Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Violet ray

The violet ray is an antique device from the early , consisting of a compact generator connected to interchangeable glass electrodes that discharge high-frequency, high-voltage, low-current , producing a characteristic violet glow and when applied to the skin. Pioneered through adaptations of high-frequency current principles developed by , with key refinements by Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval and Paul Marie Oudin around 1893, the device surged in popularity during the for household and clinical use, marketed aggressively by companies like Renulife and Bleadon-Dun as a versatile treatment for ailments ranging from and headaches to , baldness, and even impotence. Proponents, including psychic , extolled its supposed ability to penetrate tissues and stimulate healing via the "violet ray," but was scant, with early critiques from the Journal of the in 1917 dismissing hyperbolic cure-all claims and a 1951 U.S. ruling effectively halting production due to fraudulent advertising. Today, violet rays are recognized as exemplars of , offering at best superficial effects like mild or bacterial reduction from , while posing risks of burns or electrical hazards without substantiated therapeutic benefits for systemic conditions.

History

Invention and early adoption

The violet ray device originated from high-frequency electrical technologies pioneered in the late , building on Nikola Tesla's 1891 for the Tesla (U.S. Patent No. 454622), which generated high-voltage, low-current alternating currents suitable for therapeutic applications. French physician Paul Marie Oudin developed the first functional prototype in 1893, adapting Tesla's coil principles into a resonant for medical use, while Jacques-Arsène d'Arsonval refined these designs to make high-frequency currents safer for human application by reducing tissue penetration and focusing on surface effects. In 1895, American inventor Frederick Finch Strong further innovated by attaching glass vacuum electrodes to a portable variant, creating the distinctive violet-colored coronal discharge that defined the device and enabled localized ozone generation and mild sparking for . These early models operated on low power (5-20 watts from standard 110V outlets), producing sparks up to 4 inches, and were initially employed by physicians as legitimate tools for alleviating minor pain, treating superficial skin conditions like , and stimulating circulation through non-invasive electrical stimulation. Early adoption occurred primarily in clinical settings during the and early 1900s, with devices marketed to medical professionals for conditions such as , , and dermatological issues, reflecting the era's enthusiasm for amid limited empirical validation. By the mid-1910s, manufacturing advances allowed for more compact, home-compatible units, broadening access beyond specialists and spurring initial consumer interest, though claims of remained anecdotal and tied to the device's visible sparks and output rather than controlled trials. Pioneering firms, including those adapting Strong's designs, produced variants compatible with early household , positioning the violet ray as an accessible extension of laboratory electrotherapeutics.

Peak popularity and marketing

The violet ray device reached its zenith of popularity during the and early , following a surge in adoption after when manufacturers like the Renulife Company began mass-producing portable versions for home use. By the late 1910s, these appliances were widely available in drugstores and through mail-order catalogs, transforming high-frequency from a clinical tool into a product accessible to the general public. Sales figures indicate hundreds of thousands of units were distributed, often to individuals seeking relief from chronic ailments amid limited medical options. Marketing emphasized the device's supposed scientific backing from high-frequency currents pioneered by figures like , positioning it as a "remarkable development of " capable of treating diverse conditions such as , , skin disorders, and even toothaches. Advertisements in periodicals like Everyday Engineering in 1920 and broader campaigns portrayed the violet ray as a versatile, non-invasive home remedy, with interchangeable glass electrodes enabling applications from facial toning to internal stimulation. Promoters, including alternative health advocates, exploited public fascination with 's therapeutic potential, often bundling devices with instructional manuals and wands in ornate cases to evoke modernity and efficacy, despite lacking rigorous clinical validation. This era's promotional fervor contributed to widespread household ownership, particularly among middle-class consumers drawn to self-treatment amid post-World War I health anxieties.

Decline amid scrutiny

As scientific understanding of advanced in the early , violet ray devices faced growing from the medical establishment for unsubstantiated therapeutic claims. In 1917, editors of the Journal of the highlighted that such apparatus could not address "practically everything under the sun," as promoted by manufacturers, reflecting broader concerns over amid limited empirical validation. Regulatory scrutiny emerged concurrently, with the U.S. documenting complaints against violet ray generators as early as the late 1920s. Critics noted that while the devices emitted a violet-colored , this superficial effect bore no equivalence to genuine and failed to deliver promised treatments for conditions like infections or . Legal repercussions accelerated the decline, exemplified by a U.S. District Court ruling in against Master Appliances, Inc., of , for misbranding their violet ray outfits with false curative assertions. The court-ordered seizure of devices underscored violations of labeling laws, as claims lacked supporting clinical . Multiple manufacturers encountered similar FDA enforcement, including seizures and prohibitions on interstate sales by the mid-20th century, effectively curtailing commercial viability in the United States. This regulatory clampdown, coupled with professional dismissal of high-frequency currents as mere or mild stimulation without causal therapeutic mechanisms, relegated violet ray devices to historical obscurity outside niche alternative circles.

Technical description

Core components and design

The violet ray device featured a compact high-frequency as its primary component, typically incorporating a resonant akin to a , an , and a interrupter to generate disruptive high-voltage discharges. This assembly, often enclosed in a wooden or bakelite-insulated control box, converted standard into high-frequency output, with the interrupter utilizing contacts and spring mechanisms to create rapid interruptions for efficient voltage step-up. Capacitors, sometimes wax-impregnated for durability, stored and released energy to sustain the oscillations. A key element was the handheld or probe, made of insulating material such as , connected to the generator by a flexible insulated cord. This included a socket for inserting interchangeable glass electrodes, designed as partially evacuated tubes resembling Geissler tubes, containing low-pressure like that ionized under the high-frequency current to produce the signature glow. Electrodes varied in form to accommodate different treatments, including bulbous mushroom shapes for surface application, rake-like combs for scalp use, and slender probes for orifices or precise targeting. Overall design emphasized portability and simplicity for both clinical and home use, with ungrounded operation to reduce risk despite the high voltages involved, and adjustable intensity controls via rheostats or switches on the generator box. Power was drawn from household outlets, typically 110 volts, enabling self-contained functionality without additional grounding plates in standard configurations.

Electrical principles and output

The violet ray device generates high-frequency, high-voltage, low-current electricity primarily through a resonant transformer akin to a small or an , which steps up input from standard household (typically 110–120 volts at 60 Hz) via and spark discharge or . This process involves a primary coil driven by an interrupter or oscillator, creating rapid voltage pulses that resonate in a secondary coil to produce output frequencies in the range of 4–10 kHz to approximately 500 kHz, depending on the model and era. The minimizes deep due to the skin effect, where flows primarily on the surface, and the low amperage (often in the microamp to low milliamp range) limits thermal damage while enabling superficial stimulation. Output voltage typically spans 1–2 kilovolts in early handheld designs, though some variants achieve 20–45 kilovolts peak, delivered as pulsed or oscillatory discharges through partially evacuated electrodes containing inert gases like or . These electrodes ionize under the , producing a characteristic from gas excitation and trace ozone generation, alongside as byproducts of the or brush discharge. Power consumption remains low, around 5–40 watts, ensuring portability but constraining sustained output to short, intermittent applications to avoid overheating the coils or . The electrical output manifests as non-thermal, athermal effects at these frequencies, contrasting lower-frequency electrotherapies; the current's impedance is largely capacitive due to the body's at high frequencies, resulting in negligible electrolytic action or . Historical devices often lacked precise regulation, leading to variable output influenced by geometry, gas , and supply fluctuations, which contributed to inconsistent therapeutic claims but underscored the reliance on empirical rather than standardized metrics.

