Hi,
I'd like to build a circuit (it's a "zapper", basically a 30khz frequency generator powered by a 9V battery. To use it you have to hold each copper tube in each hand, and the device delivers a tiny microcurrent at a square 30khz frequency that goes through your body).
Here is the schematics below, could you please tell me if the PCB layout I've made corresponds to the schematics? I don't have any electronics skill that's why I'm not very sure if my work is fine or not. Thank you very much for your help.

Here is the device:

 

Where did this design come from?

Why is the LED and diode in series with the 555's Ground connection?
This configuration will probably yield a very unstable output.

 

Where did this design come from?

Why is the LED and diode in series with the 555's Ground connection?
This configuration will probably yield a very unstable output.

Here is the link where I got the circuit from (auto translated to english)
https://www-maestro--zapper-org.tra..._hl=en&_x_tr_pto=ajax,elem#HD_Recommandations

According to the guy who build this (it's an improved version of the original circuit at the top of the page) it's a very stable device. He also sells them for a small fee for those who can't build them (probably like me lol) and people like them

 

Do put a reverse biased diode across the battery terminals. It's too easy to reverse the polarity when installing the 9V battery.

 

Hulda Clark is a Quack, not a medical doctor and the zapper device is completely useless to cure medical problems.

 

You seem to have pins 1 and 6 tied together in the PCB design. It should be 2 and 6. Also, you show 3 and 4 tied together which does not match the schematic

 

You seem to have pins 1 and 6 tied together in the PCB design. It should be 2 and 6. Also, you show 3 and 4 tied together which does not match the schematic

Thanks for your help !
In fact I can see 1/2/3/6 are all linked on the schematics, no?

You're right about 3/4 they are not linked !

Hulda Clark is a Quack, not a medical doctor and the zapper device is completely useless to cure medical problems.

Nope completly false, everything is vibration in the universe (according to Einstein himself), we all resonate at different frequencies and so parasites do too. But it's not the subject of this thread please don't troll, there is enough science to back up everything about this so no need to argue here. Thx

Do put a reverse biased diode across the battery terminals. It's too easy to reverse the polarity when installing the 9V battery.

Thanks for your help !
According to the guy who improved the original circuit he indeed said he added a diode to avoid a battery short, so I guess the diode in the actual circuit is here to serve this purpose?

 

there is enough science

No, there isn't.

If you don't want your thread to descend, don't say thinks like that. I used to have a presence on CZ, and can speak from deep experience. Even if a zapper did do something useful - and there is zero actual science to back up that claim - it isn't through "resonance". Your circuit has only 17 harmonic frequencies in the classic zapper bandwidth, not hundreds or thousands (yes, I've read the books). Even if that whole resonance thing worked, this is not nearly enough to carpet bomb a slew of different pathogens. Plus, the odds of a particular microbe's "resonant frequency" falling on top of one of those 17 harmonic frequencies are ... low.

Note that your circuit has significantly fewer harmonics and less harmonic energy than the original Clark circuit. Also, the two diodes in series will decrease the output signal peak-to-peak amplitude by almost 30%. That's a lot.

ak

 

According to the guy who improved the original circuit he indeed said he added a diode to avoid a battery short, so I guess the diode in the actual circuit is here to serve this purpose?

Not a short, but reverse polarity protection. With the 9V clip, it's too easy to briefly connect the battery in the wrong polarity..

You can do the protection in 4 ways.

A diode in series with the 9V battery: A Schotkey diode: a regular diode has a forward drop of about 0.6v and a shotkey diode 0.2V.

A couple of FET's. That can reduce the drop to mV.

The diode across the battery terminals. that shorts the battery when you apply a reverse current. The short should only exist for an instant, but you need something. The band of the diode to the positive terminal.

 

No, there isn't.

If you don't want your thread to descend, don't say thinks like that. I used to have a presence on CZ, and can speak from deep experience. Even if a zapper did do something useful - and there is zero actual science to back up that claim - it isn't through "resonance". Your circuit has only 8 harmonic frequencies in the classic zapper bandwidth, not hundreds or thousands (yes, I've read the books). Even if that whole resonance thing worked, this is not nearly enough to carpet bomb a slew of different pathogens. Plus, the odds of a particular microbe's "resonant frequency" falling on top of one of those 8 harmonic frequencies are ... low.

Note that your circuit has significantly fewer harmonics and less harmonic energy than the original Clark circuit. Also, the two diodes in series will decrease the output signal peak-to-peak amplitude by almost 30%. That's a lot.

ak

Studies are all over the place confirming frequencies and micro currents heal and kill parasites please don't spread fake news.

Not a short, but reverse polarity protection. With the 9V clip, it's too easy to briefly connect the battery in the wrong polarity..

You can do the protection in 4 ways.

