What are the associated power levels with settings L M H XH?
Similar to “Why is the sky blue?”, in this case a very short and ostensibly simple question requires a lengthy detailed technical answer, so here goes…
That turns out to be an impossibly complex technical question. Gauss is NOT a unit of power, so that can not be an answer for your question. Suffice it to say:
L = LOW
M = Medium
H = High
and
X = Extra-high and I usually advise people to stay with L-M-H
**************** MORE TECHNICAL DETAIL *****************
How were these established? They are based on a series of experiments and studies carried out at GLP laboratories, L, M, and H are the range that covers desirable biological responses. Below “L”, we did not see much, and above H, certainly above X, we did not see any appreciable biological benefit.
These are not “power” levels, they are measures of the key ICES-PEMF parameters at a specific point in space at a known orientation between standard coils at a defined spacing using a specific, calibrated high-speed analog Hall effect sensor.
Technically, they are not “power” levels; they are levels of the peak vector of the magnetic flux density slew rate at the point in space and under the conditions described in the paragraph above, while holding other electro-magnetic parameters constant.
But, absolutely most importantly: PEMF products are not standardized, and almost all PEMF products have performance data that is absolutely incorrect by a factor of 10 to 100x, so it is literally quite impossible to compare PEMF systems by any measures they generally publish. Even more importantly, if that is even possible, there is absolutely no way to find a path from “Gauss” or “frequency” or “power” to determine what you should be applying to yourself. Those are not the primary quantities to consider, and our current state of knowledge about PEMF is incomplete anyway. That information will simply never lead you anywhere truly useful.
In the final analysis, all that matters is what really works, and I have spent several decades sorting through every available scientific paper, in every language, and running every experiment I can run, to find the range of PEMF from within the enormous range of possibilities that works. The tip of the scientific iceberg of my findings has been published here:
Pretty much you would need to review every paper in that journal related to PEMF (some are not authored by me). Those will point you toward the larger global literature on PEMF, which is several thousand papers spanning about 6 decades.
So, to make PEMF usable to people, I did my best to present it in a simple, approachable way so people could choose the right setting in an easy way: L M H and X. Those 4 settings on the A9 represent the distillation of thousands of papers and thousands of hours of my own research into a usable and effective product the size of a deck of cards. So, based on all of my many years of experience, you can think of it this way:
L = very low for especially sensitive people or surface injuries
M = average, for most people and most injuries
H = high, if you need more than average, or the injury is deep or severe
X = very high, for people with low responsiveness to PEMF, or the severest injuries
I had seen on various posts people referring to and recommending the use of certain power levels for treatment., say “5” or “13”. I wanted to know if there was a numeric scale that could be applied to the A9.
There is, but it is extremely technical and not really practical for the user… even I do not think about it that way except to validate designs and test devices before we ship them.
The practical way I think about it is this: when you adjust your stereo or TV volume, do you say “ah, I think I want 47 decibels”? My guess, probably not. What I do is turn the device ON, and adjust it to suit my needs. Admittedly PEMF is not as easy as that, mainly because it takes hours or days to get a sense for how much is enough. Also take into account that people are highly variable in their response to PEMF, and even for the same person, different injuries in different anatomical locations will respond differently. So, there is literally no way to use numbers to map PEMF intensity into depth of tissue penetration for effective biological responses.
PEMF marketers will just give you easy (and dishonest) answers to this and all other PEMF-related questions. But I am no marketer, I am a scientist, and my responsibility is to help clear up the endless stream of PEMF misinformation, as uncomfortable as it may be to hear some of that.
All of that being said, if you can uncouple the need for numbers (which will not help you in this case) with a willingness to try, test, and adjust, you will quickly find the right setting for your particular needs.
My suggestion for the practical use of ICES-PEMF:
1- Start with the default settings (Omni8) on Medium (M) or High (H)
If it is a C5 or M1, try intensity setting 9 (default)
Decision tree:
If irritating: reduce intensity
If it works, consider small adjustments, but generally stick with it
If it just does not work, consider increasing intensity if you are on a medium setting or reducing the intensity if you started with a very high setting. Many people respond much better to intermediate intensity, and not as well to high intensity
Then consider a different coil orientation (there are three basic ones)
Then try asking about it on this forum to see if anyone has a specific trick for your specific application.
Make adjustments, allow a day or two if necessary to see any changes, and so forth. Most people hit upon exactly what they need within 3 or 4 tries.
General Variations:
If the injury is superficial, consider starting with lower intensity.
If the injury is deep, consider starting with higher intensity
Will it work for a specific deep injury? Maybe, but you can’t calculate your way to an answer. Its best to try different intensities and coil orientations, pay attention to your responses, take notes if necessary, adjust, try again. When you do this, it really tends to converge on a good answer pretty quickly.
Perhaps this question is dealt with elsewhere, but the subject is A9 power levels, and Bob’s answer above may make the question moot, but does an extension affect the “power” level?
For instance, I find the 1 foot length (coils) somewhat inconvenient, and I ordered the 42 inch extension. Would the extended length weaken the electrical power such that I should use H when I would use M with the shorter length or M when I would normally try L (at the short length), should I bump it up to M with the longer? I know this is an old thread, but some others may have a similar question.
Yes there is some energy loss. Mostly it is from the additional electrical contact resistance (electrical connectors are not perfect) when you use extender cables, but the total loss for just long coils versus short coils, without an extension adapter cable, is only about 15%. You would probably get the same effectiveness without needing to increase the intensity, or you might benefit from bumping it up a notch, it will depend on your individual circumstances, so you’d have to experiment with it.