Calculating Scalar Octaves for Rife Devices

Years ago I abandoned binary octaves of frequencies, i.e. dividing by 2 to get lower octaves of primary frequencies that are usable on plasma devices that only generate frequencies up to 10000 hertz. I found a method of calculating scalar octaves that I now use consistently. Simply divide or multiply by exp(3), exp(6), or exp(9). In the Excel spreadsheet language you can calculate the scalar octave of A1 by inserting =A1/exp(3) in another cell, and so forth. Here is an example in Calc Pro:

This finding is based on Hartmut Müller’s research on Global Scaling Theory and there is an excellent short book recently published that will provide some of the basics: Global Scaling – The Fundamentals of Interscalar Cosmology.

Binary octaves do not work as well as primary frequencies. In general, scalar octaves do work as well as primary frequencies. In fact, they cut the time required to kill a pathogen by more than 50% over binary octaves. This has been confirmed in more than a thousand experiments.

Rife engineers search their oscilliscopes for harmonic pulses where scalar octaves live and they find no indication that they exist at all! Some will claim this is an illusion fostered by an overactive imagination. It is like creating energy out of a vacuum or turning cells back in time to when they were normal.

Well, the universe is not what it seems and this is an advanced topic. Those who want to know will have to do real work. Others will have to test for themselves whether scalar octaves are useful and use them or not as they see fit.

My suggestion is to start with reading about Global Scaling Theory. It you can read German you have an advantage because a lot of the original research is described in that language. Nevertheless, there is enough in English to get the general idea.

Waser, Andre (2004) The Global Scaling Theory: A Short Summary. Space-Energy-Research GmbH.

An analysis of current problems in electrodynamics and gravitation always leads to the conclusion, that basically new concepts or physical models are necessary to describe natural processes more accurate than today. The paradigm in today’s physics is well known.

The main demand on a new physical model is to postulate as little premises as possible to explain as much physical phenomena as possible. With a world view of reductionism only, this is not achievable. Hence the author has proposed a concept of a selfreproducible (autopoietic) physics about ten years ago.

Many authors have formulated new and holistic physical models in the last years. Concerning this, the theory of Burkhard Heim must be noted. Unfortunately his complex work is not written down in an easy understandable form (although for physicists and mathematicians). And also some controversial models as for example the vortex model of Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) do exist, which are able to explain many structures and properties of matter with a very small set of premises.

The Global Scaling theory (GST) is a holistic theory, capable to explain the cause of many physical phenomena with a very low set of assumptions. This theory is further capable to explain some experimental results, which – due to their scientific impact – are not well accepted. Naturally, also the Global Scaling theory keeps some questions unanswered, but hopefully these might be answered satisfactorily in the near future.

Only a limited number of fragmented and mostly compressed texts about Global Scaling are available today. It’s a goal of this document to overcome this restriction and give interested readers a first glimpse about the Global Scaling theory “as a whole”.


  • Robert Posted February 21, 2018 4:41 am

    Try using to see websites that are no longer around. Then you can use a link to the resulting page to see a gone website.

  • Posted November 13, 2018 1:29 am

    I still don’t understand how to convert a very high frequency to a lower octave so that I can run it on my machine–that was my goal reading this article.

    • Jeff Sutherland Posted November 13, 2018 3:20 pm

      You divide the higher number by e to the third power. If that is not small enough divide by e to the third power again. You can easily do this in Excel or write a program to do it.

  • Jory Posted November 20, 2018 2:14 am

    Jeff, do you have an email or phone where I can ask some more questions. i’d like to know if there is any research or explanation on the differences between calculating different octaves using doffeeent logerithms, golden ratio vs fibonacci for instance.

  • Carlos Augusto Martinez Posted April 16, 2019 7:10 pm

    Hi Jeff
    They tell me that you do treatment with Rife frequencies by sending them to a photograph of the patient and it heals. I also believe in that and I have a Radionics Box called META BLACK BOX. My question is whether the treatment is as effective as if the patient had the RIFE electrodes in their hands?
    I am a doctor and I live in Costa Rica
    Thank you very much for your answer

    • Jeff Sutherland Posted April 20, 2019 8:21 am


      The technology today for remote treatment is as good as direct contact. For some things it is better.


  • Yuriy Posted August 21, 2021 12:13 am

    Dear Sir!
    And can we use a concrete example – Reif frequencies for carcinoma – 1604000 Hz – reduce? I’m afraid to make a mistake.
    Best Regards,

  • Trackback: Long COVID and Body Stress - Jeff Sutherland

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *