CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Reeking
 

Hulda Clark Liver Cleanse
Hulda Clark Cleanses



Beautiful Skin From Powerful Oils and Roses
Remove signs of aging by renewing skin cel...



Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.



Natural Cancer Remedies
Cancer-proof your body with little known immune boosters!


Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
AnalogKid Views: 2,962
Published: 15 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 654,683

Re: Reeking


It appears that my questions were a little too broad, so I'll try again. To be clear, I AM NOT ATTACKING ANY IDEA, THEORY, CONCEPT, BELIEF, OR OPINION. It's just a question, folks.

The manual for the ABPA device says you insert a polaroid photograph of a person into the "Photograph Well". Well, what about other kinds of photographs? Seems like a reasonable question to me. The manual goes into detail about only Polaroid 600 film, but (as I said in my original post) makes no mention of traditional negative/positive photos or digital images - either prints from JPEGs of the direct insertion of digital camera memory devices. Will this feature of a $3,000 device be unuseable when Polaroid 600 is no longer available?

Ten or twenty years from now, film photography will be pretty much what it was 100 years ago, a niche technology of no practical use to the average person. Digital imaging knocked a multi-billion dollar industry on its butt, and there will be no recovery. So any company, industry, device, etc. which is dependent on tradition photochemistries better wake up and smell the silicon.

In your post above you use the term "5 megapixel digital photograph". Are you referring to a photographic paper print of a digital image file from a camera with a 5 megapixel (effective) resolution? Or the CompactFlash (or whatever) memory device from the camera? Is 5 megapixel the actual resolution of the image sensor, or only the effective resolution? Let's assume that you are referring to a real paper print. Does the resolution of the printer matter? A Polaroid 600 film image is 3-1/8"x3-1/8". At 300dpi (dots per inch), a "digital photograph" of the same size is less than one megapixel resolution. At 600dpi it is only 3.5MP - a long ways away from 5. Is this good enough? The manual doesn't say.

The manual *does* say that things in the Photograph Well are "scanned", and that they lose their effectiveness after a period of time ("up to two years"). Is the photograph degraded by the scanning process? If so, lets go back to the idea of inserting a digital memory device directly into the well (still not ruled out by any subsequent posting or the manual) and you see where my question about something in the well being erased comes from. Again, IT'S JUST A QUESTION.

Now, about that other thing...

The title of forum #443 is:

Facts, Science, Myths, If, When, Where, Why & How Things Work Discussion Forum

I did not create this forum.
I did not name this forum.
I do not moderate this forum.

I did not say *anything* about the ABPA being a myth, I did not question in any way the claims or Science of the inventors or sellers of the device. I asked questions not about what was said or written, but about what was NOT said or printed. That's what questions are.

All I did was suggest that a discussion of the technical aspects of a non-zapper device be moved to a technical discussion forum. I am getting a bit tired of people slapping me around for things I DID NOT SAY.

ak
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021  www.curezone.org

0.656 sec, (2)