"it seams to me that everyone has a right to their own opinion, don't you think?"
Yes, but we're not talking opinion here. PZ should sit down for this part.
I agree with ParaZapper on this.
The chips used by ZapperPlans and Clark are very different in many respects. The output voltage may look very similar before the devices are hooked up to a human body, but once the body is connected as a load on the circuits their outputs differ in potentially important ways. Some of the difference is masked by the output resistor, but it's in there. Many people on this forum claim that the two units *perform* equally well. That may be, but they are not the same circuit design, either in fact or in design philosophy. My two problems with the ZP circuit are it's very weak output stage and significant frequency drift. Any 555-based circuit is an improvement.
What I don't understand about ZP is this: the price difference between a 555 and a 4069 is 4 cents at 100 pieces (Digi-Key, DIP package), and literally zero at higher quantities. The timing components are the same, 2 resistors and one capacitor. The 555 folks recommend an extra capacitor for decoupling (a whopping 5 cents), but the circuit will function without it. So a) why deviate from the Clark design, with all of the, uh, discussion that's bound to generate, when there is no reduction in circuit complexity or cost; and b) even if you are determined not to bow down to the vast Clark-Industrial Complex, and have a biological imperative to present an alternative Zapeer circuit to the world, why use a 4069? It is unique in the world of basic CMOS gates, and not in a good way when it comes to the basic requirements of a Zapper.