Flux Health Forum

How important is the size of the coil?

PEMF Basics
#1

Hi everyone, I’m new here

I have been looking into getting a PEMF device mainly for general health/bio hacking but I do also have some aches and pains that would be nice to address. Have been looking into the market, doing research to try to find something that works but also is affordable. Some of these things are CRAZY expensive!!! So came across Bob’s creation and am delighted to find something that’s actually affordable and at the same time has a ton of research behind it. So the last few days I have been binge watching and listening to interviews to try to learn as much as I can.

I have been able to see through a few misunderstandings like more is not necessary better when it comes to intensity. What first got me interested in all of this was the Sota magnetic pulser and Bob Becks work. Naturally I thought high intensity/gauss is absolutely essential. Turns out not to be the case. Bob’s and Bryant Meyers videos helped me to understand this better. Also how the wave form is more important then intensity.

But now I have come across a similar idea that I’m not sure if it is correct or not. The size of the coil, bigger is better. I’m guessing it’s not quite that simple either since the ICES units have pretty small coils.
So what’s the truth around all of this?

Any insights is much appreciated…

1 Like
#2

As an add on to this question… For experimental purposes would it be possible to connect a homemade coil to let’s say the ICES M1?

1 Like
#3

ICES-PEMF generates tuned magnetic pulses. Therefore coil size is very important to get the correct pulse shape. This derives from the basic physics involved. It is similar to the concept of why musical instruments are shaped the way they are. A flute looks different from a tuba, because it is tuned to make a different sound.

Of course this does not mean that you can’t try different coil sizes with our systems. When I did exactly the same thing about 15 years ago when I was developing the ICES-PEMF technology, the results were very clear:

A range of coil diameters resulted in a magnetic pulse waveform shape that, when differentiated (a calculus operation) resulted in an induced electrical field that consistently yielded the best biological effects. Its a bit more complicated than this, and includes the spatial distribution of the magnetic pulse around the coils, among other factors.

Conclusion: to the best of my technical ability, the internal circuitry combined with the coil geometry of ICES-PEMF systems gives the best overall biological effects.

5 Likes
#4

Thank you very much for your detailed response Bob. I’m really excited to have come across your devices and will order a M1 today. Can’t wait to start playing around with it. I have some tooth issues and also long term reoccurring neck and lower back pain. As I wrote earlier I’m also very interested in bio hacking and experimenting with different acupuncture points. Let’s see what the M1 can do.

1 Like
#5

As I unterstand ICES, it uses always the same 100µs long impulse regardless the frequency setting. Is it so because, that way you could optimize the coils and electronics exactly to the sweet-spot to support “that one” unique impulse-characteristic?

If “yes”, does it also mean, that PEMF-devices which use multiple pulse-shapes and pulse-lengths (i.e. frequencies) can never get an optimized system for everything? Meaning that they has to choose a sweet-spot and that they have to make a trade-off regarding all the other frequencies, the electronics and coil specifications?

1 Like
#6

You are probably correct. Their main problem is that they fixate on the wrong parameters (Gauss, “Frequency”), and generally do not measure the actual output magnetic pulse shape. So if they hit the sweet spot for biological effects, it is accidental and probably sub-optimal and generally not reliably repeatable.

Any system that tries to do “everything”, ends up doing many things poorly and nothing well. Among mechanical engineers, we call this a “shop smith”, like the all-in-one woodworking tool bench consumer garbage you can buy that nobody bothers to use twice.

1 Like
#7

Thank you for your answer. and yes, I agree - if you try to do everything, you will, by logic, not in excel all the topics. I may have been a victim to that marketing scheme.

Another question: If I place the coil tester on the coils (or the middle of it) of another PEMF-Device with “full power” and absolutely nothing happens - would that be a possible sign, that the impulses of that device have a low T/s?

As I understand penetration depth is complex but primarily affected by coil radius. So large coils should possibly do something at near direct contact - but they did not.

