Flux Health Forum

Comparing first 4 protocols on M-1 (M1)

Hello! Can someone break down the differences between these first 4 protocols listed on the M 1 ? In particular, I am trying to figure out if I would ever want to use the first 3 since the Omni 8 seems to be the most inclusive. Is there any benefit (generally) of trying the first 3 over the Omni 8?

I see the mention of 5/100 but not sure what that is and not sure what unipolar is. And what do the plus/minus indicate? If that’s negative frequency, that seems logically impossible since, how could it exist?

For me I would rule out the P2 since I don’t like the idea of resting at all but just want to hit it hard so to speak. I tried reading each description of C5 and P2 but not sure how they differ from M1.

Maybe I just need to understand these basic scientific/electronic differences better which may make it hard for me to grasp the differences in each protocol. I’m looking for the simple answer.

Looks like Omni 8 is all inclusive except for the 5/100 + and 5/100 - . Is that correct?

Here is what the specs say:

– B5 – C5 – (5, 100+, 100-, 10, 5/100+, 5/100-); +/- = unipolar
– A9 – (classic, before 5/2016) (5, 100+, 100-); +/- = unipolar
– P2 – (5, 100+, 100-, rest 20 min) = SomaPulse, AllevaWave…
– Omni 8 – (5, 100+, 100-, 3.9, 7.1, 10.4, 13.7, 16.9) = A9 now

@Bob - can you help explain this or tell me where to look for the answer. Thanks

Hi @Avi, that is an excellent question. The answer is that those protocols derived from my earliest attempts to make PEMF as biologically effective as possible for general structural tissue healing and regeneration. This started about 2 decades ago. The pulse patterns initially were based on the nerve impulse patterns of a developing fetus in utero, known from studies in Developmental Biology, which I was involved in as a graduate student.

For most of the tissue mass of the developing body, this is mainly tissues of the neuro-musculo-skeletal system. During early to mid development in utero, the fetus will twitch its muscles often, reacting to neural impulses that code for the development of fast and slow twitch muscle. The growth and development of the entire neuro-musculo-skeletal system depends on these nerve impulse patterns. If the patterns are not present during development, the fetus will not develop properly. This includes muscle, but also bone, tendon, ligament, articular cartilage, and motor neurons, as well as the motor areas of the brain. So, these pulse patterns are essential for early in utero development, and I reasoned that, since biology tends to conserve useful chemical structures, genes, and internal signals of all types, that even an adult organism would probably use these same pulse patterns to signal growth and development. That was my working hypothesis as I began to develop ICES-PEMF technology more than 20 years ago.

My first best guess was the A9 pattern (classic) to simply emulate slow and fast twitch neuro-motor patterns during development.

With testing and refinement, this evolved into the P2 by adding a rest period at the end of each pulse pattern sequence, because the fetus goes through periods of neuro-motor activity and rest. I estimated this cycle to be about 20 minutes total on average, based on my experiments.

Later, making it a bit more sophisticated by mixing fast- and slow-twitch signals, it evolved into the B5-C5 pattern.

My final best guess a few years later: Because everyone was wildly enthusiastic about Schumann frequencies at the time, I wanted to show that Schumann Resonant frequencies were not magical, and were no better than similar frequencies in the same approximate range. So, I ran a test with a few volunteers to test the difference between the A9 classic pattern, Schumann resonances 1 through 5, an offset pattern that was just Schumann but with offset (i.e., intentionally incorrect and therefore non-resonant), and few other combinations of these patterns, then a combined pattern of A9 plus the Schumann Offset frequencies (all 8 of the frequencies in sequence, thus “Omni-8”).

Using the volunteers and myself (all of us were very experienced ICES-PEMF users), we all evaluated the effectiveness of these patterns without knowing which pattern we were testing, but everyone tested each of the patterns for a week or two.

This was not very scientific, but it was practical and useful just as any engineering field test would be, because large differences in effectiveness would surely emerge if they existed. I could have spent a decade and ten million dollars to come to the same conclusion, but that’s how dysfunctional academic science shakes us all down for our tax dollars without delivering much of value, so I refrained from that latter approach.

