We are often asked questions about remote testing, and about the idea of quantum processes applying to this kind of device.
The Qest4 Asyra technology works by storing digital representations or signatures within a database, and outputting them as an electromagnetic / radio-frequency output from the device.
When the client is present in the room (traditional mode of operation) the measurement of client reaction is via galvanic skin response via contact with the hand electrodes. This we regard as the most reliable mode of operation.
Like with many devices, it has been observed that good results can also be obtained using remote testing. The original and well-tested method of doing this was by ‘surrogate testing’ relying on a non-physical connection between the person who sat in and held the electrodes and the intended client. This connection is often assisted by having a tissue sample (eg hair, nails, urine) from the intended client on the test-plate of the system.
More recently some people have experimented with taking the human being out of the physical circuit entirely, and relying on the fact that the system can self-calibrate even for an inert resistor such as a damp cellulose or cotton connector. Testing in this way is giving many people a high degree of success.
People ask if the mode of operation is therefore ‘quantum’ and a complete answer to that cannot be attempted at our current levels of understanding of quantum processes.
Many manufacturers of apparently similar devices use the word ‘quantum’ their marketing literature, even while we know that physics and computing at its very highest level has barely started to be able to control quantum processes. (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/quantum-computing-explained)
So when anyone says their testing device is ‘quantum’ they are really guessing. What we do know is that there is a complex interaction between the device, practitioner, client and the information field. We also know that anything occurring at the macro-level is necessarily composed of multiple interactions at the small particle level, where we know quantum laws apply, but science has not yet established how the quantum interactions drive the macro interactions.
We believe that for ALL devices the most desirable method of interaction includes face-to-face interaction and direct physical contact with the device. But we also know that Qest4 practitioners are achieving results with remote testing.
We suspect, but have not had the opportunity to prove, that the data-engineering and circuitry in Qest4 means that remote testing with Qest4 is superior in terms of results to that with devices that simply state they are ‘quantum’. It is all too easy to just make a device with a random number generator to give the ‘results’, while we know with Qest4 it is based around a fully engineered signal and response mechanism, evolved over more than three decades of study and continuous refinement. If a device has just appeared on the market in the last few years and claims some degree of equivalence, do your research very thoroughly !