Dear Mike:

>   Where on earth did you find the url? I googled for an hour  and came
>   up empty. I was trying to find the datasheet and specifications - if
>   you have the url, please post it!!!

I found the "1.3 GHz Hand Held Frequency Counter" in my MCM
(www.mcminone.com) catalog page 572 of catalog 48.  It is a Tenma 72-6605.
Price is $204.75.

The input A that is specified to be used in the instructions is 1 megohm
input impedance with 25 pF shunt capacitance.  So the 50 ohm noise
calculation is not valid for 1 megohm.

The frequency response of input A is 5 Hz to 25 MHz.  So he is measuring
60 - 90 Mhz on a range that is only specified to go to 25 MHz.

>   Just for  fun, let's go through the calculations and  verify Bruce's
>   accuracy. For  that, we'll need an equation  solver  called Mercury,
>   written by Roger Schafley, who also wrote Borland's Eureka.
>
Boy, oh Boy, if I ever need something calculated I will call on you.

Thank you Mike.

Jim Meissner  www.MeissnerResearch.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Monett" <5ay1wk...@sneakemail.com>
To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: CS>Re: SO>Frequency and the meaning of words.


> http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m72428.html
> Re: CS>Re: SO>Frequency and the meaning of words.
> From: Jim Meissner
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:31:41
>
>   > Dear Mike:
>
>   > Thank you,  thank  you, thank you, for providing the  link  to the
>   > source of the "Urban Legend" about frequencies of the  human body,
>   > essential oils, and herbs.
>
>   You are very, very, very welcome:)
>
>   > What a  scam, taking a junky cheap digital frequency  counter that
>   > sell new for $204.75 and packaging that with bull shit and selling
>   > it for $2800.00!
>
>   Where on earth did you find the url? I googled for an hour  and came
>   up empty. I was trying to find the datasheet and specifications - if
>   you have the url, please post it!!!
>
>   > The sad  part  is that many of my friends and  other  well meaning
>   > individuals like Christine are perpetuating this scam  not knowing
>   > that they have been conned.
>
>   Yes, this is very true. Non-technical people are easily persuaded.
>
>   > It is interesting that the quote "the meter is being used at Johns
>   > Hopkins University"  is denied by Bruce Tainio  in  the frequently
>   > asked questions section.
>
>   I think he's pretty clever in the ways he gives himself wiggle room.
>
>   > Christine made  a statement that she is not a techie.  Well, Bruce
>   > Tainio is not a techie either. He is a biologist who seems to have
>   > no clue about the operation of electronic instruments. The  way he
>   > uses the  frequency  counter  is  as  a  random  number generator,
>   > picking up all sorts of interference. The only way this test could
>   > be run  would be in a screen room. I have worked  in  screen rooms
>   > where all  the  interference has been  eliminated  and  have never
>   > measured a signal coming from the human body.
>
>   There is  none. If there were, we would have to get  a  license from
>   the FCC, and always be careful to keep our emotions under control so
>   we don't  go outside our assigned frequency band.  Of  course, there
>   would have to be a special frequency allotment in the case of death.
>
>   > A funny  situation  may have developed at  Young  Living Essential
>   > Oils. The  reason  I  was  not  able  to  get  the  frequency test
>   > equipment used to test their essential oils might be  because they
>   > discovered that they had been scammed and are now locked  into the
>   > frequency scam and cannot back out. Funny if that is the case. How
>   > could they extricate themselves without looking like fools.
>
>   > Again, thank you for the links to the Bruce Tainio web  site. This
>   > has bothered  me  for years and suspected that it  was  a  scam. I
>   > wonder whether Bruce is knowingly pulling a fast one or whether he
>   > simply does not understand what he is doing.
>
>   > Jim Meissner www.MeissnerResearch.com
>
>   Thanks for your interesting comments, Jim.
>
>   I think Bruce knows he is scamming people. First, he  emphasizes the
>   problems with outside interference in numerous places, such as:
>
>     "What makes  this   frequency   meter   unique  is  it's extremely
