Bare-Rife device.)

I went out and bought a bunch, and put them on the following places:
- on the power cord into the power supply, right where it enters
the power supply
- on all the power cords coming out of the power supply (bunched together,
so that I only needed one), right where they come out of the power supply
- on the power cord of the CB, right where it enters the CB
- on the power cord of the audio frequency generator, right where it enters
the audio frequency generator
- on the power cord of the linear amplifier, right where it enters
the linear amplifier
- on the power cord to the fans on top of my linear amplifier, right before
it enters the fans
- on the power cord of the MFJ-949E (for the light)

The latter two, on the fans and on the light switch, probably weren't
necessary, but I had two extra because I originally was going to put one
on each end of on the cable between the audio frequency generator and the CB,
but they didn't seem to affect the SWR any, and I was concerned about
reducing harmonics of the squarewave.

Some of the other ones might not be necessary either.
However, some of them *are* necessary because, with them in place:
- my voltage level, coming out of the power supply, no longer fluctuates
by a volt or more (IE. voltage level is now very steady)
- SWR no longer changes when I turn the light off/on in the MFJ-949E
(IE. SWR more stable)

In my opinion, based on what they do for my Bare-Rife device,
RF filters on all the power cords (on both ends for the cords between the
power supply and the CB/lin.amp./etc) are a really good idea.

I also grounded my audio frequency generator to the CB+lin.amp.+MFJ-949E.
This resulted in SWR no longer changing for low frequencies when I touched
the audio frequency generator (IE. SWR more stable).

BTW, a while ago I posted about having problems with some fans. The problem
was that these fans were 12 VDC fans, and if the voltage dropped much below
12 VDC then they would have problems/stop. If you are buying fans, make
sure that you buy fans that will operate over a range of voltages. The fans
that I'm currently using are good for 6 VDC to 16 VDC. (Though, now that the
RF filters have resulted in the voltage coming out of my power supply
being steady, the 12 VDC fans probably would be ok.)

fred

----------------------------


The ability to light a tube easily does depend upon several factors, but
there is one primary factor that counts above all others. It is known as the
"swing" of the linear. That is the idling power of the linear with the tube
lit but no frequency being modulated Vs the power of the linear with the
tube lit and modulated. This situation is seen by anyone with a Kinnaman
generator. As the Kinnaman switches frequencies, it stops outputting a
frequency for 12 seconds. this corresponds to a "dead key" state. 

After I cut the power leads to my CB, linear, and fan to a 3 foot length and
shortened the main ground wire from my CB to the antenna tuner to 3 feet my
Palomars swing jumped considerably. My Palomar on medium power will now dead
key at 60 watts and swing to 125 watts ( on my meter with a 912 balun ) at
10k frequency . It used to swing from about 90 watts dead key to 118 watts
at 10k.

The larger swing means that there is a sudden jump in power that makes the
tube easier to light. I have tried out 6 different bubble tubes in the past
two days since the shortening of the power leads and every single one of
them is absolutely no trouble at all to light now. 

Jim

--------------------------

Hi Karen and List: 

I recomend that you tune SWR's and power levels with signal generator
OFF. Tune for BEST compromise of bright thick plasma and lowest SWR's.
A swr of less than 1.8- to 2.0 is acceptable, a full plasma wave is more
imprtant than swr, although with proper tuing you will get much lower
swr. You also may find that medium or high power setting on amp may give
your particular tube more effective drive.

You will find that the modulating frequency will change "dynamic swr's "
quite a bit. I feel that this may actually be part of the beneficial
effect and that you DO NOT want to "tune " this out with the tuner. (
you may reduce beneficial effects accidentally) Therefore tune with no
input from signal generator. After this is set, you should not have to
retune a properly operating tube for frequency.. Also use tesla coil,
Zerostat or bbq piezzo to start the tube after it has been tuned.

---------------------------

If any of you have had a problem with the tube extinguishing for some
"unknown" reason and the tuning needle acting "flaky", I found that
there is a close connection involving the "Antenna Selector" inductor
and the "Antenna Matching" variable capacitor.

If you will look at the soldered connection on the front of the selector
inductor, you will find that it is VERY CLOSE to the rounded termination
of the bar that makes up the right side of the capacitor of the "Antenna
Matching" variable capacitor. I found that, if I inserted a screwdriver
tip between these two points, I could separate these two points just a
tiny bit (that's all it takes). You should be able to detect a tiny
space between these two points after making this adjustment. Once I had
made this "adjustment", I have had no other "drop-outs" of the tube.

You might check this area, if you are having some flaky operation out ot
the system, to the point of extinguishing the tube.

All the best,
Tom Miller
milcomark@topcatt.com

---------------------------

Bryon QUESTION: Why do I believe the colour mauve emmitted from the
tube to be better (for cancer kill off)?

---I recieved contact from rife/bare users where their tube emmission
colour was into the "blue" spectrum and their devices were outputting
150 watts +/-. They were not getting results with cancer kill off but
were successful with pain reduction and virus control or kill off. I
suggested lowering the power as the tube probably was getting hot
causing the "mauve" to change to "blue". One reported back they achived
cancer kill off after making the change to a mauve emmission.

My original rife/bare got fried in it's early use and I never repaired
the linear because it continued to function - albeit at a lower power.
I continued to run it at reduced output of 60 to 90 watts.....dependent
upon settings. I couldn't get sufficient power output to achieve
"blue".


