Hello All, I have read through many of these forum posts and I realize that we are all experimenting with this technology but if a person (me) is specifically trying to resolve a 7-month-old nonunion bone fracture should they utilize the 10 pps frequency (as used in the 2007 TAMU rabbit ulna study)? Or would they maybe somehow be better off using the Omni 8 setting, which from what I can gather might be a more updated/robust setting? I have the M1 and have used both of these settings over the past 6 weeks and I can’t say I can feel any difference. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks
assuming there’s been pain, have you noticed any reduction in pain or discomfort?
My physician has instructed me to be 100% non-weight bearing so there is only minimal pain. I haven’t noticed any negative or positive effect from the M1 on this minimal pain.
what’s the duration per session? how many days a week? how many times a day? what coil configuration and for how long trying that configuration? what power setting?
on my own experimentation with a tweaked shoulder (sharp pain) that did not improve for 2 weeks on its own:
i noticed that
- 5days of X (highest power on a9)
- stacked coils
- 8h session
vs
- changing to M power setting (only current for 3days)
the power setting down to M made a noticeable difference in pain after the first session within 2h.
despite bob’s mentioning that “sometimes less is more” when it comes to pemf, i started with highest power level. i found out for myself for that particular injury that less power was what my injured shoulder responded to better. 
I’d definitely try different settings at maybe 1wk intervals to see if you notice anything.
that’s what’s kind of frustrating with this experimentation for never mentioned injuries in forum… you just never know what will work when you just want something to work from the start. on the brighter side, pemf does work generally speaking and once you get a feel for how your body responds for different areas or particular factors, it’s great!
Thank you very much for your response.
My treatment times have varied quite a bit. For the past 6 weeks, I have used the M1 most days, usually for at least 2 hours and up to 4 or 6 hours. I know length of time matters and I am trying to wear it longer. I wish the batteries lasted longer. At first I used it only on Omni 8 no rest, power level 8. Then I switched it often to Omni 8 rest 5 and back to Omni 8 no rest and also tried 10 pps. Stacked coils at first but then switched to opposing coils. The 10 pps made sense because of the bone growth shown in the TAMU rabbit ulna study but the posts here mention using Omni 8 way more often than 10 pps so I thought that was maybe the better way to go.
I have experienced pain relief using the M1 on my knee after a day on the knee scooter. It really seems to work well for this type of pain. Surprisingly, even after only 30-60 minutes. Omni 8 rest 5 and no rest, power 6 to 8, opposing coils.
I guess I didn’t mention the affected body part. It is a distal fibular fracture, so the outside of the right lower leg, right above the protruding ankle bone. Placing the M1 here with an ACE bandage is fairly easy and the target area is near the surface so that helps.
My x-ray last week did finally show slight healing! But I have also been using the physician prescribed ultrasound bone healing device (Exogen) for the required 20 minutes per day. Of course, there is no way to know which device deserves credit for the slight healing but I will continue to use any tool available to hopefully one day soon achieve more compete healing and recovery.
As the scientist who designed the 2007 TAMU study, I want to emphasize again, very firmly, that scientific studies almost never optimize anything. They only struggle to show statistical significance (typically p < 0.05). Basically, about 99.9% of scientific studies you will ever see are just an exercise to show that doing something (call it “A”), gives a different result than doing nothing (call it “B”). Almost every scientific study you will ever see is simply the test: is A different from B?
In order to answer this question, it is essential to remove anything that complicates the study, such as the use of multiple anything (drugs, nutrients, whatever). This simplification makes statistical analysis easier, and greatly reduces the cost and time and complexity of a scientific study. But it does not tell you, ever, the one thing you want to know: what is the best way to get something to work.
This explains why so many studies on foods or supplements are deeply flawed, for example. They study only one nutrient at a time, or only one dosage, then they state that it works, or it does not. This over-simplification will be very misleading if, for example, they chose to study the wrong dose, or if the dose-response shows some form of hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
For the TAMU study, I had a very limited budget and time window. In fact, it even got cut in half mid-way through the study. So, my only question was this: does PEMF help, or not, YES or NO. I did not ask what “frequency” is best. I did however manage to sneak in the key question and ask what waveform (pulse shape) is best. That was the purpose of this comparative study, and that makes the usefulness of this study much greater than most scientific studies, if you know how to read the science.
So, in order to complete this study I had to pick one, and only one, frequency. At that time (1996) the most often reported “frequency” was 10 Hz. So, we used 10 Hz. That does not mean that 10 Hz was the best, only, optimal, magical, or special frequency in any other way. It was just an educated guess, based on previously published science at the time.
