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!
Good to hear it. It would be good to hear back on this forum if changing the coil configuration has better results. That would be helpful to a lot of people.
1 Like
Hi Bob,
I’ve been using the A9b for several years with great results for sports injuries, Dupuytren, soft tissue rheumatism and brain fog. And I’ve recommended ICES to quite a bunch of people, who are happy with ICES too. I use a whole body PEMF system too, but find that ICES is stronger.
I have chronic leaky gut and autoimmune issues and I’d like to try to address the leaky gut with ICES and I’m thinking of getting a C5 or B5 for this. (I’m a software engineer and biohacker and would not have any issues with parametrizing that would be required for the B5).
I guess the deep field coils you’ve mentioned in your above post would not only work with the C5 but also the B5? I understand that 1 deep field coil configuration would occupy 2 ports. The C5/B5 would then be able to fit 2 deep field coils, correct?
I guess that with all coil configurations for a gut treatment the coils would be placed on different locations on the gut that are changed from session to session?
Which of the following coil configurations would you prefer or test for a gut treatment (small and large intestines)?
A) Two deep field coils
B) 4 coil pairs (i.e. 8 coils) put together in a 2x4 array
C) 2 coil pairs (i.e. 4 coils) in a 2x2 array on the tummy and a 2x2 array on the back
D) 4 2x2 coil arrays put together as an 4x4 “mat configuration”
E) 2 2x2 coil arrays on the tummy in a and 2x4 configuration on the tummy and a 2x4 array-config on the back. (I’m thin, so the coils would be well within the range of 13 inches)
F) any other configuration (including stacked ones…)?
I would like to run the sessions during the night. I’ve had the best success with ICES when I ran the A0/Omni sessions for a whole night.
I guess, I would try the A9 or Omni1 protocols first, but P2 and B5 look interesting too.
As far as I can see from the B5 manual the intensity has to be set before selecting the protocol. With the current B5 model it therefore would not be possible to change intensities during one session, correct?
I guess the optimal intensity for an application is individual (it has to be in the eustress-range). On top, the intestines have quite a depth, so cycling intensities might allow to bring the best intensity for healing to different depth.
Would there be a way somehow to get the B5 cycle through a range of intensities (for instance L-M-L-M-L-M… or M-H-M-H-M… or L-M-H-L-M-H…)?
Overall when trying to find maximum intensities I have found that using HRV measurements (during the night for instance through continuous 5min measurements with the OURA ring) to be a good feedback indicator to judge if intensities are too high (=> HRV decreases).
Any thoughts and feedback on the above would be highly appreciated.
Thanks a lot and kind regards
Axel
Axel,
Very happy to hear that you are getting good results from our ICES tech. Thanks for letting me know.
It is also very interesting that you noticed that ICES is stronger than many of the supposed “whole body” PEMF systems. I have verified that by direct magnetic field measurement, and you are correct. But in general I avoid direct comparisons with these crude “whole body” devices, so I have never mentioned that verifiable fact before. I am trying not to confuse people because there is way too much fraud in this area, so I try to keep the messages simple.
The explanation is this of course: ICES-PEMF generates very strong fields, but they are concentrated to a small focal area. The larger, more powerful (and inefficient) PEMF systems try to spread their whole field energy over a larger volume of space to be able to claim a “whole body” PEMF system, but in fact that is not really physically possible, and they just end up squandering a huge amount of energy into empty space with no clinical benefit. The whole thing is sort of silly, like trying to spread a single pat of butter over a whole loaf of bread, then claiming they sell “Whole Loaf” pats of butter. If you understand basic physical concepts like conservation of energy, then you realize how silly these types of claims are.
Also, I think you are probably going to like the effects of a C5 for your leaky gut. Many people have given me very positive feedback on this, with people’s issues ranging from minor gut issues to cripplingly severe Crohn’s… all of them tell me the benefits are really impressive. Maybe 2 out of 20 or 30 people tell me their benefits were “modest”, but the vast majority, I would say ~ 90%, really see excellent benefits.