Purported therapeutic uses

Claimed health benefits

Promoters of violet ray devices in the early asserted that the high-frequency, low-amperage currents produced by these appliances could deliver therapeutic effects through mild generation, localized heating, and electrical stimulation via glass electrodes. These claims encompassed pain relief and infection treatment, attributing germicidal properties to the device's output for curing bacterial issues and alleviating discomfort. Dermatological applications were heavily marketed, with assertions that violet rays could remedy , , carbuncles, rashes, sagging , and felons (inflamed abscesses) by stimulating regeneration and reducing . Broader internal benefits were promoted, including treatment for , , , , and inflammatory conditions, purportedly by enhancing circulation and vital processes to eliminate impurities. Neurological and systemic effects were also claimed, such as balancing the , restoring normal circulation, and easing anxiety or through gentle electrical penetration suitable even for infants. Mystic popularized the device in the 1920s–1930s, endorsing it for virtually any ailment via its supposed ability to quicken cellular activity and promote healing. Antibacterial action against oral was later experimentally suggested in niche contexts, though rooted in these historical promotions.

Application methods and variants

Violet ray applications typically involved direct contact or proximity of specialized electrodes to or mucous membranes, delivering high-frequency, low-amperage electrical that produced , ultraviolet light, and mild thermal effects. The electrode wand, connected to the device's output, was maneuvered slowly over targeted areas for durations of 2 to , with intensity adjusted via a rheostat to avoid discomfort; patients often reported a tingling or prickling sensation without significant pain. Orificial techniques employed slender, curved probes inserted gently into body cavities such as the , ears, , rectum, or to address purported infections or , with sessions limited to 1-5 minutes to prevent irritation. Electrode variants were shaped to suit anatomical needs and included straight or bent for general surface treatment, electrodes for and stimulation to promote circulation, or shapes for broader applications like or , and specialized probes for internal use. Gas-filled , often with for or for orange glow, varied in diameter and length; some sets featured adjustable intensity or multiple tips for versatility. Manufacturers like Master Electric and Renulife supplied kits with 5-12 electrodes, accompanied by treatment charts specifying protocols, such as daily sessions for or weekly for enhancement. Indirect methods, less common, involved the operator holding an while touching the patient to transmit , purportedly for systemic effects, though direct application dominated home and clinical use. Battery-operated portable variants, such as the Vi-Rex model, extended accessibility for travel, maintaining similar electrode compatibility but with reduced power output.

Scientific assessment

Empirical evidence and studies

No randomized controlled trials or large-scale empirical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of violet ray devices for the wide array of health conditions promoted in early 20th-century marketing, including rheumatism, neuralgia, acne, and systemic ailments like tuberculosis. Historical assessments, including U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigations starting in the 1920s, found the devices ineffective beyond superficial skin tingling or ozone-induced local irritation, attributing reported benefits to placebo effects or natural recovery. A 1951 federal court ruling on misbranding charges against violet ray generators confirmed they failed to produce claimed therapeutic outcomes, lacking substantiation from controlled experimentation. Limited laboratory experiments on related high-frequency currents indicate minor properties, potentially from production during electrode discharge, which could explain anecdotal reports of temporary skin improvement. For instance, preliminary tests using violet ray-like irradiation showed salivary reduction, suggesting possible utility for surface disinfection but not deeper or cure. However, these findings derive from small-scale, non-peer-reviewed work without clinical validation, and causal mechanisms remain unproven beyond basic electrochemical reactions like oxidation. Modern high-frequency devices, loosely analogous to violet ray principles but using refined waveforms (e.g., d'Arsonval currents at 100-500 kHz), have undergone small clinical evaluations for localized dermatological issues. A 2018 study of 60 women with acne vulgaris reported reduced lesion counts after combining d'Arsonval currents with , attributing effects to enhanced circulation and sebum regulation, though the non-randomized design limits causal inference. Similarly, a 2024 prospective trial with 26 participants aged 50+ found subjective improvements in facial aging signs after high-frequency sessions, but objective metrics like depth showed minimal change, and controls were absent. These studies, often from non-Western journals with methodological flaws such as small samples and lack of blinding, do not endorse violet ray's historical claims and highlight risks like burns from improper use. Overall, the absence of rigorous, replicated evidence underscores violet ray as unsubstantiated electroquackery rather than evidence-based .

