Source: http://goodhealthinfo.net/energy/review_f-scan.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:39:01+00:00

Document:
The F-SCAN2 is a sophisticated machine with amateurish software and user guides. (The F-SCAN Touch is similar to the F-SCAN2 but has a larger screen and additional features.) What distinguishes the F-SCAN from other frequency generators is its ability to scan the body (referred to as a DIRP — dual integration resonance procedure) to obtain "resonance feedback" — i.e., frequencies from which the body may benefit, presumably representing pathogens or other issues, which you can then output from the machine for treatment.
The unit has a single output channel (three on the Touch model, along with a carrier frequency).
Silence. Like the F165 (and unlike the GB-4000), it has no internal cooling fans. Also, it can produce a beep when making entries or after operations, but this is optional.
Positive offset (keeping output voltage above zero — reported to be preferable for rifing) is selectable from a menu.
The sweep function is limited. You can do a sweep between the minimum and maximum frequencies you enter in the Settings screen, specifying the total time or length of dwell on each frequency. Alternatively, you can sweep from one frequency in a list to the next, but only in 1 Hz increments. You can Wobble (converge) around each frequency, but only in increments of 10 Hz, up to 600 Hz.
Sometimes I had to press the touchscreen repeatedly to get it to accept an input (which is one reason I found it easier to run from the software on my computer).
The manuals for the machine and software are poorly structured and designed and therefore confusing. Most of the information is there; it's just presented in a jumble.
Originally, there was a dispute over the value of the DIRP (whether it did what it claimed) and its accuracy (a spurious frequency spike that appeared at regular intervals). This appears to have been largely resolved in the machine's favor. In my observation, it did find relevant frequencies, and using the software eliminates the irrelevant spikes (except for the first one in each scan, which is spurious). Jeff Sutherland has used the machine extensively in the past and found it reliable, though he now uses other equipment.
The only issue I found with the DIRP is that it can take so long as to be impractical. Therefore, I'm not sure it justifies the machine's substantial extra cost, though undoubtedly others who use it and are happy with it would disagree.
The problem is that you can't just do a scan of the body from, say, zero to 15 MHz (the machine's upper range), or even zero to 1 MHz, for a couple of reasons. One is that you have to specify not only the range you want to cover but the step size. The larger the step size, the less time the scan takes but the less precision you get in each step. Also, the unit is limited to 1,000 steps and takes about 1.5 seconds per step, so a scan of 100 steps takes 3 minutes; 1,000 steps takes 25 minutes.
So, for example, if you wanted to scan the entire range from zero to 15 MHz, you'd need a step size of 15,000 Hz — which does you very little good. Even scanning zero to 1 MHz, the step size would have to be 1,000 Hz. Quite a bit could be happening within a single step that you wouldn't see. Considering the precision you need to target a pathogen's frequency, even a step size of 100 or 10 Hz may be too large, though these are often used. But a step size of 10 Hz with 1,000 steps means you can scan a range of only 10,000 Hz at a time.
At 25 minutes per scan, unless you already know or suspect where the problems are, trying to do a large range in 10 kHz increments could take quite a while — leaving no time for therapy. And by the time you were done, the situation may have changed, and you'd have to start over. Even then, you might miss some in another range that you didn't scan.
A final problem is that the unit is limited to 50 hits, or resonant frequencies, per scan. So if there are more than that (or you suspect there will be) and you want to cover them all, you'd need to narrow the range or increase the step size even further.
Two versions of the software are available: v. 1.6 and v. 2. Version 1.6, with its faults, is still better than v. 2, which is even less intuitive (and doesn't have the Auto-R output-limiting function). The software developer, the son of the company's owner, said in an email in late 2010 that he was planning a v. 3, but when it will be available is unclear. This discussion relates to v. 1.6 unless otherwise indicated, since that's the one I used almost exclusively.
As I mentioned above, the software is amateurishly designed, with a number of minor annoyances that add up — it requires a lot of redundant mouse clicks and reopening of panes that close automatically, and when you load a program, it displays a dialog box that persists for 4 seconds (and seems like forever).
Some features operate erratically, particularly the Wobble (i.e., converge) function when outputting a sequence of frequencies in Therapy mode. I found that if the frequencies in a list change from square wave (under 60 kHz) to sine, or vice versa, it causes problems — the frequency and voltage numbers turn red (indicating no output). According to an email from the developer, this may be because the readout on the software doesn't keep pace with what the machine is actually doing, as displayed on the touchscreen.
My solution was to set up the list in numerical order, which meant there was only one place where the signal changed from square to sine. Unfortunately, sometimes the output appeared to stop anyway (according to the software, but not necessarily according to the touchscreen). Therefore, until v. 3 comes along, it may be preferable either to run the unit in standalone mode rather than from a computer when using Wobble or to split the list in two — one below 60 kHz, for square wave, and one above, for sine.
You can use Excel to edit lists created in the Therapy screen or transferred from the DIRP screen, but it's cumbersome, because the file contains a lot of other parameters for each frequency, making it hard to use a simple sort function.
The software provides no text field for notes or the name of a program being run.
Overall, this sophisticated machine is hampered by its software, user guides, and some limitations in the way certain features are set up. But even if those improve, you may not find the scan function worth the extra cost.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.