Syncrometer Notes

This was from an exchange on the Rife listserver regarding using a Synchrometer. I have never learned this skill myself and cannot offer any pointers beyond the notes below or to recommend asking for help on the Rife listserver ( )


{First some comments on the syncrometer made by Aubrey Scoon in Feb 2002 comparing it to the F-scan. This post is included out of the usual chronological order but as an introduction to Synchrometer Notes.}

> The background explanation regarding the problems with impedance or
> frequency measurements also applies to Hulda's synchrometer.

True enough, but it raises a bigger question of whether the
synchrometer is actually trying to measure any objective electrical
phenomenon or whether it's purely a radionics style device that
only "measures" subjective impressions.

In all cases like this some analysis helps - by analysis I mean it
literally in terms of the original meaning, "to break something down
into parts" - and examine those parts.

The synchrometer has two conductive plates as I understand it. How
far apart are they and how far are they from the transformer? Two
conductive plates placed anywhere form a capacitor with whatever's in
between them forming a dielectric. The closer they are, the stronger
the effect. A transformer has a magnetic field and in turn is
influenced by changes in the ambient magnetic field and again the
closer the stronger the effect.

Now it's a little known fact that the plates of a capacitor don't
have to be parallel to exhibit capacitance - and that the dielectric
doesn't literally need to be BETWEEN the plates, just somewhere in
the electric field between them. And finally a capacitor generates a
magnetic field due to Maxwell's 4th equation (displacement current).

So taking all these parts and putting them back together implies that
a synchrometer may possibly have some objective scientific basis.
The E field generated on the plates will couple to each other. The
presence of the sample on one or more of the plates will distort the
E field due to its impedance. In turn this will distort the magnetic
field which is probably at least weakly coupled to the transformer
which determines the oscillation of the output.

Of course there will be a whole series of extremely complex field
interactions, but the true impedance of the sample must have a fairly
reproducible effect on the total field. If there is some match
between the samples then it follows that one sample must cause an
impedance shift in the emitted raidation - that shifted impedance
radiation will be preferentially absorbed by a matching component of
the second sample. So the circuit coupling will improve as the
degree of match between the samples increases.

To an engineer, the synchrometer looks superficially like nonsense -
there isn't even a complete circuit between the plates. But of
course there is in reality, the circuit is completed in the fields
not the wires.

If this possible explanation were true it would be easy to test it by
moving the plates apart from each other and away from the
transformer. If the reliability of the readings dropped then it may
well be due to fields. Of course if fields are involved the presence
of the operator must also make a difference. A person who is more
electrically "noisy" would screw up the readings more than someone
who wasn't. And of course if the person doing the measurement had
some of the sample substance in his or her body, some of the field
radiation wouldbe absorbed by the operator as opposed to the circuit,
also screwing up the readings.

Now I presume that you are physically bigger than Hulda or Carmen -
is that true? If so then maybe you would tend to affect the field
more with your body than they would. Or maybe you had some of the
contaminants you were testing for in your body.

So if all the above is true then maybe the synchrometer is just an
extremely crude form of field impedance analyser. This is really not
at all analogous to what the F-scan is doing.


I use one copper pipe which I hold in one hand with the probe. I simply
probe approximately the center of the face of my thumb on the other hand.
This places the body in the circuit. As regards to the "resonance" tone,
"Self Help Resource Center", has a video tape. 1-800-873-1663, $19.95,
"Synchrometer Basics". It demos the whole process.

FGEN-200, that can be connected to a PC. It is not yet available. You can
locate the item at:

I plan to get one as soon as it come available.

Thanks for your input


273-1365A is the transformer number. It's a 120V/12V CT stepdown. I
don't know if it's the right one or not. I had a hard time getting
part numbers from Hulda's books to match what I could find at Radio
Shack. Different Clark books listed different parts. What one do you

>> To all that wrote to say they built a Syncrometer that works, and
>> offered tips to get mine working, I just want to let you know that
>> IT WORKS...IT LIVES....IT'S GREAT....well, get the idea.
>> The amplitude of the sound coming out of the speaker is a little low,
>> but I had a hard time getting specifics on which transformer to use
>> and I think I wound up substituting. Maybe that is the problem. I had
>> to add an amplifier to hear it at all, and my hearing ain't that great
>> to begin with. Did anyone build a Syncrometer that sounded nice and
>> loud without adding an amplifier? What transformer did you use?
>What part number transformer are you using now to get it to
>resonate easily? I could not find the specified xformer when I
>looked about a year ago.