------------------------

> I don't think it is easy to analyze the tube with windings and leads
> (and balun?) as an antenna. As I mentioned in an earlier post, good
> SWRs and high power are not a guarantee of a good wave since there are
> so many factors like tube wrapping, tube type and lengths, wire size,
> transmission line vs balun, etc. I have seen crappy beams at low SWRs
> (like 1.4) that start to look good when the SWR rises to 2.0, e.g. I
> have had great power and SWRs with little or no sound from the CB.
> Some of the best power levels (with good SWRs) I have had was with a
> setup that produced only standing waves (pearls) in the tube at most
> medium and high freqs - and not the ones internal to the beam, ones
> that were distinct and separate (which I would guess are worse).

> Loops in the tube wrap (including clamps and pipe sleeves) are said to
> increase SWR and decrease power. However, loops and sleeves seem to
> greatly increase the amount of energy available from the tube (to a
> point), so it seems that they transfer energy to the tube more
> effectively, even if the indication is that there is lower power.

> What I was wondering is if there is a way to determine the
> characteristics of the different parts of the antenna separately
> so that the performance of the entire assembly could be
> predicted? For example, would it tell me anything if I made
> a wood model of a tube, wrapped it different ways, and noted
> SWR and power?

I think your first line says it all! It is decidely difficult because
the load presented by the tube and wiring is unique to every system.

What you have to realize is that the SWR/Watt meter is NOT the gold
standard that it would seem. It is only accurate when the input and the
output impedances are very near 50 ohms ± j0 (the j is a statement of
capacitive or inductive reactance). When the linear output is into a
balun which is tied to a tube with twisted pair, all bets are off! No
one can predict what the meter will read and the meter will lie
outrageously!
Example: a direct short looks like a perfect load, with 1:1 VSWR, if it
placed at 1/2 wavelength from the feed. The meter should be off scale,
but the phase fools it.
So...don't rely on the meter reading. It is only useful when operated in
properly matched sytems. The R/B isn't!
Regards,
Jim Keyes 

---------------------

I have mentioned before on the list about the beam "fuzzing out", which
means it gets less "distinct" and looks fuzzy on the edges. Having
only used bubble tubes so far, I recently figured out that it would be
difficult to see this occurence with a straight tube. The main place
that it looks fuzzy is in the bubble. Instead of a straight 1/2-3/4"
mauve beam going through the middle, it is translucent and bluish-white
and fuzzes out to 1.5-2" in the bubble.

This typically occurs when the beam is not being well modulated with
the square wave. An easy way to see total fuzz-out is to turn off the
function generator and observe the beam being driven only with the CB
freq. Then turn the generator on to a medium-high freq like 5000. The
beam should look vastly different - mauve and coherent rather than
whitish and fuzzy. Enter 20Hz on the funct generator. See the
difference between 5000 and 20. Notice there may be little difference
between the way the beam looks at 20 than with no function generator
modulation at all. The low frequency performance can be improved
somewhat by cranking up the voltage output of the function generator to
1.8V instead of 0.25V. It can also be improved by using high power on
the amp.

Certain component setups, wire lengths, and tube wraps lend themselves
to good-looking beams even at lower frequencies. It takes much
experimentation with these variables to get a reasonably coherent beam
at low frequencies (without increasing func generator output.) Crappy
setups I have tried have a lot of fuzzout as high as 500Hz.

turf

=====================



> Yeah I notice with the 1.4 SWR Im only reflecting about 4 watts. I worry
> about shortening the life of my equipment, since it wasnt designed to
> operate continuously for over an hour at a time,

If you cool the equipment well, with a fan over and under the amp,
under the CB, and on the balun and power supply if necessary, it will
likely be able to be run continuously for months without fail. I often
run over an hour and the components feel no hotter than if they had
been on only 5 minutes.

> >Has anyone seen a noticeable difference in equipment performance or
> >physiological effects between, say a 1.1 and 1.8 SWR?

The higher the SWR, the more important the cooling, from what I can
gather. According to Paul, SWRs from 1.1 to 2.0 and power ranges from
30-60W (and I would assume higher) all "work."

HOWEVER, I have seen many times the unit not produce an audible tone at
a higher SWR and did when the SWR was adjusted lower (and vice versa).
It is thought that it is more effective when the tone is heard.
Typically, the lower the SWR the better but depending on the setup, it
may be better to adjust for a higher SWR if it makes the beam look
better or the tone heard more clearly.

I would worry more about the way the beam looks (does it get thinner
and brighter when modulated), does it produce a clear tone which at
2000Hz is quite noticeable, and is it reasonably free of standing
waves. I think the device is more effective when these criteria are
met - an SWR of 2.0 while meeting these criteria is probably more
effective than an SWR of 1.1 without doing so. As someone said, the
SWR meter is a liar when you are using an "inefficient" antenna like we
do.

===========================

 




Shop at Amazon and support Electroherbalism
: When you click this link and buy anything, it does not cost you any more and a small percentage goes to Electroherbalism. Supporting the website in this manner is greatly appreciated!



Please read the Introduction and Warnings . None of this information has been approved by the FDA or any medical agency. It is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure disease.
All articles and other information written by electroherbalism are © 1995 - 2017 and may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes with attribution and a link to electroherbalism.