Flux Health Forum

Coil placement

PEMF Basics
#1

Hello, I’m new to the forum and eagerly awaiting the M1 I just ordered!!

I have 2 questions regarding coil placement - apologies if they’ve already been answered elsewhere:

Does stacking coils change the shape of the magnetic field or simply intensify the field - in the same way that selecting a higher power level would intensify it?

This second question is probably a bit self-evident but I wanted to ask just to be sure… I’ve read that there are only 3 coil configurations: stacked, side-by-side, and across the body. But I’m assuming that there is also theoretically a fourth position: simply placing 1 coil on one small treatment area and the 2nd on a separate, unrelated treatment area. I understand that neither coil would penetrate very deep. But assuming both target tissues were relatively superficial and had a small enough circumference, there’d be no problem having the coils positioned apart from one another, right?

Thanks for help!

1 Like
#2

If you stack the coils directly you get a gain in intensity of 60% to 70%. This happens every time you double the coils, as long as:
1- they are synchronized
and
2-They are independently powered (not using a coil splitter, et al.)

Placing coils independently, one-by-one: that will work. That is a strategy often used by equine acupuncturists, for example.
In reality, there are many different ways to place the coils, but I only generally recommend the main 3 ways, because more than that, and people tend to get lost in the technical details.

1 Like
#3

This is good to know. If placed independently and not facing each other, do M1 coils still need to have same side facing skin?

#4

I think it would still be a good Idea to have both coils with the smooth side facing the skin.

3 Likes
#5

I’m curious why so many people seem to use stacked coils, if this doesn’t change the shape of the field (ie. focusing it so that it penetrates deeper), but instead only increases the intensity. I thought that usually you wouldn’t want to increase the intensity, as a low-medium setting works best for most situations? And if your intent is simply to penetrate deeper into a tissue, wouldn’t it generally work best to attempt across-the-body placement of the coils?

(Sorry if these are dumb questions!)

#6

it’s totally individual…you have to experiment for yourself.
This link may help:

#7

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?

#8

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.

#9

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.

#10

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.

#11


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
#12

great thanks! oops forgot about the search feature haha… Just joined yesterday.

#13

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.

#14

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 :slight_smile:

#15

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…

#16

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.

#17

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.

#18

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
#19

i just noticed the video shows the coils stacked bumpy facing each other:

shouldn’t it be smooth facing in same direction?

#20

UPDATE:
coil configuration addressed here:

1 Like