My findings:
Almost everyone felt that the Omni-8 was best, but only by a small amount. All of the pulse patterns were thought by everyone to be effective, but Omni-8 was qualitatively assessed to be “about 10 to 15% better” than the others. This finding has been reinforced thousands of times since anecdotally: Omni-8 is the go-to default pattern to try first because it helps most people with most things. If you subsequently find a pattern that works better for you, then that’s great. But everyone has a good chance at getting major benefits right off the bat just with the Omni-8 pattern.

Note; The Schumann resonances worked well, but not quite as well as a very similar pattern with slightly adjusted frequencies (comprised of a sequence of one sub-harmonic and the first four harmonics of the Schumann Frequency). This demonstrates categorically that Schumann Frequencies are beneficial, but only because they are in the general range of beneficial developmental frequencies, and they absolutely do not resonate with the Earth, or anything like that. That claim about Schumann Frequencies, like so many others in the world of PEMF marketing, is just plain fraud.

Those first four pulse patterns arise from my working hypothesis that neuro-motor impulses during early development would encode signals for neuro-musculo-skeletal growth and development. They are not magical. They are my best guess, and they represent the evolution of my development of ICES-PEMF over the period of many years, starting with the A9 (classic) pattern, then evolving ultimately to the Omni-8 pattern.

These patterns are my best educated guess at pulse patterns for promoting general tissue growth and regeneration, and they were refined on the basis of continual field testing and feedback over many years. I included all of these “legacy” pulse patterns on the M1 and C5 simply so that people could experiment with them for themselves to see what works best for them as a unique individual.

1 Like

Thank you! What does each number mean and the plus/minus and the slash? 5, 100+, 100-, 10, 5/100+, 5/100-

each number (5 or 100) is the number of pulses per second (a.k.a. “frequency”)

plus (+) or minus (-) designates if the pulses are unipolar or bipolar (net induced charge flux when unipolar, no net induced charge flux when bipolar)

/ designates the pulse patterns are inter-woven or superimposed, that is, combined at the same time. In the case of 5/100, that means that bursts of 100 pulses per second are superimposed on a steady train of 5 pulses per second.

Please keep in mind: there is no special, secret, or magical frequency. These pulse patterns were initially intended to approximate typical developmental nerve impulse patterns. And there is no map of “frequency X treats condition Y”. Statements such as that are pure PEMF marketing nonsense and fraud.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask for guidance:

  • where should you start?
  • which pulse pattern should you use?

The best and only practical answer is:
Consider starting with the default pattern: Omni-8
Omni-8 works very well for most people for most things.

But different people have somewhat different responses to PEMF and the nature of their injuries differ and are unique, so you can self-experiment with the other available patterns. A good place to start is to ask people on this forum specific questions framed as:

“Has anyone tried ICES-PEMF for [injury or condition X], and if so, what did you try, and how well did it work?”

Thank you Bob!! Can you expand a drop more on unipolar vs. bipolar and also expand on “net induced”? And just to be clear, it’s not really plus or minus as we usually think of it?

And also can you expand a drop more on what you mean by the 5/100 when the 100 bursts are superimposed over the 5 bursts? Doesn’t that then make them 1200 PPS or something for that brief 5 second (or 5 pulse) period, if I have the math right? If so, that’s way cool.

I’m asking since I want to understand the exact effect or action. I mean I hear you that it reproduces what the baby experiences in-utero. I just want to be clear on what action is occurring.

Thank you!!! I feel I am gaining more and more insight with the help of the forum, both from you and from peers.

have you considered removing some of these experimental frequencies and add other protocols or sequences of frequencies that you have considered, but were limited in programming memory space?

yes, have done that, but I have to be extremely careful or people will drive me around in circles at high speed, doing hundreds of hours of development work for free, with zero net forward movement, because everyone everywhere and their dog knows, or has a gut feeling, or seems to vaguely recall having seen a tweet about a post on FB that references a YT short about a Soviet-era secret experiment circulating somewhere on the Dark Web, or had a waking dream about some twist on something from somewhere that is some kind of special frequency or pattern that will really work better.

… and it never does

With the current devices and available protocols, we appear to be already deeply into the territory of diminishing returns for improvements based on tweaks to pulse patterns.

