The length of an object can be thought of as having a resonant
frequency by virtue of correlation with a wave-length.  On a much
smaller scale, a repeating molecular structure would have a certain
"length" between molecules and therefore a resonant frequency by
virtue of correlation with a wave-length.  What I'm wondering is that
I've seen a paper which suggests that a close approximate of a
frequency which could most effectively "shake apart" something like
the above examples would be calculated by multiplying the resonant
frequency by the square root of 2 (1.4142136).  Now, I'm not sure how
this person got to this place and, I think the multiplier of the
square root of 2 was a correlation they noticed after coming at this
problem from a different direction.  But, what I'm interested in is
whether there is a "standard" way (other than empirically testing
frequencies) to determine/calculate a "shake apart" frequency and, if
so, what is it/how is it done?  I'm way out of my league here, so
please keep this in layman's terms as much as possible!

---

Request for Question Clarification by drdavid-ga on 05 Oct 2002 20:41 PDT

Can you provide the reference to the square-root-of-two multiplier? It
doesn't sound right in that failures commonly occur exactly AT
resonance.

---

Clarification of Question by jat-ga on 05 Oct 2002 21:15 PDT

"A Look at the Frequencies of Rife-related Plasma Emission Devices" by
Charlene Boehm.  Sorry, but I don't have a website to give you...

Hi jat-ga

         The transfer of energy between two objects (coupling)
  depends on the ratio of exciting frequency to the resonant  frequency and 
on the relative  phase.

 If we plot the coupling as function of the ratio of the two frequencies
 we will see an absolute maximum at the resonnant frequency,
and then weaker local maxima at double, triple etc of the resonant frequency.
There is no peak at multiplier 1.41.  Therefore, to 'shake something apart'  it is
best to deliver the energy at the the resonant frequency, that is : the best
frequency multiplier is 1.0.


  An example of this phenomena is described here:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/resonator.html


   Search terms used are

 resonance
 destruction
 harmonics.



 Hedgie

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 12 Oct 2002 01:32 PDT

Actually,
         my original response was more detailed, but an
[expletive deleted] google editor did not like the spelling
etc and deleted it. So, in reposting ,I concentrated more on
the formalities. Here are some links for additional reading:

About Sound - basics
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/theanalogcottage/chapt1.htm
http://www.midicode.com/tunings/acoustics.shtml

The ABC's of Resonance:
http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/abcRes.html

harmonics:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/strings.html

The plot of response to excitation
http://www.brantacan.co.uk/oscillation.htm


 and of links on vibrations:
http://classes.cecs.ucf.edu/eml4220/lin/Links.htm

including famous  Tacoma Bridge:
http://classes.cecs.ucf.edu/eml4220/lin/Links.htm


Beyond that, I would look at
http://dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Education/Tutorials/

such as http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~yliu/acoustics.html

and google searches on the terms in thiese pages which look
interesting.

Hedgie
~
~
~
~

Answer was OK; short and to the point.  However, I prefer to have lots
of links to follow relevant rabbit trails.  Thanks for your help...

I'm not a physicist, so I don't feel qualified to answer this one, but
I found a great article on "Acoustic Weapons" in the Fortean Times
archive
http://www.forteantimesmag.co.uk/articles/153_sonicweapons.shtml

Willie

I found a dead link to the Charlene Boehm article at 

http://healingtools.tripod.com/RR_pages.html

which makes it difficult to follow up directly on your question.

It appears to me that the products and therapies developed by Rife and
promoted on this website and links from it are dangerous
pseudoscience. The descriptions bear all the hallmarks of typical
snake oil sales techniques, and I am inclined to be extremely
skeptical of the therapeutic claims. There are legitimate medical uses
of electrostimulation and ultrasonic stimulation for muscle physical
therapy and possibly for assistance in the healing of bone fractures,
but the broader claims made by Rife for "disease" in general do not
seem plausible given modern medical knowledge.

If you want to post a new question about Rife's therapies, perhaps we
can investigate what has been written about them and find out more
about whether there may be anything real there.