Mechanisms of effect and limitations

The violet ray device operates primarily through high-frequency alternating current (typically in the range of 100–500 kHz) generated by a disruptive discharge coil, delivering low-amperage, high-voltage sparks to a partially evacuated glass electrode containing inert gases like argon or neon, which ionize to produce a violet glow. This setup induces mild dielectric heating in superficial tissues via frictional resistance to the oscillating electric field, potentially causing localized warmth and vasodilation of capillary beds, along with sensory stimulation such as tingling or prickling sensations that may enhance perceived circulation without significant deep penetration due to the skin's impedance at these frequencies. Additionally, the corona discharge in ambient air generates trace amounts of ozone (O₃), a reactive oxidant with documented bactericidal properties through lipid peroxidation of microbial membranes, which could contribute to superficial antimicrobial effects on skin lesions. The electrode's emission of low-level ultraviolet (UV) radiation from gas excitation is minimal and primarily in the visible-violet spectrum, offering negligible phototherapeutic benefits compared to dedicated UV lamps. Any observed symptomatic relief, such as reduced pain from mild hyperemia or of exudative conditions, likely stems from these non-specific physiological responses rather than targeted pathological correction, akin to basic counter-irritation or placebo-mediated effects. Historical claims of broader systemic benefits, including neural restoration or enhancement, lack substantiation from controlled trials and contradict biophysical principles, as the device's output (under 50 watts, with currents below 1 ) cannot meaningfully influence deep cellular or endocrine . Limitations include the absence of rigorous for efficacy beyond anecdotal reports or in vitro antimicrobial observations, with no randomized clinical trials demonstrating superiority over sham treatments for purported indications like , , or vitality restoration. production poses inhalation risks, potentially exacerbating respiratory irritation or in sensitive individuals, while improper use can cause electrical burns, arcing injuries, or retinal damage from UV exposure. Regulatory scrutiny, culminating in U.S. actions against manufacturers in the 1950s for fraudulent marketing, underscores the device's classification as unsupported , with modern revivals confined to non-therapeutic contexts due to these safety and evidentiary shortfalls.

Comparison to established electrotherapy

Violet ray devices produce high-frequency, high-voltage, low-amperage alternating currents—typically operating at frequencies exceeding 100 kHz via a akin to a —delivered through glass electrodes that generate and minor /UV emissions upon skin contact. In contrast, established electrotherapies such as (TENS) utilize low-frequency pulsed direct or biphasic currents (1–150 Hz) applied via adhesive surface electrodes to stimulate sensory nerves, aiming to interrupt pain transmission per the , while (EMS) employs similar low-frequency waveforms (20–50 Hz) to induce tetanic contractions for rehabilitation. Mechanistically, violet ray's effects stem from superficial sparking and gas ionization within electrodes, purportedly yielding bactericidal (at concentrations below therapeutic thresholds) and mild tingling without deep tissue penetration, whereas TENS and achieve verifiable depolarization and muscle fiber recruitment through precise current densities (e.g., 10–50 mA for TENS), enabling outcomes like endogenous release or prevention supported by electromyographic data. No controlled studies validate violet ray's deeper physiological impacts, distinguishing it from modern modalities refined via and modeling. Empirical support further delineates the two: violet ray lacks randomized controlled trials, with historical claims relying on testimonials amid FDA-documented inefficacy for conditions like infections or , leading to its medical device ban as fraudulent. Conversely, meta-analyses of TENS report moderate for acute reduction (e.g., postoperative settings) despite low-quality data for chronic cases, and EMS demonstrates consistent benefits in strength gains post-injury, per protocols in guidelines. Direct comparisons are absent, but violet ray's unregulated output variability and pseudoscientific attributions (e.g., "vitalizing rays") preclude equivalence to parameterized, -tested electrotherapies adhering to IEC safety standards.

