****Page Under Construction (not quite ready yet)****

**II. PEMF INTENSITY BASED ON REAL PHYSICS!!**

Key Points

Key Points

**Low Intensity (More is NOT Better)****Large Perfectly circular & Tightly wound copper coils****Understand Difference between Magnetic Fields (measured in Tesla or Gauss) and Magnetic Flux (measured in Webers). Hardly anyone is mentioning this critical point!!!****BioSavart Law for Understanding How Magnetic Fields Decrease w/Distance (Not Inverse Square).****Importance of Larger Diameter Coils and the BIG difference between reported Intensities (at the surface) and penetration depth (how far the fields effectively penetrate. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THIS CRUCIAL POINT EITHER!!!**

Two Big Lies

1) Listing ONLY Surface Intensity without factoring in coil diameter saying that for example 100uT mat with small coils is the same as a 100uT mat with larger coils.

2) Using the Inverse Square Law to Calculate Magnetic Field Intensity

**Biological and Therapeutic Things to Consider with Magnetic Fields**

**1A) Flux density - BioSavert Law vs Inverse Square**

1B) Gradient - How quickly does magnetic field drop off or change with distance... Also Biot Savart

1C) Volume of Tissue/Age/Weight/Health

Small is powerful / Less is MORE (amplification)

Intensity is measured in gauss (G) or tesla (T). For simplicity it is easiest to understand intensity as the strength or power of the magnetic field though more scientifically it is the flux density

**1D) We'll See in the Frequency B.S. Section, that the KEY for EFFECTIVE ENERGY TRANSFER is FREQUENCY RESONANCE AND COIL DIAMETER - NOT INTENSITY!!**

B = magnetic flux density

H = magnetic field strength

B=μo*H in free space

B=μr*H

The "magnetic field strength". Usually given the symbol H. Measured in amps per metre (A/m).

The "magnetic flux density". Usually given the symbol B. Measured in teslas (or microteslas or gauss).

In electromagnetism theory, it is absolutely clear that these are different quantities and you need to be precise about which you are measuring.

That second constant we've introduced, μr, is called the relative permeability. For non-magnetic materials - for air, most building materials, the human body, etc - it has a value of very nearly 1. Which is why it's usually sufficiently correct just to say B=μoH. Only near iron or steel or other magnetic materials do we have to go a bit further into the physics, because that's when μr starts taking different values.

Sometimes, people will be very precise and talk about either the magnetic flux density or the magnetic field strength. But actually "magnetic field" is perfectly valid as a description of either - both the magnetic flux density and the magnetic field strength are examples of a magnetic field. And just using "magnetic field" is a lot simpler ... so that's what we do most of the time on this site.

I have talked to literally thousands of people about PEMF therapy and A LOT of people are confused about intensity, Gauss vs Tesla, what is uT, etc.

Tesla is the SI unit for Magnetic Field Strength or Magnetic flux density. This unit is the overall strength or intensity of the magnetic field around an object and decreases with distance.

Gauss is another unit for Magnetic Field Strength and it should be noted that Tesla and Gauss BOTH MEASURE THE SAME THING, just like Meters and Yards both measure distance.

These prefixes apply to ALL units of measure in science.

So a microtesla which is abbreviated uT = 1/1,000,000 of a Tesla

Tesla is the SI unit for Magnetic Field Strength or Magnetic flux density. This unit is the overall strength or intensity of the magnetic field around an object and decreases with distance.

Gauss is another unit for Magnetic Field Strength and it should be noted that Tesla and Gauss BOTH MEASURE THE SAME THING, just like Meters and Yards both measure distance.

These prefixes apply to ALL units of measure in science.

So a microtesla which is abbreviated uT = 1/1,000,000 of a Tesla

Smallest Value in a Magnetically Shielded Room - 10^ -14 Tesla

Interstellar Space 10^-10 Tesla

Earth's Magnetic Field .00005 Tesla (.5 Gauss)

Sun's Magnetic Field .0001 Tesla (1 Gauss)

Refrigerator Magnet .01 Tesla (100 Gauss)

Good Ceramic Magnet .25 - .4 Tesla (2500-4000 Gauss)

Neodynium Magnet 1.2 - 1.4 Tesla (12,000-14,000 Gauss)

Junkyard Magnets 1 - 2 Tesla (10,000 - 20,000 Gauss

MRI Scanner 1.5 - 2 Tesla (15,000 - 20,000 Gauss)

Strongest Manmade Magnets are greater than 1000 Tesla

A magnetar is a type of neutron star believed to have the strongest magnetic field in the Universe at 100 Trillion Tesla...