I have a signal tracer I connect it up to, but didn't want to lug that
around with me, so I added a small amplifier to the circuit. It's OK
for now.

>You could use your stereo instead of a speaker. Just use the
>correct jack.


Built successful Synchrometer using Dr. Clarks schematic, except for the
reversal of the battery and probing the face of my thumb instead of the
knuckle areas. It works just fine and it is quite reliable. I have
demonstrated to to various persons. I'm planning to use it along with the
research with the Bare device. I use a frequency generator in place of
specimens. The differences between Clark's frequencies, Rife frequencies,
and the plasma tube remains to be resolved.

I'm not sure what a .01mf does, but I will try it and see what happens.If
you could tell me what the difference it makes it would save me some time.

Hope this helps and clarifies the subject some.



At 10:09 AM 1/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> Jim, I built a syncrometer that works. The battery is reversed in Dr.
>> Clarks schematic (in her book). Also the .1mf. capacitor should be
>> .01mf.. I think that will do it for you.
On page 458 of "The Cure for all Diseases" there is a schematic for the
syncrometer (not the zapper). It shows the negative pole of the battery
facing the emitter of the pnp transistor. It also shows a .1mf.
capacitor placed across the primary winding of the transformer. I
reversed the placement of the battery and it would not work. On the next
page(459) the capacitor is refered to as .01mf. I replaced the .1 cap.
with the .01mf. and the device worked. The only test I have conducted
with it is the one with the saline solution. I got the desired results.
I used my knuckle , but I will try the thumb the next time. I have not
had time to experiment with it as much as I would like. It sounds like a
very intriguing concept..


From: eximer

PB wrote:
>I have built one and I can get it to oscillate but I have not been successful
>in detecting resonance. The following is a list of questions and discrepancies
>that I found with Clarks schematic.
>1) The battery is shown with positive at the transformer (the book describes
>correctly that the negative is to be at the transformer).
>2) The frequency I see on a scope is closer to 6khz when probing, I can achieve
>1khz if I probe lightly.
>3) If I touch the probe to the test plate I do not here a click as she
>describes but I do if I use the handhold.
>4) The shape of the oscillation is an exponential ramping and discharging,
>not a sign wave. I don't know if it should be a sign wave or not but Clark
>describes the tone as going through the range F - C - B - C# . Mine sounds
>more like a buzzer.

The very same questions I asked after building one recently.
I do concur with Paul Jone regarding the synchrometer video,
it is essential viewing to understand what is going on because of
Clark's unfortunate choice of terminology used to describe the effect.

The relevancy here to the Rife-list is twofold:
1) To further explore, how, why and what is the mechanism which
makes it possible to detect and erradicate biological and
environmental induced maladies.
(For the electrical/magnetic properties of the Rife field,
information is available at:
The question remains, why it works, and whether/and-if
Clark's methodology/treatment is of the same genre)

2) one of finding an affordable and accurate electro-diagnostic method,
and to establish a metric in the progress of treatment.

To answer Phil's questions:
1) Yes, the diagram is incorrect
2) Yes the circuit produces amazingly sharp spikes 1uS rise time
and several uS long which ramp upto a maximum pulse rate dependant
upon the circuit componants
3) As long as probe or hand-hold click, it is find. the video says the same.
To be fair, I purchased the 'for-sale' unit along with the video to compare
with the basic unit response, they are the same. The 'for-sale' unit,
though rather pricey, is exceptionally well thought out in terms of the
use and ergonomics of doing the measurements (these practical considerations
are simply not very well called out in her text). From the video,
it is apparent that there are probably newer editions of her book, than
the one I have (copyright 95), so this may no longer be the case.
4) Her choice of terms, 'resonance', and referal to 'tone' are unfortunate.
The circuit produces a buzz, which can be interpreted as 'tone' so long
as you equate maximum pulse rate with tonality.
The term 'resonance' doesn't apply to anything other the condition by
which one 'tone' (or buzz-rate) compares to a 'base-line' buzz-rate,
which gives rise to her notion of 'subsequent' probe.
Any 'difference' in buzz-rate from the base-line is considered a
'resonance' condition which indicates the positive presence of the sample.
(It is a technique which honestly, eludes description, but does appear to