Regulatory and legal history

Early oversight and challenges

In the early , violet ray devices operated in a regulatory environment with minimal federal oversight, as U.S. law focused primarily on foods and pharmaceuticals rather than electrotherapeutic apparatuses. The of 1906 empowered the Bureau of Chemistry (FDA's predecessor) to address misbranded drugs and adulterated foods, but medical devices like violet rays fell outside this scope, enabling interstate sales of units marketed as cure-alls for conditions from to without premarket approval or efficacy requirements. State-level pure food and drug laws existed but varied widely in enforcement, often relying on local boards of health or medical societies to challenge fraudulent claims, which proved insufficient against aggressive advertising by dozens of manufacturers producing tens of thousands of units annually. Challenges arose from the devices' apparent harmlessness—no fatalities were reported despite widespread use—and the difficulty in legally proving fraud amid public fascination with high-frequency electricity following Nikola Tesla's demonstrations in the 1890s. Professional bodies like the (AMA) provided early criticism; in 1917, JAMA editors dismissed violet ray generators as incapable of treating "practically all diseases," attributing any perceived benefits to suggestion rather than therapeutic action. However, without statutory authority for device regulation, such critiques had limited impact, allowing quack practitioners and companies to proliferate unsubstantiated endorsements, including claims of ultraviolet-like effects from mere discharges. Initial federal scrutiny emerged in the late 1920s through FDA investigations into machines, which identified misrepresentations such as equating violet sparks with genuine therapy, yet enforcement remained sporadic until the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act expanded seizure powers for misbranded devices. This lag highlighted broader systemic issues: the pseudoscientific allure of fueled consumer demand, outpacing regulatory adaptation and complicating differentiation between benign placebos and potentially deceptive practices in an era predating rigorous clinical standards.

FDA actions and prohibitions

The U.S. (FDA) initiated regulatory scrutiny of violet ray devices in the late , issuing complaints that the apparatuses produced a violet-colored but lacked equivalence to genuine and failed to substantiate health claims. By the mid-20th century, escalating enforcement targeted misbranding under the Federal , , and Cosmetic Act, as devices were promoted for treating ailments without empirical validation. In July 1950, FDA agents seized two cases of violet ray devices labeled as the "Master Violet Ray," initiating a misbranding action in U.S. v. 2 Cases. The agency charged that labeling falsely implied therapeutic efficacy for conditions like infections and pain relief, unsupported by . A judgment was issued in October 1951, condemning the devices as misbranded due to exaggerated and unproven claims. That same year, a district court ruled against Master Appliances in a related libel and misbranding suit, determining that promotional materials disseminated false therapeutic assertions. The decision halted domestic manufacturing for medical applications, as courts found no causal basis for purported benefits beyond or minor effects. FDA actions extended to ordering destruction of seized units intended for interstate commerce, while exempting private ownership. Post-1951, FDA prohibitions effectively barred U.S. production and sale of violet ray generators for therapeutic uses, shifting any residual applications to non-medical contexts like , where regulatory oversight was minimal. This regulatory stance reflected prioritization of evidence-based over devices reliant on anecdotal endorsements, preventing further consumer deception amid absent controlled studies demonstrating efficacy.

