Hello!
I was wondering how simple it would be to amplify the signal of an ices device to say a large pad, in case we want to treat a larger area, or even the whole body at once.
Thanks!
1 Like
very very very…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
very complex.
2 Likes
I don’t think you need a larger device. I would like to see studies done where the small yet ample device is adhered to the needed area while a human places their hands adjacent to the device with deliberate intent of love and healing. Show the time for the device being used as well as overlay time of human intention to yield a result… both ICES-PEMF and energy through intention are documented to aid in healing where the subject is eager to heal … it is possible that intentions can amplify the effect.
1 Like
From a techie perspective, I’m curious on some of the technical challenges to accomplish this. What would be the max slew rate and peak output needed?
Ideally one would really just want a unit gain amp to not load the device to be able to drive multiple coils with multiple amps.
It is not that simple. The magnetic field does not scale linearly. Power requirement scales with volume (cubic with size, not linear). In addition to this, magnetic flux density drops off as 1/x^3 to 1/x^4 from the coil, depending on the direction of “x” (on-axis or off-axis), so it will not even add up the same way, for example, that light sources add up to illuminate a room. Light sources can drop off as little as 1/x^2 or less, so they add up easily.
So if you really try to (honestly) subject a large volume of tissues to the necessary magnetic field dynamics, you are starting to look at a device the size and cost, approximately, of a large MRI machine, not just a linear addition of a few of my current systems, or just one “amped up” version of what I already make. You can take some advanced E&M courses, get a magnetic field numerical modeling simulation program, model the fields, calculate the necessary coils and driver requirements, and see for yourself.
In fact, not even a massive MRI machine is a “whole body” system. The magnetic fields drop off very rapidly the instant you leave the inside of the big magnet. They can only get enough of a magnetic field for parts of the body directly inside the massive coils.
BTW, this is why I have said, over and over again, that basically all of the supposedly “whole body” PEMF systems are not really “whole body”. It is not technically possible given the physical characteristics of these products.
But the really silly thing is that people tend to think that a whole-body PEMF system would always be necessary in the first place. This is analogous to thinking:
“Well, if acupuncture works, then what I REALLY need is a ‘whole-body’ acupuncture needle!!”
Seriously, think about that for a while until it sinks in…
nope, stop, go back, re-read it and seriously think about it…
I mean it, seriously.
Based on everything I have read and seen myself over two decades of working on PEMF is that it is a lot more like acupuncture (acts locally but has global effects on the body), rather than a tanning booth (acts globally and mindlessly).
The comical and tragic error here is that people think they should spend their time making a needle the size of a telephone pole, when what they really need to do is intelligently learn exactly how to use a normal-sized needle.
4 Likes
That is a fabulous reply 
I can totally grasp what you are saying.
Being an electrical engineer, since I have no absolute map or direction on where, what and how long to treat with the small needle, I thought, why not make a humongous needle 
But, then, I’m not sure where to stick it 
So, with that line of thinking and the scratching of the surface reading I’ve done on PEMF mats and the like along with the ICES concept and technology, if one could create an array of coils driven by the M1 with a unit gain amplifier array (similar to the MCP48) covering the entire body. Then, the proverbial needle is big enough to certainly hit the mark. Yes, the “too much of a good thing” phrase comes to mind.
So, perhaps rather than build a bigger system or wait for the research funding to show up, we, the community, should gather and put together a best practices and treatment methods manual so that it can become comprehensive and more importantly, useful and growing guide. I know this forum community does contain great information, but, as many other forums quickly becomes scattered with gold nuggets that are hard to find. It would be like buying a puzzle with the box and picture on it 
At the moment I feel like I have a puzzle in a clear bag 
By no means am I unhappy, I’m very happy to have this technology in hand and available, now, to bring it to the next level!
Perhaps a form submission page of treatments performed with results that can be reviewed by one of a group of moderators to publish these all in one searchable place (single page to start maybe) for the community, by the community. Just thinking out loud here.
All that being said, if I have overlooked or missed such information in a succinct text, please do let me know so I can read it.
As short background, I’m looking to treat the following:
- Ménière’s disease
- seasonal allergies
- fractured skull head injury from childhood
- chronic fatigue and need for daily naps
Again, thanks for all that you do Bob and others!
@DIG, I agree entirely with what you are suggesting in terms of a best practices guide. However, the moment we use the word “treatment”, then regulatory agencies swoop in because we have violated federal law by using regulated terms such as “diagnose”, “treat”, “cure”, or “prevent” without approval. No amount of science and truth confers protection from prosecution, it simply comes down to regulatory policy and approvals, which loosely, slowly, expensively and very capriciously follow science, common sense and reason. Regulatory law is far far too complex to summarize or discuss here (or anywhere), so suffice it to say that on medical topics we are forbidden to say certain things. This is a necessary constraint, because without it, legions of snake oil salesmen would descend upon us, making fraudulent claims and causing great harm and suffering. As a society, we have not yet found effective means to efficiently elevate truth while squelching lies. Things are just not that easy.