As for a C5 versus a B5: I actually use a C5 myself, since I find it easier to use than a B5 (I designed them both of course), but most of the time I just want something that just works without a lot of fiddling around. I use the B5 as the core for my research, currently testing the effects of PEMF on type 1 diabetic mice, for example, and PEMF on seed germination.
But the B5 and C5 are identical in terms of hardware, so both have identical drive capability, number and types of outputs, etc. In fact, it is easy to program a B5 to be a C5. The deep field coil assembly requires two output ports, so you can put two of them on either a B5 or a C5.
For a gut treatment, interesting you should ask. My sister just asked for the same thing, for the same reasons, and I gave it a lot of thought recently. Here is what I suggest:
I would get a C5 with 2 sets of 2x2 coil arrays, and two sets of deep field coils. You can use these in various combinations to really treat your entire gut, deep and near the surface, large areas and small. So, that is what I sent my sister a few weeks ago, and she really likes it.
Yes: settings are not changeable during use. This is by design, to prevent inadvertent parameter resetting during mobility and ambulatory use. These systems tend to get banged around a lot by some people.
Optimal intensity and pulse pattern are definitely individual. But I would suggest you also consider using Alpha Wave and Schumann 4.
I do not have an option to vary the intensity during use, but that is more of a technical issue rather than by design. Being a programmer, you may appreciate this. I am demanding enough of the internal resources of the microcontroller that some of its performance is not quite as specified. Anyone who programs microcontrollers professionally will tell you that while most of the internal resources work as advertised, when you try to use all of the resources, performance can get glitchy. This is the case with the microcontroller used in the basic architecture of the M1/C5/B5, which overall has excellent performance, but in one aspect it has a weakness. I think it has something to do with the memory pagination or internal registers for the DAC. If your code exceeds a certain size in memory, the device can no longer address the 5-bit DAC control register, so it becomes impossible for the code to access and modify the DAC output register, which is how the output intensity is controlled (by setting the voltage scaler for the external DC-DC converter). I spent many hours trying to work around this, but it seems to be an inherent problem with the microcontroller hardware/registers. So, the result is that the DAC works perfectly when the first page of code is executed, but then the DAC control register becomes inaccessible when the main loop of the code is executed. This is fine with me, because that is the function I wanted anyway, and for anyone but the most hard-core geeks this is not really important, so I just decided that I would look at this behavior as a “feature” not a hardware/register glitch.
Thus, unfortunately, intensity cycling is not really possible with the B5/C5, sorry.
The use of feedback, especially HRV, is an excellent Idea. I think you will find that the device is most effective for you at intermediate intensities. Too much really is too much, and almost everyone gets the best response from mid-range intensities.
Also, you may note (as I have) that your individual requirement for intensity changes over time (weeks or months), and often the need for intensity reduces slowly over time.
1 Like
Bob, thanks a lot for your reply. This is most helpful.
I totally understand the glitches you have with the DAC registers.
Are you already working on a new version and could you give any hints as to a potential roadmap for a next gen ICES model?
Regarding the coil placement of the deep coils, you would use 2 2x2 coil arrays and 1x deep coils in combination? Do you have a specific pattern for the coil configuration in mind (i.e. 2x2array left, 1xdeep coils in the middle, 2x2 array on the right)?
And would you use different sessions for placing the configuration on the upper/middle/lower abdomen, or do you think it is enough to center that configuration let’s say a bit below the navel?
When using 2 deep coil pairs - how much distance would you leave between them - would you put them close to each other (touching) or would you leave a gap - and if so, would you have any guidance on how much apart?
It’s interesting you are suggesting Schumann 4. So you are still experimenting with the Schumann frequencies? I thought from your note at the end of the B5/C5 manuals, that you are sceptical that those frequencies might get cancelled out by the earth’s frequencies if not completely synchronised. So, chances are, that sessions might be more in sync than others?
Regarding intensities - I to have seen that the need for higher intensities tends to come down over time. With the Dupuytren I’ve noticed that it did not do anything on the highest intensity level, but melt it away with medium to high levels.