Interstellar Space 10^-10 Tesla

Earth's Magnetic Field .00005 Tesla (.5 Gauss)

Sun's Magnetic Field .0001 Tesla (1 Gauss)

***Low Intensity PEMF (Safest and BEST Intensities to Use for PEMF**

.00001-.0005 Tesla (.1 - 5 Gauss).00001-.0005 Tesla (.1 - 5 Gauss)

Refrigerator Magnet .01 Tesla (100 Gauss)

***Medium High Intensity PEMF (Not Recommend)**

.001-.1 Tesla (10-1000 Gauss).001-.1 Tesla (10-1000 Gauss)

Good Ceramic Magnet .25 - .4 Tesla (2500-4000 Gauss)

Neodynium Magnet 1.2 - 1.4 Tesla (12,000-14,000 Gauss)

Junkyard Magnets 1 - 2 Tesla (10,000 - 20,000 Gauss

MRI Scanner 1.5 - 2 Tesla (15,000 - 20,000 Gauss)

***High Intensity PEMF - Dangerous and DEFINITELY Not Recommended**

1-3Tesla (10,000 - 30,000 Gauss)

1-3Tesla (10,000 - 30,000 Gauss)

Strongest Manmade Magnets are greater than 1000 Tesla

A magnetar is a type of neutron star believed to have the strongest magnetic field in the Universe at 100 Trillion Tesla...

The intensity of a static magnetic is easy to measure with a gaussmeter, but a PEMF signal is a little more complicated.

Intensity can be measure by the peak value, average value or RMS (root mean square). Typically the average peak intensity is used. This can be calculated with any waveform.

For example on the iMRS 2000 the average peak magnetic field strength at the surface of the pillow pad applicator is around 70 uT at highest setting (400%). As we'll see, this surface intensity (however calculated is NOT as important as the diameter of the coil, frequency and waveform, but still important).

The manufacturer will list the surface intensities, but BUYER BEWARE, THIS IS ONLY PART OF THE STORY OF INTENSITY... BECAUSE MORE IMPORTANTLY WE WANT TO KNOW THE PENETRATION DEPTH!!

Intensity can be measure by the peak value, average value or RMS (root mean square). Typically the average peak intensity is used. This can be calculated with any waveform.

For example on the iMRS 2000 the average peak magnetic field strength at the surface of the pillow pad applicator is around 70 uT at highest setting (400%). As we'll see, this surface intensity (however calculated is NOT as important as the diameter of the coil, frequency and waveform, but still important).

The manufacturer will list the surface intensities, but BUYER BEWARE, THIS IS ONLY PART OF THE STORY OF INTENSITY... BECAUSE MORE IMPORTANTLY WE WANT TO KNOW THE PENETRATION DEPTH!!

**Magnetic Flux**like electric flux is a scalar quantity, and in the magnetic case it has a special name - "WEBERS", which is abbreviated Wb and which has units T* m^2 (magnetic field times area).

In PEMF therapy, the Magnetic Flux HEAVILY depends on the area of the Coil. You have to integrate the magnetic field OVER THE ENTIRE AREA. Therefore larger coils have and exponentially LARGER flux as you increase the radius than smaller coils. Why because Area = pi*r^2. If you double the radius, the flux increases 4-fold. Quadruple the radius and it increases 16-fold.

In this image shown, the OMI pad has small little coils. The iMRS pillow applicator has coils that are 11x longer in radius. Therefore EVEN WITH THE SAME INTENSITY AT THE SURFACE, the Magnetic FLUX in webers of the iMRS 2000 is 121 times LARGER!!!

Lets use 20 uT (.00002 Tesla) which is reported intensity on the OMI pad. The iMRS 2000 on level 100 has about this intensity at the surface.

The magnetic flux of the OMI Pad is therefore .00002 Tesla*.02^2*pi = .0063 uWb (Tesla*m^2).

The magnetic flux of the iMRS 2000 pillow is .76 uW or

**121 TIMES STRONGER.**

Do you see how it is so easy to mislead with intensity ALONE??!!

Do you see how it is so easy to mislead with intensity ALONE??!!

**A NOTE ABOUT PENETRATION DEPTH - Technical Scientific/ Engineering Term**

Penetration depthis a measure of how deep light or any electromagnetic radiation can

Penetration depth

**penetrate**into a material. It is defined as the

**depth**at which the intensity of the radiation inside the material falls to 1/e (about 37%) of its original value at (or more properly, just beneath) the surface.

In other words, the penetration depth is technically definted as the depth that a light penetrates a specific type of substance where it loses 63% of its overall intensity at the surface. (Note: most full body mat PEMF devices you lay directly on the mat so the starting intensity is effectively the manufacturer listed intensity.

Typically the penetration depth of electromagnetic fields like light differs by many factors. PEMF or pure pulsating magnetic fields penetrate deeper.