Next topic - since you are an electrical engineer, I can use a bit of shorthand to respond to your comment about using a unity gain amplifier driven by an M1 to create a coil array:
The M1 is not just a simple pulse pattern generator. The output stage is a tuned LCR circuit specifically to achieve the desired magnetic flux slew rate dB/dt to have a biological effect. Buffering the output through an amplifier would require the circuit to be re-tuned, and you would find that the addition of many coils would either require much higher voltages or much better conductive paths and localized low ESR capacitors to achieve the same magnetic pulse flux dynamics. So, briefly, the M1 (and all other ICES-PEMF pulse generators) are designed as part of a tuned system to achieve maximum efficiency. If you want a system on a much larger scale, you would be better off starting from scratch, using an entirely different set of components and a different physical layout.
Also, the flux lines of course are vectors, and tissues are known to be responsive to the orientation of electromagnetic stimuli, so coil placement orientation matters. The use of a large pad instead of individual coils makes this almost impossible.
1 Like
Hi @Bob, I hear you with regards to the terms used to remain out of hot water with the FDA and authorities. That’s why I suggested a form submission that can be screened prior to publishing for the community.
On the amplification array idea, I was “afraid” that the ICES-PEMF units were not based on a DAC outputs. With the current availability of high speed DACs (used in most newer function generators), would it not be “simpler” to use an impulse or square wave (with chosen slew rate) to drive an current amplifier that then drives the coils? I’m again just thinking out loud here not having recently experimented with these. Have you experimented with these? I’d need to dust off text books here, but, achieving the required flux slew rate should be attainable and configurable as well as the sustained duration of it, while maintaining a safe max flux value. Perhaps the safety would be more from the voltage and current ranges than the flux density 
The device use in this case would be a non-portable and non-battery operated unit.
Anyhow, very interesting stuff and research. Thank you very much for entertaining my questions and ideas! I’d love to chat about such things should the opportunity present itself.
Thank you again and have a fabulous day!
DIG
I actually do a lot of the type of circuit development you are suggesting for my basic research. I use modern digital waveform generators buffered through current or voltage amplifiers to get precisely controlled slew rate. This is fine for on-the-bench research, but when you force the dynamics of an output driver this way, it is very inefficient. Basically you are forcing the system to behave in a dynamic way that is contrary to the inherent dynamics of the system. The result is that you have to pour massive amounts of extra energy into the system, it generates a lot of heat, you need massive heatsinks, and you end up with a system entirely different from any of our ICES-PEMF systems which have been tuned, and that already have resulting efficiency increases on the order of 99.8% You can force these things, but then you end up spending thousands of dollars, the system radiates a lot of heat, and it really just does not work any better biologically than a small, efficient, properly-tuned system. This is similar to what other PEMF manufacturers are already bringing to market, and I just do not want to go down that highly inefficient path.
1 Like
Hi @Bob, Thank you for your reply 
Understood, on the system efficiency and scalability challenges. If it was easy and feasible everyone would be building systems like that 
I also get that the targeted experimental application is for localized afflictions rather than holistic whole being preventative stimulation. The latter is more along the lines of my thoughts and ideas as talked about herein.
I’ll keep using the M1 for now and experiment with treatment locations and programs and certainly provide feedback with whatever I discover. I’m especially keen on my ailing ear ringing. As I’ve read a bit about it so far, the ringing will likely increase with treatment, and I hope that then it will lessen with time.
Somewhat off topic, but, ear related, I was reading up on a product called Ring Ease (getlifenownaturals.com, no affiliation with it) and the angle of treatment being the cochlear nerve inflammation. From reading on PEMF, benefits being the reduction of inflammation, perhaps a tag team treatment with the supplement and PEMF 
From another thread, as you wrote that PEMF seems to enhance the effects of supplements, so, I’m looking forward to getting this supplement.
Keep up the great work and your open and transparent communications! It’s refreshing and informative!
Be awesome!
@DIG
A bit more techie talk
What effect would adding a core on the tuned LCR circuit? I’m thinking Austenitic stainless steel or aluminum here as other material with a much greater permeability would have to great an impact on the tuned circuit. The slightly increased permeability should increase the strength and focus of the flux. Have you experimented with that and if so what were your findings? How sensitive is the circuit to inductance changes I guess is what I’m getting at.
Can I safely experiment with that without risk to the health of my M1? My electromagnetic theory and it’s effects on the coil is a bit rusty. I do recall that the inductance of a coil increases proportionally as the permeability of the core increases, thus my only thinking of slightly increasing it.
Anyhow, food for thought. All the while self-hacking for health, why not hack a bit with the equipment also
Cheers!
DIG
I have experimented with this. Adding an iron core (I settled on 1215 alloy free-machining steel after having tried several other alloys) located only along the internal length of the coil but not surrounding the coil does increase the field strength by about 60%. But there is a commensurate increase in ‘L’, therefore the LCR tuning changes, and the dB/dt value is reduced as a trade-off (2nd-order effect of the inductive core). This might improve inductive coupling, but net biological effect would be reduced since field strength is not the key parameter for biophysical transduction, rather it is the magnetic flux slew rate.
But adding a non-ferrite core as you suggest (I think) does not improve any of the LCR parameters in a helpful way. This approach mostly just adds a low-resistance path for eddy currents outside of the LCR loop, thus dissipating the inductively-coupled energy within a metal conductor, and having no biological effects. Therefore, this approach appears to be purely parasitic with no benefit.
1 Like