The Tuning Forks Used in Biofield Tuning

September 16, 2014

In Biofield Tuning, as I currently practice it, I use just four tuning forks: two unweighted, 174 Hz and 528 Hz ; and two weighted, 62.64 Hz and 54.81 Hz. People often ask me why these particular forks, so this post is the explanation for that.


The short answer is that I have discovered that I can get the same outcomes using less forks than I was getting using far more forks and that of all the forks I have used, I like these best. Here is the long answer:

When I first started using tuning forks in 1996, I used an 8 piece Solar Harmonic Spectrum set, which is basically the C major scale. I used this set until 2007 when I got a 9 piece standard Solfeggio set. I was so enamored of the clear, crystalline tones of the Solfeggio set that I stopped using the C scale altogether for a while. Then I missed it and started using them both together, which I did through 2012.


When I started teaching in 2010, I had the opportunity to make use of some of the sets my students had including the Chakra set, the Fibonacci set, the Organ tuners, and the Endocrine set, and a few others besides. Somewhere around 2011 I created, with sound wizard Randy Masters, a custom set based on Sacred Geometry, and began to integrate that set into my practice as well. I also was using a 26 Hz weighted fork and a 111 Hz weighted fork (111 is the negative space between most of the Solfeggio frequencies). All in all I was using up to 30 or so forks in each session.


Over the last few years, I have been through some experiences with my forks that caused to me change the way I was working with them that resulted in a dramatic reduction of the number of forks I was using, as well as a simplification of my technique.


One of the things was that I kept “breaking” my Solfeggio forks – not in half or anything that dramatic- rather, they started developing a sort of “buzz” in the overtones. It first started about 6 months after I got my first set : one day, the 174 Hz fork, which was my favorite and most-used fork, started sounding fuzzy and off. I found I couldn’t use it like that and sent it back to where I had purchased it. They sent it back to the manufacturer, Medivibe, who tested it and told me it was still 174 Hz (the buzz didn’t show up on their testing equipment) but they sent me a replacement anyway.


Well, about six months later, the same thing happened. And then it also started happening here and there with the other forks, particularly the UT, RE and MI forks. Medivibe told me “Our forks aren’t designed to be used the way you are using them”, and I had to resign myself to replacing them here and there, on average every 4-6 months.


Then, staring in December of 2012, something very odd started happening, that I still have no real explanation for. My 174 lasted only two months, then one month, then two weeks, then one week, until at the very end of that period, I was breaking them after only using them for a few hours. It was very strange and very stressful! The other forks also started “blowing out” with greater regularity as well.


I was actually forced to stop practicing because of it – which in hindsight was absolutely necessary because I was trying to see clients, teach classes, take care of two teenage boys, and write a book all at the same time! I had no choice but to fully focus on my book (along with teaching classes) for two months, which ended up being absolutely necessary in order to meet my deadline for the book. I taught four three day classes in this period and destroyed a fork in each one. Why and how was this happening? I still don’t have the answer to that question.

In my quest to solve my fork breaking problem, I purchased 174 Hz forks from just about every other manufacturer out there and found all of them to be pretty unusable for this particular process. I would definitely recommend that you NOT purchase cheap forks from India or China – these forks are made by pouring hot metal into a mold and are very poor quality. Other American-made forks were simply too “stiff”. Steel forks don’t produce overtones and that is what we work with in BT so those weren’t/aren’t an option.


When I went back to work after my manuscript was turned in, my forks settled into a routine of lasting about two months which was definitely better than five hours but still problematic. The thing was, I wasn’t the only sound balancer breaking forks, although I was the only one breaking them like this. A handful of students were also reporting their 174 forks going south on them. Fortunately, Todd Gardner, the CEO at Medivibe, decided to step up to the plate to help me out. He created a dozen forks of different alloys and gauges and sent them to me to experiment with. He also sent the same dozen to one of my students.

We used all of them (and broke just about all of them) and at the end of the experiment found that we both had the best results with the same fork- a higher quality, more stable alloy that had undergone a more rigorous manufacturing and balancing process.  This particular alloy and process is what I sell here on my site – they are more expensive than other forks, but will last much longer and maintain integrity and clarity. They are also very well suited to the “combing” process of Biofield Tuning.


The reason why I use only two now and not the whole Solfeggio set is because when the forks were all breaking all the time, I often didn’t have a full set while I was waiting for replacements to arrive. Sometimes, I was down two, or even three forks from the whole set, and had to make do without them. Then, I developed a repetive stress injury from the way I activate tuning forks: striking a hockey puck that I hold in my left hand. After incorporating an earthing mat on my table, I found I had a lot more energy and went from doing 15-18 sessions a week to 20-25. This uptick was more than my left hand/arm wanted to deal with and it went on strike (or rather, off strike) – I developed pain in my hand, arm, neck and even jaw, pretty much out of the blue.


Fortunately I have many incredible bodyworking colleagues in this neck of the woods and I was able to get massage, acupuncture, sound work, and chiropractic which helped heal the pain-  but I had to stop holding the puck and find another way to activate the fork. After trying a variety of other options, I ended up placing the puck on my rolling office chair and striking it on that, which worked fine for the 174 and the UT RE and MI forks, but I simply couldn’t get a good tone from the higher frequencies in the set, so I just gave up using them. And since at any given time the UT RE or MI forks might be broken, I just started using whichever one wasn’t.

Not only that, but now that I was dragging an office chair around with me, going back and forth from one side of the body, doing one side and then the other of each chakra, didn’t really work either. So I started just going around in a circle around the body, starting at one foot, working my way up one side, around the head, and then down the other.

What was interesting about this was that I was getting the same outcomes using just these two unweighted forks that I had been back when I was using 30. In fact, I could do a session with just the 174


and get the same outcomes. One fork, one motion (a circle) around the body. Breaking my forks, and then breaking my body, forced me to simplify dramatically. And now the method is actually much easier to do, and much much easier to teach.


The reason why I chose the MI (528 Hz) fork to be the second fork is because: 

It is a very pretty tone

It is a fork that some people already have due to its claims of repairing DNA (which I don’t necessarily believe)

It is the fork used in Sol Luckman’s DNA Potentiation process, which I think is important work and which dovetails nicely with this work


However I could have just as easily chosen the UT (396 Hz) or RE (417 Hz) forks to be the second one as well. So if you already have a full Solfeggio set, you can make use of any and all of the other frequencies in the set if you like. Comb and column first with the 174 and then follow in the same motion with the higher frequency. I describe it like using  a comb to comb hair- first you go through with the end with the fat tines (the lower frequency), then you go through with the end with the skinny tines (the higher frequency).




In my next post, I will explain why I chose the frequencies for the weighted forks –


Share on Facebook
Please reload

Featured Posts

Fibonacci Forks 89 Hz and 144 Hz

December 17, 2019

Please reload

Recent Posts

May 1, 2019

March 27, 2019

February 23, 2019