>     sensitive sensor..."
>
>     http://www.tainio.com/ir/frqmonitor/index.htm
>
>   and
>
>     "Unless you find yourself on a deserted Pacific island, the signal
>     you intend  to measure is not the only one reaching  the counter's
>     sensor. Once  the sensor is attached to the counter,  every signal
>     besides the  one of interest becomes a source of  interference and
>     the second  sensitivity limitation. The level of  these incidental
>     signals can  be quite large, in fact, and usually is  the limiting
>     factor in bio-frequency measurement."
>
>     http://www.tainio.com/ir/frqmonitor/instruct.htm
>
>   These statements  give  him plenty of wiggle room in  case  of legal
>   problems.
>
>   A second item is the Concerto RFI/EMI eliminator:
>
>     http://www.tainio.com/ir/concerto/graph.htm
>
>   If such  an  instrument could be built, there would be  no  need for
>   screen rooms  such  as  you worked in.  If  the  Concerto  worked as
>   claimed, companies  would buy it instead of paying big  bucks  for a
>   screen room. But they don't.
>
>   A third item is the calculations on Johnson Noise:
>
>     "USE:"
>
>     "This frequency counter is subject to two  fundamental limitations
>     in it's  sensitivity.  The  first is the  noise  of  the electrons
>     moving through the circuitry of the counter input circuitry. For a
>     typical 3GHz  bandwidth  front end, this  results  in  input noise
>     floor of about -70dBm. Since any desired signal to be counted must
>     exceed this  level by 10 - 15dB so the counter can  reliably count
>     zero crossings,  the limiting sensitivity is -44  to  -60dBm. This
>     figure is approached by this counter when operated in a laboratory
>     environment, but  there  is  another,  more  limiting  factor when
>     attempting to  count radiated signals using  the  special designed
>     bio-frequency sensor."
>
>     http://www.tainio.com/ir/frqmonitor/instruct.htm
>
>   By the  time  you get to calculating Johnson noise,  you  are pretty
>   knowledgeable on  circuit theory and electronics. So  you  know what
>   you are selling could not possible work as claimed.
>
>   Just for  fun, let's go through the calculations and  verify Bruce's
>   accuracy. For  that, we'll need an equation  solver  called Mercury,
>   written by Roger Schafley, who also wrote Borland's Eureka.
>
>   Go to the following url
>
>   http://archives.math.utk.edu/software/msdos/calculus/mrcry209/index.html
>
>   and download
>
>
http://archives.math.utk.edu/software/msdos/calculus/mrcry209/mrcry209.zip
>
>   The nice thing about using this solver is you don't have  to rewrite
>   all the  equations when you want to solve for  a  different unknown.
>   You just  enter the conversion factors, then enough  known variables
>   to solve the equations. Mercury will rewrite the equations as needed
>   to solve  for the unknowns. This saves a lot of  time  tracking down
>   silly math errors:)
>
>   Anyway, here are the conversion factors for Johnson Noise:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   ; Johnson Noise Calculations
>
>   ; Bw   = Noise bandwidth in Hertz (f max - f min)
>   ; Erms = Thermal noise voltage in Volts rms
>   ; Irms = Thermal noise current in Amps rms
>   ; kB   = Boltzmann's constant (1.38 x 10-23 J/K)
>   ; R    = Resistance in ohms
>   ; T    = Absolute temperature (Kelvin)
>
>   dbm  = 10 * log10(Pwr / 1e-3)
>   Epwr = Erms^2 / R
>   IPwr = Irms^2 * R
>   Erms = sqrt(4 * kB * T * R * Bw) ; thermal noise in uv rms
>   Irms = sqrt((4 * kB * T * Bw) / R) ; current noise
>   kB   = 1.38054e-23 ; Boltzmann's constant (1.38 x 10-23)
>   Pwr  = Erms * Irms
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Here is what we know:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Bw = 3e9 ; bandwidth in Hz
>   R  = 50 ; resistance in ohms
>   T  = 290 ; temp degrees Kelvin
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   And here is the solution:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   dbm  = -73.183
>   Erms = +4.9011E-05
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   So the thermal noise signal in a 50 ohm resistor and  3GHz bandwidth
>   is -73dBm, or 49 microvolts rms at room temperature.
>
>   Now a  typical  wideband  amplifier  will  have  a  noise  figure of