Because it is *so* easy to mis-interpret or get non-results when
starting out with these new 'theories' it is important to allow
the phenomological data to speak for itself from what we know:
1) A set of frequencies which correspond to specific pathogen/conditions
as been 'discovered' and used by Rife as well as Clark.
2) The Rife Field and Clark type electrification seemed to have
interoperable effects between RF, E, and B fields.
(Ken's experiments are suggesting Light as well, and I'm sure
he'll fill us in on that as it becomes available).
3) The efficacy of the Rife/Bare field over the Clark device
is clear-cut from the many testimonials on this list.
This may be due to the higher power, and better propagation
methods than contact electrification.

The question that remains is how, why and what is the basis for
their detection and treatment.
1) Other than capacitive or inductive changes on the Clark Synchrometer,
why does the circuit produce a different signal?
At present, this seems more than just a galvanic skin response,
or some form of muscle test.
2) If a large-scale infection or condition 'produces' situation which
can be detected over a scaled frequency, then why would re-introduction

of that frequency eliminate it?

For the first time, I think I am ready to abandon the
notion that the pathogen itself is directly destroyed by cellular changes
induced by energy imparted to it from the E/B or RF field
-- fields from lightning and electro-static discharge
are many orders of magnitude larger yet don't produce the same effects.

Some points of departure:
Antoine Bechamp who theorized that pathogens and pleomorphic behavior
arise from the 'condition', and are neither the cause nor carrier
of the disease.
(warning: the article is more than a bit slanted, it raises some
interesting questions, but raises the obvious counter-point,
which is not part of the discussion,
such as, if this is so, what is the 'real' nature of things
such as 'ebola' and if so, what does the significance of
'transmission' from victim to victim really mean?).

Some Rife frequencies listed on keelynet:

Likely, it will take something like the Soros Foundation which is
big enough, forward looking enough, and geographically dispursed enough to
rise above the local politix and put up the grant money get to the
bottom of solving problems (rather than making bigger-profitable ones):


Status: RO

To those who built or are using the Hulda Clark
Syncrometer: I found by accident a simple stabilizing
modification for the Syncrometer. Simply put a 10 ohm
resistor across the audio transformer output I built
two of shoe boxes...but using small Radio
Shack(Archer) breadboards. Also...I got a Universal
transformer for the input to the small
speaker....saves a bundle on those 9 volt batteries. Question
to anyone. I also built the Clark Zapper.....with the 555
timer IC. Nowhere does it say what one should feel while using
it. I know it is working because I can see the
pulses....(20K+?) on my 'scope. Voltage seems up to specs.
Any comments? Have a BioElectrifier that puts a very
discernable current from anode to wrist. Only a slight tingle
with the Zapper. Would appreciate any comments. LCR (on the


Don Lancaster's column in the latest issue of Electronics Now
has a discussion about Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy.
I read it, and it sounds very similar to what might be
happening with the Clark device.

By the way, Radio Shack No. for the transformer to use is
273-1380, a 1K to 8 ohm audio transformer.


The schematic as shown is complete, same as in the 'Synchronizer Manual'
- see the Clark website. Trouble is - it isn't a successful solution for
most of us that expect a repeatable, easy to learn, painless method in
addition to needing extensive samples of test elements, bugs, germs, etc.
to see if what is indicated gets interpreted right. If you're serious
about proceeding, find somebody who is a graduate of their course to find
'most' of the tricks you need to learn that don't appear to be
BTW - the transformer is a 1K primary, 8 ohm secondary with very
restricted audio bandwidth due to hardly any iron in the core, small,
short wire & pathetic tolerances. As I recall some checks I did - quits
below about 100 Hz, above around 8 KHz but is ok at around the 1KHz they