Yes, I am more or less continuously working on the next gen (7.0) ICES. It will have a lot of features that allow much more flexibility in pulse pattern control/design, better battery performance, improved coil design… basically as many improvements as I can possibly include. Perhaps the biggest change this time is that I am not doing this alone, because now I have a very strong team of engineers working on a vast array of improvements. This is the FluxHealth technical team. It will of course take 6 - 12 months to overcome the many barriers to a new product release… that’s my best guess. We don’t even have the first prototype yet, and any product like this requires a lot of testing.
Combinations of coils: yes, you can do any combination like that. This will be especially helpful when different areas are injured differently.
Different sessions: I would definitely experiment, and carefully record the results, to find out what approach works best for you. Then it would be great to report that back on this Forum.
Distance between deep field coils: Again, I would try all different placement strategies to see what works best for you.
Schumann: Yes, they happen to operate in a wide range of physiologically-relevant frequencies. It is not that they are special secret magical mystical “frequencies” that resonate with the Earth Mother Goddess and communicate with the cosmic consciousness on the Akashic plane with the multi-dimensional Avuncular Alien Overlords. The simple truth is that the Schumann frequencies are simply in a broad, flat range that mammalian physiology seems to be sensitive to: roughly from 3 or 4 Hz to 30 or 40. Nothing magical or mystical. Nothing to build an alter to. Nothing to be afraid of. Nothing to be ashamed of.
And it s not that I am concerned that those frequencies will cancel with those of the well known, non-mystical thin shell resonance of the Earth’s ionosphere (Schumann), It is that there will simply be no known phase relationship with said frequencies, that cancellation is just as likely as wave summation, any resonance would be transient and occur by chance, and that those levels of energy when looked at from the perspective of a human-sized bag of salt water on the surface of the earth… those (Schumann) energies are so tiny as to be irrelevant, in my scientific opinion.
Medium intensity versus high: YES. CORRECT!!! Please repeat this message over and over again. The real struggle here is against ubiquitous fraud in PEMF marketing. The truth is simply this:
You need a clean, efficient, biophysically effective waveform, not massive Gauss. Please repeat that to anyone you think might be intelligent enough to grasp it. And encourage them to pass it on as well.
thanks
1 Like
@Axel, have you tried the A9b on your gut already and if so, what were your observed effects? For us with the M1 after 15minutes at power 9, it can cause some serious die off for some in our family. We have been working to reduce heavy e. coli and heavy yeast. After getting through the herxheimer reaction there was much greater clarity as I shared in another post. Also as mentioned elsewhere I am a fan of ICES water based on the effects we have experienced. That could be another angle for you to try in addition to deep field coils. Please do share your experiences on the forum.
TajD,
Natto is an effective way to get your gut bugs in order. It has been known to work when strong antibiotics have failed for things like dysentery, C. dificile, etc. You can buy natto in many Asian stores and health food stores. Eating a small amount with each meal may solve your problem. Rather than bother everyone with a lengthy post, you can email me for more detail at jfnemail@gmail.com. You may also want to try Saccharomyces Boulardii, a probiotic yeast that crowds out harmful yeasts.
/Jon
Thanks a lot Bob for sharing your roadmap to V7 and thank you for your insights regarding the Schumann frequencies.
I’ll go by your recommendations and get a C5 instead of the more flexible B5. The fact that you only have 5 seconds on each screen in the B5 really sounds like the flexibility comes at a cost - i.e. that the operation of the B5 can get frustrating. I guess that you have put a lot of time, knowhow and experience into designing the protocols and there is not really a need to change these. The only flexibility I would have wished for is cycling through different intensity levels during a session as mentioned earlier, maybe that’s then possible in V7 or future versions. For now I’m happy to stick with what’s available.
Thanks!
Hi @TajD, gut issues including leaky gut can have many causes. The gut might get inflamed due to toxins, food allergies and intolerances, unhealthy (SAD) diet with lots of processed foods, dysbiosis of the microbiome (maybe due to antibiotics, lack of fibers, …), parasites, bacterial or viral infections, hormonal imbalances, a lack of stomach acid, decreased level of digestive enzymes, stress, a weakened immune system, poor sleep quality, too less or too much exercise, etc. Often it is a combination of factors.
Beside the triggers, gut problems vary hugely by severity and duration. Chronic leaky gut will sooner or later lead to a rising number of food intolerances that show up in IgA/IgG/IgM tests, followed by an increasing probability for autoimmune issues.
