it’s totally individual…you have to experiment for yourself.
This link may help:
I get that there’s a significant level of individual variation involved with this sort of stuff, and maybe I didn’t make my previous post as clear as I’d intended. But basically, I’m curious why on many threads in this forum I’m reading both that people generally seem to respond better to lower frequency settings - at the same time as I’m reading lots of people saying that they’re choosing a stacked configuration. It sounds like a contradiction. I feel as if there must be something I’m missing, because the only reason I can see that someone would choose a stacked configuration is if 1) they’re only wanting to affect a single, very small area of tissue, and 2) they’ve already maxed out the intensity setting on their device, aren’t seeing results, and so decide to crank it even higher by popping the coils on top of each other… which doesn’t sound like a situation that would crop up especially frequently.
Simply stated: is there something I’m missing about the theoretical mechanism of action of stacking coils vs. simply turning your device a little higher?
In response to:
It is not necessarily that people respond better to lower frequency, it is that most people respond best to medium levels of intensity (not frequency, two entirely different things)
But some people, some times, for some applications do respond better to higher intensity, therefore stacking the coils makes sense, sometimes. But stacking the coils does more than just increase the intensity, it also influences the shape and direction of the magnetic flux lines. Whether or not this strategy works better for you: it depends, and there is generally no way to know until you try and see for yourself. It is just one more variation that you can try.
Hey Bob, thanks so much for the clarification. Yes, I used the wrong word and meant to say intensity. But I’m also glad to hear that stacking the coils changes the flux lines. When you originally responded to mrlirwin, you only mentioned that this coil configuration increases the field’s intensity - which seemed so odd, considering how often people seem to use it. This makes so much more sense to me now, knowing it also changes the shape of the field.
Although I’ve used Soma Pulse and the A9, I consider myself a novice. I just ordered a C5 and own a Brain Gauge which I have only used once. My intention is to experiment with cognitive functioning to improve baseline Brain Gauge scores. However, I’ve been scouring the videos and the forum regarding suggested starting points for cranial coil placement. I wonder where this information might be located. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
this tbi study with ices used front/back of head placement
Bob likes trans-temporal placement. his post is searchable in this forum
I have been experimenting with coils in side-by-side cerebellum placement.
if you do a forum search with keywords such as brain, you will get plenty of hits.
1 Like
great thanks! oops forgot about the search feature haha… Just joined yesterday.
The main thing to keep in mind is that most often, people respond somewhat differently. I once stood by and watched three people argue about which pattern was best for helping to induce deep sleep: delta, theta, or alpha.
Which one was right?
Answer: all three, because they had each taken the time to self-experiment to find the pattern that worked best for them individually.
My opinion: if you just follow the basic guidelines for use of ICES-PEMF devices, the best way to determine what works best for you is to try for yourself, experiment a bit, and see.
funny… i’ve been sleeping past few nights w/4 coils (splitter, using a9) on the back of my head… i can actually feel a sense of comfort or field of relaxation as the pulsing, buzzing beats work my brain. the omni 8 works just fine 
hi @Bob, i have an a9 and splitter… using the splitter, i understand setting the coils side by side touching each other broadens the magnetic field but the power is also lessened per coil. would i get deeper penetration using 2 coils vs 2 stacked on each side (4 total), sandwiching the body part i want to work on… this would be set to X setting. I’m just wondering if there’s any advantage stacking vs single coil at a higher power setting…
If you want to achieve more depth of field penetration, I suggest you do not use a splitter. It adds a small electrical inefficiency to the system, unavoidable when any connector is used.
For maximum depth of penetration using the model A9: stack the two coils, from a single pair of coils, do not use a splitter.
thank you… is there anyway to gauge measure of depth for single, stacked, splitter single, splitter stacked? I know it may be trying to simplify a more accurate mathematical expression, but was hoping for practical purposes and lay terms if there’s a way to express depth.
The only way I know of is to build a high-speed, micro-second-resolution magnetometer (I have built one for this purpose). It would be about as difficult as building yourself a smartphone, so unless you have a lot of experience in electronic design, this is way out of range. Basically though, that will only tell you about magnetic field strength at a certain point in space and time. It does not tell you anything about the biological response to that magnetic pulse. I think it is correct to say that there is no way known to current science to determine just how much of a pulse is necessary to elicit the desired biological effect, thus any measurement of the electro-magnetic pulse itself will only get you half-way to an answer. I have been working to find the answer for the second half (the biological half) of this problem for over two decades now.
The only thing we can say for sure is that is if you configure the device and coils as I have described, you will get the maximum depth of penetration. Exactly how that relates to “depth of biological effect” remains unknown. Since individual responses vary quite a lot, I would go so far as to say it might be unknowable.
I guess it is sort of like asking the question:
"How much food is enough?’
It depends: how hungry are you? how big are you? How active are you? When was the last time you ate?..
