Why Longer Sessions Create More Reliable Effects For Imprinting?

I was the first trainer to present a webinar on Imprinting. My reason for mentioning that, is because my ongoing research has led me to new information very worth sharing. Originally, with the Ah Method, creating saved Programs at a 0.5 Dwell does get the job done - quickly. However, since that time I figured out the leaving the Dwell at its default of 180 seconds - and changing the Dwell Multiplier to .003 of a created preset (and also using the option of, “Out 2 Runs Every Second Frequency” - is a much easier way to go for the same results. The frequencies are still applied the same number of times in the recommended 5 passes. All good, right? Stay with me here. I know we are all about having the process of Imprinting go as quickly as possible . We do, after all, live in a microwave society. Things have to happen FAST, however the fastest choice is not always the best choice. While five full passes are enough to initiate an imprint, it may not be sufficient for stability over time. For more durable results, extend the session well beyond the minimum cycles. A practical range is 15–30 minutes for small materials, and up to 45–60 minutes for larger or denser imprint media. This ensures the frequencies are layered deeply enough into the substrate to resist fading or disruption. NOTE: It is not possible to “overexpose” a material in a way that ruins the imprint. Once the carrier medium has absorbed the information, continued exposure mostly reaches a plateau effect, where no additional strength is gained. Running longer than an hour is unlikely to add benefit and may slightly reduce clarity due to field blending, but it will not damage the imprint. Efficiency peaks around 30–60 minutes, so sessions beyond this are usually unnecessary. Also, Imprints will bleed into one another unless you store them properly: kitchen foil is the way to go. So there it is, you can do it fast and it will work, but if you do it for a longer time the imprinted material will contain more stable and reliable effects. I've written a more extensive paper on this, and perhaps in the future I'll do another webinar on the subject. There it is: did I get it wrong in the first place? Obviously yes, but also no. I did not get the facts wrong, but at the time I did not know all the facts. The truth is that I learn from my mistakes, and I am very willing to make lots of mistakes.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/spooky2/permalink/3206834322811782/