>   anywhere from 2dB to 5 or even 10 dB. If we take a figure of 3dB, we
>   get
>
>     -73dBm + 3dB = -70dBm
>
>   Bruce states:
>
>     "For a  typical  3GHz bandwidth front end, this  results  in input
>     noise floor of about -70dBm."
>
>   So we have nailed his calculation exactly.
>
>   Next, he  shows he understands the signal-to-noise  ratio  needed to
>   get reliable triggering (even though his math is a bit off:)
>
>     "Since any desired signal to be counted must exceed this  level by
>     10 -  15dB so the counter can reliably count  zero  crossings, the
>     limiting sensitivity is -44 to -60dBm."
>
>   It should  read  "-55  to -60dBm".  But  that's  not  important. The
>   significant thing is he clearly understands how the  system measures
>   its own noise, or stray signals that happen to be in the vicinity.
>
>   He knows  there are no signals from the body, or plants,  or bottles
>   of oil, or lumps of soil. A clear scam.
>
>   Just to  round  thing  off,  there's more  things  you  can  do with
>   Mercury. Here's the Faraday equations for Silver electrolysis:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   ; Colloidal Silver Calculations Bob Lee's method
>
>   C   = I * sec         ; total number of Coulombs
>   den = I / sqin        ; current density Amperes per sq in
>   ele = I / 1.60217733e-19; electrons per second
>   gm  = k * I * sec     ; Faraday's equation
>   isn = isq / 6.45e14   ; ions per square nanometer per sec
>   isq = ele / sqin      ; ions per sq. in. per sec
>   k   = 107.868 / 96485 ; Coulombs required per gram of silver
>   lt  = 3.785 * gal ; convert gallons to litres
>   lt  = ml / 1000       ; convert millilitres to litres
>   mg  = gm * 1000       ; convert grams to milligrams
>   ml  = 29.57 * oz      ; convert ounce to milliliters
>   phr = ppm / hrs ; ppm per hour
>   ppm = mg / lt         ; 1 ppm is 1 milligram per litre
>   sec = hrs * 3600      ; convert hours to seconds
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Here's a sample calculation for the Roby Flow Through CS Generator:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   gal  = 360
>   hrs  = 1
>   mnt  = 0 ; minutes
>   ppm  = 30 ; target ppm
>   sqin = 4 ; wetted area (estimated)
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   and here's the solution:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Cou  = 36564.262153743
>   gal  = 360
>   gm   = 40.878
>   hrs  = 1.0000
>   I    = 10.156
>   lt   = 1362.6
>   mg   = 40878
>   oz   = 46080
>   ppm  = 30
>   uAin = 2539184.87
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   This shows he would have to run at a current of 10 amps  to generate
>   30ppm in 360 gallons in 1 hr. He is obviously wrong. Another scam.
>
>   If you are interested in copper electrolysis, the  conversion factor
>   changes since  copper is double ionized and has  a  different atomic
>   weight:
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Cou  = I * sec         ; total number of Coulombs
>   esec = I / 1.60217733e-19; electrons per second
>   gm   = k * I * sec     ; Faraday's equation
>   isin = esec / sqin     ; ions per sq. in. per sec
>   isnm = isin / 6.45e14  ; ions per square nanometer per sec
>   k    = 0.5* 63.5 / 96485  ; Coulombs required per gram of copper
>   lt   = 3.785 * gal ; convert gallons to litres
>   lt   = ml / 1000       ; convert millilitres to litres
>   mg   = gm * 1000       ; convert grams to milligrams
>   ml   = 29.57 * oz      ; convert ounce to milliliters
>   phr  = ppm / hrs ; ppm per hour
>   ppm  = mg / lt         ; 1 ppm is 1 milligram per litre
>   sec  = hrs * 3600 + mnt * 60      ; convert hours to seconds
>   uAin = 1e6 * I / sqin  ; current density in uA per sq in
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   So Mercury  makes  it easy to do quick  calculations  and  verify or
>   debunk different claims.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Mike Monett
>
>
> --
> The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
>
> To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
> Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
>
> Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
> OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
>
> List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
>