Non-medical applications and legacy

Erotic and recreational uses

In the decades following the decline of violet ray devices as medical appliances, particularly after regulatory restrictions in the mid-20th century, they were repurposed for erotic and recreational purposes within BDSM communities, where they became known as violet wands. This adaptation capitalized on the device's ability to generate controlled electrical sensations without penetrating the body, distinguishing it from penetrating electrostimulation tools like TENS units. The transition gained traction in the late 20th century as antique units resurfaced in novelty markets and were marketed through specialized kink retailers, evolving from quack electrotherapy curiosities into tools for consensual sensation play. Users employ violet wands with interchangeable glass —such as straight probes, curved combs, or fulgurators—to create effects like ozone-scented sparks, glows, and auditory buzzing, which enhance scenarios or interrogative fantasies. Direct application delivers pinpoint tingling or stinging on erogenous zones and skin surfaces, while indirect methods involve the operator touching the charged wand to transfer sensations via their , allowing for partner-initiated play without . These effects stem from the high-voltage (typically 30,000–50,000 volts), low-amperage neon transformer output, which ionizes air and produces superficial electron flow rather than deep tissue stimulation. Intensity varies by electrode type, power setting, distance from skin, and atmospheric humidity, enabling customization from subtle warmth to intense, piercing jolts suitable for impact augmentation or in contexts. Safety protocols emphasize avoiding use on individuals with pacemakers, insulin pumps, or cardiac conditions, as well as pregnant persons, those with , or over wet , due to potential or heightened risks. Unlike conductive electroplay devices, violet wands pose minimal cardiac because their does not traverse vital organs, but improper handling can cause burns or from prolonged . Modern reproductions and attachments, available since the through vendors like those inspired by antique models, incorporate variable transformers for finer control, though enthusiasts often prefer restored originals from the –1940s peak production era for authenticity. Recreational appeal persists in private and professional settings, where the device's historical medico-erotic aura adds psychological layers to physical stimulation.

Modern collectibility and revivals

Vintage violet ray devices are sought after by collectors of medical antiques and artifacts, valued for their historical significance as early 20th-century gadgets. Complete sets with original cases, electrodes, and manuals, such as Renulife generators, typically sell for $400 to $700 on platforms like and Marketplace, depending on condition and functionality. Rare or provenance-linked examples, including a Halliwell model from filmmaker David Lynch's collection auctioned in 2011, have fetched up to $1,950. Specialty restorers refurbish these coil-based units to contemporary safety standards, preserving original or wooden casings while upgrading internals for reliable high-frequency output. Modern revivals of the technology appear primarily in non-therapeutic contexts, evolving into "violet wands" for sensory play, which retain the design and violet glow but operate at controlled intensities for recreational purposes. These adaptations trace directly to surplus violet ray stock post-FDA bans in the mid-20th century, repurposed by subcultural communities since the . While some alternative practitioners explore high-frequency currents for minor applications, empirical support remains anecdotal and overshadowed by regulatory skepticism toward unsubstantiated claims. No widespread medical resurgence has occurred, with collectible originals prized more for their novelty than practical utility.

