“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”Cue theme music by Ennio Morricone
My initiation into radionics was via a Copen Model Y Portable instrument, built sometime in the mid-1970s, and has also previously been part of the Borderland Sciences collection. I went on to acquire more classic Copen instruments, and my radionics practice centred primarily on the use of Copen devices. Part of this process of the exploration into radionics brought about a fascination with the rates. What did those numbers signify, and how were they derived? What meanings might they have, and what is their relationship to the material world with which we are familiar?
In some sense, I had unwittingly immersed myself into a world of Base 10 numerical rates. And not just any Base 10 rates, but Copen rates. I quickly learned that there were alternative Base 10 systems, from other sources, apparently applicable to other apparently similar potentiometer (variable resistor) based instruments, but of different design to Copen’s. And so I embarked on a rates hunt, naively thinking that the more I had, the better armed I would be somehow.
Together with the various Copen instruments, I had acquired several Copen rates books. But then I received my first non-Copen rates book, a book compiled by Yvon Combe that also included Base 10 rates, from which I eagerly (with, I have to say, some justification) experimented on my Copen instruments. The results did not meet my excited expectations, which got me contemplating the design, purpose and intention embodied, not only in the rates, but in the instruments as well.
In relation to some other potentiometer based instruments, the Copen devices are restricted, by design, to Base 10 rates. However Base 10 is not the only rates system suitable to the potentiometer type instrument. The other common and applicable rates systems are Base 44 and Base 336. (Obviously I’m not including the Hieronymus capacitor based system here.)
It is obvious why Base 44 cannot be used with an instrument designed specifically for Base 10: On such devices the dials are calibrated for 0-10, and not 0-44 that Base 44 requires.
However, despite its name, Base 336 does not use a numerical range up to 336, and I am yet unsure as to why it was so named. In theory it is possible to use Base 336 rates on a Base 10 instrument, but I personally do not recommend it, for reasons I shall elaborate below.
First, to make it clear what these three systems are:
• Base 10 corresponds to numbers between 0 and 10.
• Base 44 corresponds to numbers between 01 and 44.
• Base 336 corresponds to numbers between 1 and 9.
Base 10 is the earliest rates development, which was created by Dr Albert Abrams’ use of decade resistor boxes to measure, what he believed, was some kind of resistance in the human body to disease. Thus his devices were calibrated between 0 and 10.
A direct line of development of the Base 10 rates system may be traced precisely from Abrams to Ruth Drown and on to Bruce Copen (who expediently “borrowed” Drown’s rates).
George De la Warr, meanwhile, developed more or less in parallel a different Base 10 system for his devices that (at least initially) didn’t use potentiometers, or anything that produced an appreciable electrical change such as resistance at all. Instead, De la Warr was exploring a kind of vibrational resonance or harmonics, rather than “shaping” the energetic or informational flow via variable resistances. (Nevertheless his later instruments made use of potentiometers and more radionically “conventional” wiring, possibly for financial reasons.)
As an aside, there was a slight, and similar, variance in the Base 10 concept which was common to both Drown’s and Delawarr’s rates systems. Both of them used the first (or master) dial calibrated 0-100. Thus the first two digits of the rates correspond to the setting on the first dial. This principle was not followed by Copen, whose method required rates to finish on the last dial rather than starting from the first.
Meanwhile Malcolm Rae, intent upon improving the informational “resolution” over Base 10, created the Base 44 system, and quickly went on to create the Magneto-Geometric cards (having a circular diagram with radial lines defining the informational pattern, rather than utilizing numerical rates). Following on from Rae, Yvon Combe converted the geometrical patterns of the cards into corresponding Base 10, Base 44 and Base 336 rates (this latter being a rates system that Combe himself created).
Hence all Base 10 rates are not created equal. The Drown/Copen rates may be considered linear, while the Combe rates are pattern-based. Yvon Combe has written that the Base 336 system that he developed is a combination of Base 10 (which he referred to as “digital”) and the magneto-geometric patterns of Rae’s cards. This being so, Base 336 might, perhaps, be to be a more “complete” or “complex” rates system, embracing more influences and patterns of information despite their apparent simplicity.
Further to all of this, there are various understandings held by some, that the different rates resonate differently with the subtle energies or occult anatomy. From the above historical evidence, the different rates systems were gradual, incremental developments or advancements within the field of radionics, by different people at different times, and were not developed in conjunction with each other with the purpose of addressing the different subtle bodies.
Nevertheless, an understanding has evolved regarding rates vs subtle bodies. While there is no outright consensus, the following is what is what, I believe, Yvon Combe proposed:
• Base 10: resonant with the vibratory field of the physical/etheric body.
• Base 44: resonant with the vibratory field of the emotional/astral body.
• Base 336: resonant with the vibratory field of the mental body.
This delineation will be slightly different to what some others adhere to, so I feel that it is fine to follow what feels harmonious with one’s own practice and experience.
Unfortunately, there is a fly in the ointment. And this is that most instruments are not designed, or are not intended, to use all three of these rates systems.
From my personal experience, I have not received satisfactory results when using Combe’s Base 10 rates on Copen instruments – and these experiences are from some time before I knew much, if anything, about how the various rate systems were developed by Yvon Combe. However, from anecdotal evidence and my intuition, I feel that Base 336 is very powerful and effective, and I wish to use these rates more frequently.
As I implied above, until recently I have used primarily Copen instruments, together with some of my own construction, but none of which are designed for anything other than Base 10. Therefore I am currently constructing an instrument specifically intended for Combe’s rates.
As diversity does not exist separate from, or outside of, completeness or totality, I also feel that all parts, even the component parts in art of radionics, exist in a whole form: inclusive of instrument design, rates and other information, together with the designers, the practitioner and the subject. The thoughts and intentions of the practitioner AND of the instrument and rates designers have an influence on the manifested reality we are designing via the practice of radionics. This work, and indeed this world, are, of course, the play of the totality of consciousness.
“No one thing is superior to another, nor should any aspect be removed, slighted, or thought of as unworthy, lest the machine fail to function properly and as smoothly as intended.”
In conclusion, I will say that I don’t profess to have “cracked” radionic rates. However my understanding at the moment is that numerical rates are related to ratios and harmonics in some sense of those words; similar, perhaps, to how sacred geometry is a 2 dimensional representational glimpse into the workings of the Divine mind. Ruth Drown saw some sacred relationship in her numerical rates, through her studies in the Kabbalah – which is perhaps the subject of a future article.
I hope this article is of help, particularly if you are using a “resistor based” radionics instrument. Please feel free to engage in the conversation by leaving your comments below. I would love to hear your insights on these topics of rates and instrument design and purpose.