# Is a Beamtube effective 30 ft out?

Can a Beamtube provide power for a whole room 30 feet out? NO here is why.

The farther away from a point source, such as a light bulb or a Beamtube, the less energy is available to the same area object. And, the relationship is not linear, meaning it get progressively weaker at a greater rate.

For example, an object that gets 1 watt of energy 1 foot away from an energy source, will only receive 0.001 watt 10 feet away from the energy source.

2 dimensionally, this can be seen as fixed number of radiating rays in a circle. As you get closer to the circle, more radiating rays hit the object.

Closer to the Beam Source the more rays received

However, the situation is actually 3 dimensional, and this increases the effect of diminishing power at a greater distance.

The output intensity for ANY spherical radiating device is specified by what is referred to as the “Inverse-Square Law”:  Intensity = Power / (4 x PI x Radius^2). At 1 ft, represented by the ” I ” square at distance ” r ” below, a fixed amount of energy is contained within the square. At 3 times the distance, ” 3r “, the same amount of energy is divided into 9 equal sized squares, each with 1/9’th the amount of energy.

Example:
Power at 1 ft = X, Power at 2 ft = X/4, Power at 3 ft = X/9, Power at 4 ft = X/16, Power at 5 ft = X/25, Power at 6 ft = X/36, Power at 7 ft = X/49, Power at 8 ft = X/64, Power at 9 ft = X/81, Power at 10 ft = X/100

In other words, you have 1% of the power at 10 ft away than you have from 1 ft away. Even at 1,000 ft there is still some power, although very small. Without knowing what the desired power level is, you can’t specify an “Output Range”. Mathematically, this is a cube factor, so 10 times the distance is 10 x 10 x 10, or 1,000 times the area, dividing the energy of the original square by 1000- or 0.001 watts for a 1-watt source.

For maximum power, you want the shortest distance possible period! That is why the BCX Ultra Raytubes with their unique differential power work so well, because they are designed to touch objects. When comparing plasma radiators, such as the BCX Ultra BT-HFPCM2, consider the actual amount of power delivered based upon distance. A 150-watt plasma radiator will deliver more power to an object 2 feet way, than a 300-watt plasma radiator delivering power to an object 3 feet away.

Some companies attach metal reflectors to attempt to bounce back the energy on the backside of a plasma radiator, but the type of materials used are unable to reflect much of the type of energy that a plasma discharge device generates. Radio Carrier waves as you know can penetrate walls, metal, people etc. For example: a home radio device can pick up radio stations. A radio carrier wave would not be reflected and would just pass thru the so-called reflector. Bottom line is Metal reflectors do NOT increase the power nor reflect and is a marketing gimmick.

Some Rife Machine manufacturers will specify output ranges effective 30 feet out such as PERL and GB4000, which clearly is not effective due to the loss of power. The frequency or carrier wave signal can be picked up with ours at 60 feet, but the power is insignificant at that distance. If you don’t have the power, then the frequency isn’t effective.

PERL States this about how their device is able to radiate 30 ft out & Our BCX Engineer states comments on how this is not valid (refer to his statement AFTER the below PERL statement):

PERL M+ Website states “First, the body is an antenna and will actually produce a “gain” to the signal strength via a natural resonance. The best resonant gain is at around 50 MHz, but there is still a very good resonance gain at 27 MHz as well. This brings up a point, a human body’s resonance and gain at 3.3 MHz is relatively very poor compared to the resonance and gain at 27.125 MHz. Due to poor resonance and little to no gain, devices with a 3.3 MHz carrier are subject to the Inverse Square Law and must be used close to the body to maximize delivery of frequencies. The manufacturers in fact recommend their customers use the devices very close (within inches) to the body. Further the first harmonic of 27.125 MHz is 54.25 MHz; a harmonic of the carrier wave that the PERL produces. This carrier harmonic includes sidebands and this is right at the peak of body absorption. Second, the human body is a capacitor – why one can walk across a carpet and get a shock by touching a door knob. Capacitors of course store energy. In the case of the just mentioned sparking/shock a human body can store thousands of volts of energy ! This all brings us to the method, a subset of what is known as Wireless Resonant Energy Transfer (WRET). WRET is currently used to charge different electrical devices especially cell phones , with the device being in proximity to the field of the charging device. Most of the commercial devices using WRET use magnetic fields to transfer energy wirelessly via induction. Induction works only across a small distance and is also subject to the Inverse Square Law. This is where things get all confused. The PERL does not use Resonant Induction to transfer energy. As is known, the plasma tube converts RF into an intense Oscillating Electric Field. The wavelength of 27.125 MHz is 35.6 feet . This is important, for the effective distance of the PERL is dependent upon the wavelength of the carrier wave. As the body can act like a capacitor and also is very resonant at 27 MHz, the PERL transmits energy to the human body via what is known as Resonant Capacitive Coupling. – PERL Statement

From Wikipedia on Wireless Power Transfer:

Near-field or nonradiative region – This means the area within about 1 wavelength (λ) of the antenna. In this region the oscillating electric and magnetic fields are separate and power can be transferred via electric fields by capacitive coupling.

Here is a video showing the use of a 9V battery and 0.1 ampere of current to light an LED array at 30 cm distance using Resonant Capacitive Coupling. This is an impossibility from the concept of the ISL and even via inductive coupling.”

### Why the PERL’s Concept (above) is FALSE:

1. FM radio is 88-108MHz, which is very close in the spectrum, and close to the same effects as the 27MHz described here. (See the document that he refers to describing molecular effects of RF frequencies.)  FM radio stations put out 100,000 watts. If his whacky concept were true, standing a wavelength away from an FM radio station would concentrate all 100,000 watts in a human body (smell the charred flesh). As you know there are offices at the bottom of radio stations. (and don’t try the “directional antenna” argument unless you know what side-lobes are.) https://www.emf-portal.org/en/cms/page2/home/effects/radio-frequency

2. Regarding PERL M statement ‘The receptors of the eye are resonant tuned circuits (antenna’s) to light- far better tuned than the body is to RF energy‘. Imagine looking at a 100-watt light bulb up close- ouch! Now stand back- less ouch. Notice that the tuned receptors do not capture the light from the sides, top, bottom and back of the light bulb to make up from moving further away. The inverse square law says that as you move away from a point source, the total energy of the point source is spread over the surface area of a sphere. The larger the distance, the greater the size of the sphere, the less the energy on a fixed surface area (eyeball). Clearly this valid otherwise if it weren’t true, each of the stars in the sky would be just as bright as our sun.