References

  1. [1]
    What Was the Violet Ray Machine? - IEEE Spectrum
    Sep 30, 2022 · Edgar Cayce popularized the violet ray machine, a device employing a Tesla coil which he claimed could treat any type of ailment.
  2. [2]
    The Violet Ray Generator – A Cure for All Your Ills
    It was called a Violet Ray Generator. Proponents claimed that it would cure dandruff, falling hair, rheumatism, headaches and insomnia.
  3. [3]
    Misconceptions of the Violet Ray | Tesla Universe
    By 1895, Frederick Finch Strong adapted the Tesla Coil and placed vacuum electrodes on it, thus inventing the “Violet Ray”. Although Tesla invented the power ...
  4. [4]
    Collection Item Feature: Violet Ray Machine
    Oct 16, 2019 · This device was a high frequency generator that claimed to “counteract the causes” of illnesses by use of the “violet ray” the generator produced.
  5. [5]
    Nikola Tesla and the Invention of the Violet Ray Machine - Facebook
    Oct 20, 2024 · These machines employ a Tesla coil, also known as a resonance transformer, to produce a high-frequency, low-current beam, which is then applied ...
  6. [6]
    Violet Ray Machine - Stacy A. Cordery
    Dec 17, 2010 · ... Violet Ray Machine.Violet ray machines were at their most popular in the 1920s and 1930s. Daisy Low owned one several years before then ...Missing: peak marketing
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Electrical Healing and the Violet Ray - Arthur Lee Jacobson
    The name “violet ray” occurs for the first time in 1913 in a dental journal. By 1916, inexpensive units were being sold in drugstores under this name. Medical ...
  8. [8]
    What Was the Violet Ray Machine? - IEEE Spectrum
    The violet ray machine became a popular electrotherapy in the first half of the 20th century. Historical Medical Library/College of Physicians of Philadelphia.Missing: peak | Show results with:peak
  9. [9]
    Violet Ray -1920A - Pinterest
    Jan 11, 2017 · Art from: Violet Ray -1920A. Ad for the Violet Ray, from Renulife, published in the July, 1920 issue of EVERYDAY ENGINEERING.
  10. [10]
    Storeroom Discoveriesvideo series: the renulife Violet Ray health ...
    Aug 2, 2021 · Various companies produced these machines beginning in the late 1910s. They were purported to treat a variety of conditions including tooth ache ...
  11. [11]
    https://fdanj.nlm.nih.gov/?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=ddnj&f%5Bfdanj.product%5D%5B%5D=violet%2Bray
  12. [12]
    3458. Misbranding of violet ray device. U. S. v. 2 Cases.
    Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov. 3458. Misbranding of violet ray ...Missing: quackery regulation
  13. [13]
    What Was the Violet Ray Machine? - IEEE Spectrum
    In 1951, a Maryland district court ruled against a company named Master Appliances in a libel suit. The charge was misbranding, and the court found that the ...
  14. [14]
    Tesla, quacks and violet rays - Wellcome Collection
    Dec 3, 2019 · Jacques-Arsène d'Arsonval and Paul Oudin, pioneers in the field of electrotherapy, agreed. They modified Tesla's device to create an ...
  15. [15]
    Article: Build Your Own Violet Ray Device! - Electrotherapy Museum
    Small Interrupter Components: Bottom Contact Springs, Threaded Rod, .1875 Tungsten Contact brazed to 2-56 bolt. Magnet Coils of various designs.
  16. [16]
    https://www.baar.com/violet-ray-230v-international-use
  17. [17]
    Violet Ray & High Frequency Current - - NDNR
    Feb 15, 2014 · The Violet Ray in the early 20th century was heralded as an important discovery in the field of electrotherapy. The popularity of electric ...
  18. [18]
    https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(12)01424-7/fulltext
  19. [19]
    Violet ray machine - University of Warwick
    Popular in the 1900s, the violet ray machine was an alternative form of medical treatment that transformed ordinary household electricity into a high voltage, ...Missing: peak marketing<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Electrotherapy: Stimulating Medicine - UT Health Science Center ...
    Sep 25, 2013 · The Violet Ray electrotherapy apparatus was believed to provide healthy stimulation to ease anxiety, rheumatism, and inflammatory conditions.
  21. [21]
    Shocking Dentistry — Modern Clinical Applications for an Old Dental ...
    Dec 1, 2009 · And the Violet Ray became another historic, quack device, occasionally used by counter culture therapists or erotic sex devotees (the high ...Missing: peak | Show results with:peak
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Directions for the Branston Violet Ray Machine