Another problem I see is, that to generate a force over a larger area needs more power/energy. So devices with a much larger coil would, by my logic, need to operate with much more power to generate a intense magnetic field covering the wohle coil area. Is my reasoning correct?

1 Like
#8

Hex tester not flashing when used on another device = low T/s? – Yes, probably, but could also be other technical problems, such as poor spatial distribution of magnetic flux lines across the bounded plane of the coil, as happens when shoddy PEMF manufacturers offer extremely large diameter coils just to make customers happy thinking they will get a “whole-body” effect, which does not work unless the PEMF system is specifically designed and tuned to work with such large coils (none are, so far as I know). Or in the case of very small diameter coils or coil arrays, where flux lines can cancel by crossing back through the sensitive area of the hexagonal tester, thus canceling the net flux and resulting in no signal. (the hex detector acts as a “surface integral”, so conventionally positive and negative flux lines through the same bounded area will cancel)

Depth and coil radius: my guess would be fraudulent claims about the PEMF performance (it is widely known amongst those of us who build these things that most marketers claim 10x to 100x or more peak Gauss than is reality, for example), combined with pirated designs, using cut-rate materials, a misunderstanding of the basic physics of magnetism all contribute to why some of the larger coil systems do not work well when carefully tested.

Larger area requires more power/energy, correct? Absolutely correct. I have stated this many many many many many times on this forum. And also, the resulting fields of increasing coil diameter drop off very sharply non-linearly because (a) magnetism does not point radiate by the inverse square law but rather drops off by inverse cube or more, depending on off-axis solenoid geometry, and (b) the energy conservation relates to the volume of space being energized, which goes up as a cube of coil radius, not “wishfully” as the area (square) or radius (linear). To ignore this is a basic violation of conservation of energy, which is the ultimate B.S. indicator IMO.

1 Like
#9

Thanks for your comprehensive answer. This de-constructs or de-bull…s some things and explains a lot. It also explains me what for Example B.E. M.y…s does not explain in regard to coil characteristics and the challenges with bigger ones.

Its all so simple if you think about it. But first you have to get to the point to know what to think about.

I write this because I realize that I may have spend a lot of time and money into some PEMF learning experiences, all the while having an M1 in the drawer :disappointed:

3 Likes
#10

yes @hcf, I agree: it all seems quite simple and obvious to me now, but then I realize that it took me more than 20 years of working on it intensely to realize these things. After much confusion and dealing with noise and disinformation, once you go back to your basic physics you slap yourself on the forehead and wonder why it took so long to realize what you have had right in front of you for many years. It takes a lot of work and study to realize how simple it is. Overall, my feeling is that I am rather dim and slow, but also persistent and very lucky, nothing more than that.

3 Likes
#11

Hopefully you knowledge is not lost, when you retire. May be you could release a paper titled “Design consideration for efficient PEMF systems: From theory to proven practice” or the like when you retire :man_mechanic:

1 Like
#12

I have a question about applicator choice and placement. I think I remember learning that the electromagnetic field intensity would be greatest in the middle of a coil. I’m also under the impression that the field intensity degrades exponentially by distance from a wire. Given those things are true, and I’m trying to treat- say, shin pain- would it make more sense to use a rope coil and loop it around the shin as many times as I could (to keep it inside the coil, with the largest number of turns), vs using a mat or paddle placed on top of the painful area?

1 Like
#13

Are you seeking to make your own device and coils or are you curious about ICES PEMF which are what @Bob creates? Keep in mind, @Bob’s devices are inductive. Using ICES PEMF (like the A9, M1, P9) coils side by side along the shin have helped me with my shin pain.

#14

I’m not familiar with the difference between inductive devices and PEMF (is PEMF not considered a modality that induces current?). I was just curious about the applicators of most PEMF devices that I have seen (loop, butterfly loop, paddles, etc), and wondering if there was a more effective/efficient way to deliver the treatment.

1 Like
#15

In my view, ICES PEMF is exactly that. If you look through all of @Bob’s posts you will get a primer on ICES PEMF. He has been quite generous with his time in educating the community on this forum.

1 Like