My point: human biological variability is generally greater than specific electro-magnetic numbers related to PEMF, so the best answer always seems to land on the same spot: try and see what works for you.
1 Like
i just noticed the video shows the coils stacked bumpy facing each other:
shouldn’t it be smooth facing in same direction?
UPDATE:
coil configuration addressed here:
1 Like
hi @Bob and forum members!
if we wanted to saturate our organ that is a bit deeper in the core of our body like the liver, pancreas, or even parts of our brain with a magnetic pulse, what would you recommend the power level be set to?
i am working with an a9 for now, and hoped to make the most out of that. i also use an audio splitter and understand that it does affect output.
I know that we all can have different reactions to pemf, but what i wanted to nail down is depth of magnetic pulse to the target area.
for example, I’d i wanted to ensure my liver was getting saturated or well reached by pemf.
- would i accomplish this by setting my a9 on high and using the audio splitter to sandwich the area (run a pair of coils on each side)?
- is that enough or too much?
- should i just remove the splitter and lower the power to medium
- should i keep the splitter and use each pair of coils placed side by side on each side of my body and set to max power?
if I know what my baseline minimum setting and placement should be to reach/saturate my target area, then i can be assured I’m reaching my target and can begin adjusting the other variables such as my power level, time, frequency etc etc in my self experimentation.
thoughts?
I find personally that two strategies work well for reaching very deep organs/tissues, such as hip joints and liver/pancreas/deep gut.
I base this on theory, direct measurements, and to a large extent on observations and feedback, whether or not this approach works.
Strategies (briefly):
1- Stack coils, bumpy-to-bumpy side
2- Use coils on opposite sides (bumpy-sides away from skin)
Other strategies such as the use of coil splitters etc., do not work as well for a number of theoretical and practical reasons. In general, they tend to lose energy at electrical joints and when spread over larger areas.
Think of it sort of like an adjustable-beam flashlight: the more you focus the beam, the farther it will penetrate. Every time you bend, reflect, split or disperse the beam, it loses some energy.
So, for deepest penetration of the magnetic fields, the strategy should be to employ a focused magnetic field.
There are two ways to do this, described above, as strategies 1 and 2.
Strategy 1 works well because it builds a longer electro-magnetic solenoid (stacked coils), and the magnetic flux lines are shot directly out along the axis of the solenoid. On-axis magnetic fields drop off only at 1/r^3, whereas off-axis the magnetic fields can drop off as quickly as 1/r^4. So stacked coils give you two advantages: longer solenoid coil and denser magnetic flux that projects farther from the end of the solenoid.
The second strategy is to use coils on opposite sides (bumpy sides away from the skin). This is based on the fact that magnetism from two sources interact in an utterly different way than beams of light: two flashlights do not suck in or repel the light beams of each other. But the fields from one magnet will interact with a second magnet. So, if you line the coils up properly on opposite sides (bumpy sides away from the skin on both sides) the magnetic fields will tend to be pulled into each coil, forming a football-shaped magnetic field pattern between the coils. This allows you to pull the magnetic field lines together at each end (each coil), thus concentrating the field lines between the coils. If you place the coils on opposite sides of the tissue to be treated, the tissues will be in this area of concentrated magnetic flux lines. I have measured this, and it seems to work as theoretically predicted out to distances of 13-14 inches between coils, which means you can try this anywhere on your body that is not much more than about a foot thick.
A third strategy which works well, but requires a model C5, is to use our deep field coils. We specifically stack, assemble, and test the coils from multiple C5 outputs to make sure their magnetic fields are added up, resulting in stronger fields and deeper reach for the deepest tissues.
And for the intensity setting: the higher the setting, the more deeply the fields will penetrate.
5 Likes
This just occurred to me… if we stack the coils both facing one way (smooth on top of bumpy), how is the magnetic field affected? is it still magnified or changed?
I understand (NOW) that the field is negated if placed this way across from each other (sandwiched) just by using the tester in between.
I’m wondering if this explains why my friend didn’t benefit from the ices when using for their sciatica 
… there was NO relief. back then i didn’t understand as much as i do now the many uses, and I was not there to guide the usage.
If you stack the coils the wrong way (bumpy-to-smooth), at any distance, they cancel. The exact amount of cancellation is a very complex computation, but basically you negate 80% to 99% of the effect. If the coils are improperly stacked and very far apart, the effect is less. If they are stacked directly together the wrong way, the magnetic field cancellation is nearly total.
Since ICES-PEMF is very flexible to use (not child-proof), it is also necessarily possible to use it the incorrect way. This happens from time to time, and it seem to explain most of the reasons why about 6% of people do not see any benefit. But once we get people past this mistake, more often than not they find that the system works very well for them when properly configured.
1 Like
excellent. thank you, there is renewed hope in trying this for my friend again!