A diode in series with the 9V battery: A Schotkey diode: a regular diode has a forward drop of about 0.6v and a shotkey diode 0.2V.

A couple of FET's. That can reduce the drop to mV.

The diode across the battery terminals. that shorts the battery when you apply a reverse current. The short should only exist for an instant, but you need something. The band of the diode to the positive terminal.

Thank you very much !

 

Here https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slva139/slva139.pdf is the FET version.

 

Studies are all over the place confirming frequencies and micro currents heal and kill parasites please don't spread fake news.

I know this is off topic, but I can't ignore the above. Studies need to be of a good quality. Ideally double blind clinical trials done properly with no P-hacking. Pseudo science is good at coming up with bad studies that 'prove' almost anything that pseudo scientists belive is true. How to tell the difference between science and pseudo science? Well this would be a good start.

 

I know this is off topic, but I can't ignore the above. Studies need to be of a good quality. Ideally double blind clinical trials done properly with no P-hacking. Pseudo science is good at coming up with bad studies that 'prove' almost anything that pseudo scientists belive is true. How to tell the difference between science and pseudo science? Well this would be a good start.
View attachment 243780

Sorry but I don't need your double blind fakery. The FDA forbids the use of zappers that's all I have to know.
Studies about frequencies and micro currents killing parasites are legions on pubmed, you know how to read then I'm sure you'll find them.
Also there are thousands testimonial suggesting these devices cured people's desease.
Yeah wait for double blinded studies, even with this you won't believe them I know the kind of people you are. Like the ones in the middle of a pandemic who are waiting for double blind studies about HCQ because we don't have enough prove it works. Come on you're ridiculous stop spreading fake news, again. And let people do what they please, it's not your business to judge the circuit I'd like to built.

 

Did Einstein say everything was vibration in the universe? I'm having a lot of trouble finding the original source for that one.

I did find this though - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/16/everything-energy/

 

I'd really love to read some of those studies - Do you mind if I ask for a link to some of the ones that you felt were the best?

 

Sorry but I don't need your double blind fakery. The FDA forbids the use of zappers that's all I have to know.

A lot to unpack.

1. Double-blind tests are not fakery, Blinded experiments go back over 200 years, and we have a pretty good handle on how and why they work. Yes, the results of a DB test can be biased, but the protocol isn't a guarantee of anything, and anyone who understands what a double-blind test actually is knows that. A DB test reduces the possibility of one kind of bias from creeping into the results of one kind of test. That's all. It has no magical powers, is not a cure-all for poor experiment design, etc. The bias it reduces can be significant, and one that even trained professionals are capable of, but it is not automatically detrimental to the quality of the results. The effectiveness of the double-blind protocol has been confirmed by triple-blind confirmation studies, testing the testers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment#Terminology

2. The FDA does not forbid the use of zappers, and never has. It forbids the promotion of unproven claims of effectiveness.

3. "that's all I have to know." - Really? You do know that this is an Electrical Engineering forum, right?

Studies about frequencies and micro currents killing parasites are legions

4. No, they are not.

First, redefining the nature of what does and does not constitute a "study" is not the same thing as doing actual research. Second, throwing in terms like micro-currents and frequencies creates, intentionally, a false connection between real studies and zappers. The single biggest problem with the Zapper is *not* that the concept is wrong, it is that the circuit is wrong for the concept. Find a decent, peer-reviewed study involving pathogens, micro-currents, and frequencies, and look at the equipment list needed for the experiments. A zapper can not replicate or replace that pile of hardware.

there are thousands testimonial suggesting these devices cured people's disease.

5. And there it is. "testimonials suggesting", not "data confirming". Can you not see the difference - ? I know seven people who had various forms of prostate cancer *cured* (as in gone gone gone after 10-20 years of follow-up testing) with four different treatment regimens. Those regimens were available because they were *proven* to be effective. By the time you are 70 years old, there is a 1-in-3 chance that you will have personal experience with this. Knowing that you are facing a slow and painful death, which treatment protocol will you choose - one that has "testimonials suggesting" it works, or one using real medical science based on real medical testing? BTW, Hulda Clark died of cancer.

6. Also, testimonials about effectiveness are so unreliable because they are a great example of what is called an informal fallacy in rhetorical logic. The fallacy is so common that it has a name and a wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The number of testimonials doesn't matter, and believing that it does is an example of a different fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Yeah wait for double blinded studies, even with this you won't believe them

7. Actually, I look forward to them, and have been for almost 20 years. I will review the results, and the results of the subsequent confirmation studies by other researchers, and form an informed opinion.

I know the kind of people you are.

Oh, I seriously doubt that.

it's not your business to judge the circuit I'd like to built.

8. Actually, you started this thread specifically to ask us to evaluate the circuit you built. Note that it has several critical errors; not that that's a pattern or anything.

ak