    Use the Ground with a vacuum tube Electrode only. Directions for Treatment. VIOLET RAY HIGH FREQUENCY. The electrode handle should always be held as shown, with ...
  23. [23]
    Article: Violet Ray Misconceptions - Electrotherapy Museum
    No person with a pacemaker should be allowed near a Violet Ray machine, the effects could be fatal. Violet Ray devices can and will interfere with nearby ...Missing: decline scrutiny
  24. [24]
    Violet Ray Machines - Electrotherapy Museum
    Vi-Ray-O Violet Ray Manual ; Vi-Rex ; Vi-Rex / Bleadon Dun Battery Operated Violet Ray (10V) ; The Scientific Method Of Combating Pain.Missing: techniques | Show results with:techniques<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    (PDF) The Effect of Ferulic Acid and D`Arsonwal's High Frequency ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · Combined treatment of acne vulgaris may be supported with success by procedures working externally on skin,. such as emission of d`Arsonwal's ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  26. [26]
    A clinical study on the efficacy of high frequency therapy ... - PubMed
    Nov 16, 2024 · Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of high frequency generator therapy on facial aging. A total of 26 participants aged between 50 ...Missing: Arsonval | Show results with:Arsonval
  27. [27]
    TENS vs. EMS: How Do These E-Stim Therapies Differ? - Healthline
    Jan 15, 2021 · TENS and EMS units use electrical currents. TENS devices may treat pain, while EMS devices may stimulate and strengthen your muscles.Missing: scientific violet ray
  28. [28]
    Do Electrical Stimulation Devices Reduce Pain and Improve Function?
    Sep 26, 2023 · A 2019 systematic review of TENS for chronic pain found the quality of the evidence to be incredibly low, while it has not been demonstrated to ...Results · Electrical Muscle... · Microcurrent Electrical...Missing: violet ray
  29. [29]
    Latest Advancements in Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve ...
    Jan 9, 2025 · TENS and Electronic Muscle Stimulation (EMS) are non-invasive therapies widely used for pain relief and neuromuscular adaptation.Tens Therapy Clinical... · Physiology Of Tens · Clinical Application And...
  30. [30]
    The effect of EMS, IFC, and TENS on patient-reported outcome ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · Interferential current (IFC) was more effective than active control (2 studies), while electromyostimulation (EMS) was generally superior to ...
  31. [31]
    Electrotherapy, Phototherapy and Quackery
    Aug 20, 2022 · Around the 1920s, a new device – the Ultra-Violet Ray Machine – became popular for home use.
  32. [32]
    A History of Medical Device Regulation & Oversight in the United ...
    Aug 21, 2023 · The FDA's oversight of food and drugs began in 1906 when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drugs Act.<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    How Pseudoscience Generated US Material and Device Regulations
    ... quackery was one reason phrenology lost adherents, but many other quack devices remained. ... Violet rays, via wand, were applied to a patient's body (see ...Missing: ray | Show results with:ray
  34. [34]
    Violet Wand Guide: History, Safety & BDSM Uses - Cara Sutra
    Jul 10, 2023 · A violet ray is an antique medical appliance, the origin of which can be traced back to the late 1800s. Nikola Tesla introduced his first ...
  35. [35]
    The Violet Ray - 20th Century medical history & modern-day BDSM ...
    Aug 3, 2017 · The History of Violet Rays. Violet ray devices used to be manufactured in the thousands for medical / theraputic use known as "Electrotherapy".
  36. [36]
    Violet Ray for sale - eBay
    4.5 3K New ListingRENULIFE VIOLET RAY GENERATOR Model F ANTIQUE MEDICAL 2 Wands Tested 1920's. $449.99. or Best Offer. $19.40 shipping ; VTG Master Violet Appliances ...
  37. [37]
    Vintage 1920's renulife violet ray generator for sale - Facebook
    All seems to be complete with all the original paperwork in fantastic condition!! Message me if interested.. $685 OBO W/ Free US Shipping & Handling.. This is a ...
  38. [38]
    David Lynch | Vintage Halliwell Violet Ray Medical Quack Device
    David Lynch. David Lynch. Vintage Halliwell Violet Ray Medical Quack Device. Watch. Estimate. $200 - $300. Sold Price. $1,950. Buyer's Premium 27% + Online ...Missing: antique value
  39. [39]
    Violet Wands - Violet Ray
    Our Classic and Vintage devices have been fully restored to the highest of modern electrical standards. The cases and interiors are either tip top original ...
  40. [40]
    https://www.violetwands.com/violet-wand-history/