I have since done a lot of work to optimize this, something that can’t really be done within the limits of a typical scientific study. My results are embedded in the hardware of ICES-PEMF:
Waveform has been fixed to the waveform identified in the TAMU study. People who are interested can read the study here:
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/27
“Frequency” was optimized as well as possible after the TAMU study by field testing new designs and protocols with existing customer volunteers. It includes several different pulse rates to minimize tissue habituation, and based on the beta-test, where users reported that results for a very wide range of ailments and injuries was slightly, but noticeably, better using the Omni 8 protocol when compared blind to several other protocols, including a steady 10 Hz and, interestingly, Omni8 was noticeably better when compared to the primary Schumann resonance frequency of 7.82 Hz.
Therefore, my scientific advice:
Try using Omni-8, not 10 Hz.
Since you have an M1, you might also try:
Schumann 4 or 3 or 5
Alpha Wave
But in general, none of these will be markedly better than the others.
7 Likes
Thank you very much for the reply Bob. I will continue treatment as suggested.
Until you try it, this will sound like a “soft” answer. But it is really true:
Everyone responds a bit differently, so you should experiment a bit with the intensity, coil placement, and pulse pattern. Do each for a day or two at least. When people actually do this, they typically notice that one of their strategies in particular seems to feel better (hard to explain), and it usually works better for them individually. Exactly what this is will vary from person to person, but most people find what is best for them for any particular injury in about 4 or 5 attempts.
3 Likes
Thank you very much. It is very helpful to know that I am guessing and trialing as much as I should be and that I am not missing out on any pertinent info to help speed things along. Thanks again.
Thanks so much Bob and Bethel, for your great questions and insights. I wanted to share one particular study that did use multiple ingredients, and might be of interested to people who need radiological imaging, and want to minimize possible DNA damage. It’s an antioxidant “cocktail” that was studied at Mt Sinai Hospital. See: https://car.ca/uploads/Education%20Lifelong%20Learning/Meetings/ASM2013_Speakers_Pres/EE005_Oral_Antioxidants_for_Radioprotection_in_Medical_Imaging_Exams.pdf
On a different topic, Bob, is there any issue using the C5 on the head? We’ve used the A9a following head injury (was exceedingly helpful), and near the eyes for mild glaucoma (benefit hard to tell, however glaucoma quite stable last couple years). thanks again.
I own the C5 and the M1 and have used both on my head without issue. In other posts Bob explains that C5 is basically 4 M1s synchronized.
TajD is correct: the C5 is exactly the same as four M1’s, but they are also synchronized (all pulses start at the same instant for all 4 channels, and all are at the same pulse rate). So, a C5 is really no different from an M1 except that:
-C5 gives the convenience and flexibility of four output channels
-The M1 battery is very small (DLI88 camcorder), so it can not output a large amount of electrical current for heavy electrical loads, such as a 2x2 coil array. Power to the C5 does not have this current output limit, so it can easily handle 2x2 coil arrays.
Hi BethEL,
In case you havn’t seen it yet, have a read of the protocol that I’ve been using on my fractures here.
Thanks to the contributors in this thread as there is a lot of interesting information 
All the best with your situation and have an amazing day!
Denis
Just wanted to share my experience in case it might help someone else to recover.
(I also posted this same reply under a similar nonunion discussion thread.)
My 6-month-old nonunion distal fibula fracture healed after using the M1 PEMF machine, however, this was not the only healing modality I utilized. I also used the physician prescribed ultrasound bone stimulation healing device (Exogen) and started thyroid replacement hormone prescription medication (T3 only, low dose). Because of the multiple variables, it is not possible to say which treatment provided the most healing and I wish I could say that I noticed the PEMF as most effective, but in my mind, it was the thyroid replacement hormone that did the trick. I say this because the x-rays showed only about a 15% healing 5 weeks after starting the PEMF and 4 weeks after starting the ultrasound treatment. The healing showed on the next x-ray, 4 weeks later, jumped to about 75% healed after adding thyroid replacement 4 weeks prior. Hypothyroidism can be a contributing factor of nonunion or delayed fractures. Maybe all 3 of these treatments together gave me the quick response. All I know, is that after 1 year of immobility, I am very grateful to be able to walk unassisted and with minimal pain.
I used the M1 Omni 8 setting med intensity for 1 to 6 hours per day - probably averaged 2 to 3 hours per day. Ultrasound only required 20 minutes once per day - I used it 2 to 3 times per day for first 4 weeks and then only 1 to 2 times per day after.