Proof, or something close to proof: the pulse patterns currently on the M1 and C5 are almost entirely the ones people insisted they must have for one reason or another. I kept a list for more than three years during development of those systems to rank-order and incorporate the patterns and frequencies that people most wanted (and in some cases demanded).

And so, here they are, all available on the M1 and C5, along with legacy pulse patterns as described earlier in this thread.

Yet after many years there is no clear “winner” among those pulse patterns. About 20% of users seem to have a preference for one or another, for their own individual reasons, but I honestly don’t see a pattern to it. No gravitation toward a “better protocol”. But many people do seem to benefit from the added protocols, and some allow experiments from the scientific literature to be replicated, while others are more easily tolerated by people who are ultra-sensitive to PEMF, or those who use the device on their head, etc. So, I consider the development and validation work that I put into those protocols to be time well spent. But still, most of our users, about 80%, seem perfectly content to use the legacy Omni-8 protocol.

1 Like

So, with your questions we are now venturing into electrical engineering and physics. This is exactly where charlatans (PEMF marketers) want you to be: ready to gulp down whatever pseudoscience they dish out in order to get you to join their cult and start writing checks. This is where the real PEMF fraud begins because we do not have the knowledge to fill these gaps, so whereas I tell only the truth of what I know, most of the constellation of PEMF marketers will start filling your head with pseudo-knowledge.

If you don’t have a background in biophysics and electrrical engineering, there really is no way for me to explain the biophysical meaning of them. If you are really serious about it, I am happy to explain by pointing you to the scientific literature and some excellent text books on developmental biology and electrophysiology.

But unless you are a practicing scientist dedicated to advancing the field of biomagnetism or electrophysiology, a deeper discussion of these really will not reveal anything useful to you.

Why: First, magnetism in particular is probably the most complex, nuanced, and poorly understood phenomenon in nature (in my opinion). Second, we do not know how magnetism interacts with biology at the biophysical mechanistic level. Therefore, you can not calculate or intuit your way to understanding what will work biophysically because of the application of various forms of PEMF.

The best information we have available for PEMF is limited to experimental observations. I have been carefully making these observations since 1996. Based on these observations, I have been able to refine the key parameters of PEMF to get pretty astoundingly good health benefits at very high energy efficiency. But in the final analysis, all of this is based on careful observations, good and bad fortune, best guesses, hypothesis testing, and several decades of study of the most difficult technological subjects.

All I can offer you is something that works to the best of my ability. That has to be good enough, because I will not lie about what I know and do not know, or about what is known or not known about any of this.

If that is not good enough, then sorry, I can’t help further.

If you believe me enough to go forward, then at this point in your knowledge of PEMF, the best and only way for you to find what works for you is to gather some advice from this forum, try it for yourself, and see.


Thanks Dr. Bob. I am not asking for all the scientific details but a little more on what 5, 100+, 100-, 10, 5/100+, 5/100- means.

Can you expand a drop more on unipolar vs. bipolar and also expand on “net induced”? And just to be clear, it’s not really plus or minus as we usually think of it?

And also can you expand a drop more on what you mean by the 5/100 when the 100 bursts are superimposed over the 5 bursts? Doesn’t that then make them 1200 PPS or something for that brief 5 second (or 5 pulse) period, if I have the math right?

So I am not asking for the back-story (or the depth of science) on the whole topic but just how I can even read each of those identifiers or programs. Is there a definition of unipolar vs. bipolar and of net induced? And then when the 100 bursts are superimposed over 5 pulses - did I understand that correctly in how I phrased it above?

I want to understand each of the terms in the formula - maybe that’s the wrong word - to “understand” but at least to have a “definition” so I can see how this pattern (the 5, 100+ is unique from the 5, 100- and the 10 and the 5/100+ and the 5/100-). I can’t even read them with a basic definition.

Maybe better stated, I don’t want to know “why” they are set up this way but just “how” or “what” is set up.

I hope this helps clarify what I am asking for.

Thank you!

Bipolar means positive and negative, both the electric fields and the resulting magnetic flux.
“Net induced (and the rest of this precise technical statement)” means the total flow of charge (ions) integrated over a specified time window is zero. The selection of the time window for integration is based on electro-physiology.