Leaky gut over time also leads to the breakdown of other barriers, including the blood-brain-barrier causing brain fog and other issues. You might have paracellular leaky gut or transcellular leaky gut, which would further add to the challenges.
Because of all these factors, treatment of gut problems can be highly individual and has to be personalised.
I would have the following general recommendations:
- Identify the relevant triggers and remove as many as you can.
=> Avoid toxins - environmental as well as toxins in foods. Gluten in combination with glyphosate is a common trigger, preservatives, heavy metals in larger fish, hormones and antibiotics in meat, mold(!!), etc. household cleaners, BPA, …, potentially EMFs, … - Improve/optimise your elimination pathways (lymph, bowel movements (2-3/d), drinking enough water, sweating, …)
- Support liver and kidneys (milk thistle, etc.) to optimise detoxification including bile production and flow (bitter herbs, etc.)
- Optimise your diet (eliminate foods you are intolerant to - the top offenders usually are gluten, dairy, eggs, nightshades, sometimes legumes (think lectins), and histamine rich or inducing foods), aiming at a anti-inflammatory diet
- Support digestion (chew your food properly, check if you have enough stomach acid and if not use BetaineHCl+Pepsin, add digestive enzymes if needed)
- support the microbiome (think pre-/probiotics, etc.) and support the gut lining and tight junctions (butyrate, L-glutamine, marshmellow, DGL, …)
- Work on parasites/yeast (candida)/bacterial and viral infections in the gut
- Optimize your lifestyle (stress management, exercise, sleep/regeneration, …)
- use ICES
Bob Naviaux’s cell danger response (CDR) mechanism offers a good hypothesis of why and how ICES/PEMF might work. It goes beyond the scope of this post to dig into this, but it’s highly interesting. But bottom line is that PEMF could stimulate mitochondria to overcome blockages in phase 1 or 2 of the CDR (maybe through activation/stimulating VGCC - voltage gated Ca channels and increased eNOS/nNOS levels). I see ICES/PEMF as a kind of exercise tool for the mitochondria. As with physical exercise, the goal should be to create enough stimulus (eustress or positive stress), that growth and healing is triggered, and avoid overstimulation, which leads to negative distress on the cells/muscles/organs.
When coming from this perspective, it makes a lot of sense talk about individual intensity levels in the treatment. As much as the optimal exercise level depends on the strength and fitness of a person (or the lack thereof), optimal ICES/PEMF intensity levels are potentially very individual. Like with biophotomodulation devices that emit waves in the red and infrared spectrum, it could very well be that certain frequencies will work better than others. And likewise it could be that only certain intensities work for certain cell-environments.
Back to the gut: While it is releatively easy to observe reactions to ICES treatments in acute inflammatory conditions like sports injuries, pain, eczema, etc. it is much more difficult to get feedback for treatments of gut issues. You might be “lucky”, to get obvious signs (e.g. rumbling in the digestive tract when you do a treatment or stopping of it, better bowel movements, etc.), but you might as well get no immediate feedback you could interpret (the gut has no pain nerves, …).
Another problem might be that you might not know which parts of the gut is inflamed (=> single spots? locations?, …).
I therefore would aim to cover a larger area of the gut and also vary the location of the coils. I like Bob’s idea to combine 2x2 coils with deep-field-coils.
As we don’t really know which are the optimal intensities and frequencies to give the best healing stimulus, I’d try to increase the chances to hit a sweet spot of healing by using different intensities (most probably lower to medium-high) and frequencies. I’ll try to use HRV as a feedback to detect overstimulus/adverse reactions to ICES treatment protocols. In case HRV goes significantly down during a treatment and does not recover within 2-3 hours, that would be a sign that the stimulus was too strong. And as Bob hinted out, the sweet spot stimulus might change over the course of the healing!
I’d also target the liver, kidneys, gall-bladder and pancreas to support the healing of the gut.
This is my menu when thinking of a gut treatment. You only might need parts of the above menu, depending on your individual situation and challenges. More severe cases will definitely require a systematic approach.
I hope this helps. Sending you my best wishes!