Timeline summary — M1 PEMF started 10/31/20 – ultrasound started 11/6/20. X-ray 12/4/20 showed 15% healed. Added thyroid T3 RX 12/12/20. X-ray 1/8/21 showed 75% healed. Continued all 3 treatments. X-ray 2/5/21 showed 90% healed. X-ray 3/5/21 showed 99% healed.
This is very helpful, thanks. I am of the opinion that it takes several factors to promote healing, for example:
- Adequate nutrition
- Reduced pathologic inflammation
- Adequate other stimuli for the tissues in question, such as mechanical loading
- Replete endogenous signals such as hormones, etc.
In my opinion, anyone who sells a gadget (IR, PEMF, ultrasound, microcurrent, whatever…) and claims that it will cure everything by itself, they are just lying to you.
3 Likes
Agree with Bob’s comments!
I have a question about the Micro-Pulse waveform. I fractured four metatarsal bones 31 Dec 2021 and began using both the A9b and C-5 on 25 January 2022 (I didn’t have access to the devices before then).
The foot inflammation responded quickly and favorably (pain was never an issue), however, the bone mending did not. After three sets of X-rays, one MRI imaging session and three osteopedic foot specialists/surgeons, the injury is now considered “delayed union” and a prescription for the Exogen ultrasound device was provided which I started 10 days ago.
i have used the A9b / C-5 AT LEAST 12 hours per day since January - the portable unit tugs away nicely in the walking cast/boot with two coils taped together (rippled side up) and placed adjacently (in a figure 8) on top of the sock across the injuries. I replace the high quality rechargeable 9V batteries every two hours or so during the day.
Despite this PEMF effort, I’m now in an undesirable situation. I really want the technology to work and wish I could give a glorious testimonial. I’ve posted elsewhere in this forum the intense nutritional supplementation that I do. I also consume bone broth with added sea minerals daily with copious amounts of bioavailable bovine collagen etc.
So… it makes me wonder what waveforms my Micro-pulse units put out. Here is a book excerpt which seems to indicate the waveform should be sawtooth in the case of fracture healing. Maybe the Micro-Pulse is not?
“In 1982, working from Columbia University School of Medicine, Dr. Andrew Bassett published a series of four articles on the positive effects of pulsating electromagnetic fields for non-healing bone fracture in three well-known North American medical journals. As a result of Bassett’s work, the FDA approved the sawtooth waveform in 1979 for the treatment of non-union bone fractures and aid in spinal fusion operations.”
Just curious…
I am sure you have checked this, but have you ensured the coils are fully plugged in and have you used the coil tester to confirm they are working? Low NO really hurts healing rate in feet for me. Have you had any peripheral neuropathy in your feet? Are you using red/infrared light on the feet to increase blood flow? I forget if you we discussed that on other threads. Flagging @Bob for your wave form questions.
No peripheral neuropathy that I know of. Circulation good. Bought FIR socks to promote warmer feet and increased circulation. Will start NO. I use a Clearlight FIR dome single person lie-inside sauna which produces enough heat for full blown hyperthermia sessions using internal real time temperature measurement (iCelcius) however I normally use it 2-3 times per week for 30 minutes to get the heart rate up - not to do hyperthermia sessions (fever 40C: tough sessions). I also use the SaunaSpace red IR bulbs and use the single bulb on the injured foot. Not overdoing it, but 30 minutes daily. Thanks for the responses! I think the delayed mending is due to early misdiagnosis - was told to remove boot January since no fractures were seem. Only after the MRI and third opinion were the five stress fractures pointed out. Suffering for six weeks in regular shoes when I had the boot lying around was stupid, but I followed doctors orders.
Thanks TajD for flagging this.
@Steve_Labo, please resist the temptation to get sucked into the vortex of out-dated, misinterpreted, and incomplete PEMF “information” on the Internet, and, please note the year of the publication you reference: 1982
A lot happens in 40 years, for example, we went from the Wright Flyer gliding a few feet over a beach in NC to early jet aircraft 40 years later.
Bassett generally did excellent scientific work, but 40 years ago, PEMF was very mysterious. We have made progress since then. Working as a consultant for NASA-JSC, we put to rest the “waveform” question. About 25 years ago, we actually tested the effect of different waveforms on the effectiveness of PEMF for the induction of growth mechanisms and control of growth and development related gene expression. The results of the NASA-based research on PEMF waveform are summarized here:
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/5
Briefly:
Sawtooth waveforms had very little detectable effect, sine waves had none. By far, the most effective waveforms had sharp edges of dB/dt (Gauss slew rate), which were patented by NASA and then later refined and patented by myself.
It is these, the most effective and efficient waveforms are the basis for ICES-PEMF technology, and all pulse protocols in all of our devices employ these waveforms.
1 Like