They do that, but when tested independently, it is widely known among PEMF developers/manufacturers that these numbers are very often over-stated by a factor of 10x to 100x. So, the published information (which are nothing more than advertisements, since people think they are buying PEMF by the Gauss) can not be accurately used for comparison. Comparing PEMF products by their published Gauss is like comparing automobiles by the setting on the radio. Sure, you can do this, but really, it is irrelevant. And I explain this, many, many, many times.
Most of the figures given by PEMF marketers are, in fact, are intentionally misleading.
With all that being said, under standard testing conditions, which I had to establish for our products for manufacturing process control and calibration, yields reliable numbers.
Since I have been asked this same question, the wrong question, thousands of times, here it is again:
First, find the BIOLOGICALLY MEANINGFUL AND RELEVANT numbers on pages 11 and 12 of the comparison document, which shows the magnetic field generation for all four current ICES-PEMF products:
This has been posted publicly and has been readily available for several years.
But this is not the number you are asking for (Gauss), it is kG/s, the correct, physically and biologically meaningful units.
To get the number you want, you would need to multiply that number by the pulse width (100 microseconds, or 0.0001 second)
For example, the standard peak Gauss measurement (1,700 kG/s) is achieved in 0.0001 seconds. This means that the peak Gauss level will be 170 Gauss. Gauss can be converted to Tesla: 1 Tesla = 10,000 Gauss
But, this is the wrong number to use for comparisons with any other product, unless
(1) all testing conditions are known to be identical (they are not),
(2) the pulse shape and duration is identical (they are definitely not),
(3) the measurements are taken correctly (most PEMF marketers never actually measure the real performance of their device because it is difficult and expensive to do: it is just easier to make something up),
(4) the assumption that it will be reported accurately (it is known that this is frequently not the case)
I think that is the number you want, but it is absolutely irrelevant and incorrect to use it in comparison to other PEMF systems that function differently. The correct number to ask for has units of kG/s, but not a single PEMF manufacturer that I know of, last time I looked, actually knows, understands, measures, or reports this biolophysically critical value.