- Type of Tissue (skin vs bone vs fat vs muscle) - For example, electromagnetic waves will penetrate deeper into your belly than your skull. But PEMF penetrates ALL TISSUE equally the same.
- Power Output - penetration does depend on power output to deliver more or less photons deeper into the body. Not exactly the case with PEMF... Delivery of energy more based on frequency resonance than intensity, but a certain intensity is needed.
- The distance from of the device from your body. True for both electromagnetic waves and PEMF, but as mentioned, frequency resonance is a more important factor for PEMF.
- Wavelength - See chart below... Clearly different wavelengths of visible light penetrate at different depths. But this is not true with low frequency PEMF which penetrates ALL THE WAY THROUGH regardless of frequency.

As we mentioned in the last Section the Human body is transparent to a magnetic field so penetration depth is much easier to calculate because there is no frequency and tissue dependent impedances or dielectrics to deal with.

Low Frequency PEMFs go into and through the body without being blocked, slowed down, or used up. All tissues in the body are equally transparent to a PEMF.

B=uo*ur*H (relative permeability constant =1)

Low Frequency PEMFs go into and through the body without being blocked, slowed down, or used up. All tissues in the body are equally transparent to a PEMF.

B=uo*ur*H (relative permeability constant =1)

As we'll see in frequency section, intensity is MUCH LESS important for PEMF than Red Light/LED/Laser therapy and other forms of energy medicine that have to deal with.

All we need to know to calculate the penetration depth or intensity gradient is:

1) The BioSavart Law (Correct Equation)

2) the diameter of the coil,

3) and the intensity at the surface/source.

The actual forces in both electrostatics and magnetostatics depend on the charge and current arrangements.

A few examples

1) Point or sphere of charge is a 1/r2 dropoff (no equivalent in magnetostatics or PEMF).

2) Infinite (or long) Line of Charge AND a line of current are both 1/r dropoffs

3) Infinite plane of charge or current never drop off (always the same)

All we need to know to calculate the penetration depth or intensity gradient is:

1) The BioSavart Law (Correct Equation)

2) the diameter of the coil,

3) and the intensity at the surface/source.

The actual forces in both electrostatics and magnetostatics depend on the charge and current arrangements.

A few examples

1) Point or sphere of charge is a 1/r2 dropoff (no equivalent in magnetostatics or PEMF).

2) Infinite (or long) Line of Charge AND a line of current are both 1/r dropoffs

3) Infinite plane of charge or current never drop off (always the same)

**4) RING of Charge and a RING of current (ABOVE) are in Inverse 3/2 dropoff (NOT A 1/r2!!). We'll explore this later as TRUE PEMF devices use a ring of charge.**

The current loop is so fundamental to magnetism that even at the atomic magnetic fields are produces by little current loops. (flat coil)

5) Infinite Solenoid also important. The magnetic field is uo*n*I inside the solenoid and ZERO outside... (tower of coil).

The current loop is so fundamental to magnetism that even at the atomic magnetic fields are produces by little current loops. (flat coil)

5) Infinite Solenoid also important. The magnetic field is uo*n*I inside the solenoid and ZERO outside... (tower of coil).

**Lets Focus on the Equations of a Ring of Charge and a Current Loop.**

Notice that both come from 1/r^2 laws BUT because you have to integrate OVER THE CHARGE or CURRENT Distribution, you DO NOT have a field that is 1/r^2. That only applies to point sources. (Interestingly there are SIMILAR correlations in the Gravitation field equations (which is also 1/r^2) for point, ling, plane, etc. Only POINT and spherical sources create a 1/r^2 field whether it be gravity, electricity, magnetism or light. I have not seen even ONE PEMF company or expert get this right, NOT ONE!!!

NOTE: Pure Magnetic field is MAINLY in the center of the current loops ... NOT MUCH OUTSIDE. A true PEMF device should have large PURE copper coil loops to apply to whole body along with local applicators. In each case center of loop should be placed on the Spot!

To calculate the Magnetic Field around a current LOOP we end up with a 1/R^3/2 dropoff. I will do a separate video on this point later and reemphasis this point over and over because high intensity companies use the wrong equation to justify needing more intensity.

Notice that both come from 1/r^2 laws BUT because you have to integrate OVER THE CHARGE or CURRENT Distribution, you DO NOT have a field that is 1/r^2. That only applies to point sources. (Interestingly there are SIMILAR correlations in the Gravitation field equations (which is also 1/r^2) for point, ling, plane, etc. Only POINT and spherical sources create a 1/r^2 field whether it be gravity, electricity, magnetism or light. I have not seen even ONE PEMF company or expert get this right, NOT ONE!!!

NOTE: Pure Magnetic field is MAINLY in the center of the current loops ... NOT MUCH OUTSIDE. A true PEMF device should have large PURE copper coil loops to apply to whole body along with local applicators. In each case center of loop should be placed on the Spot!

To calculate the Magnetic Field around a current LOOP we end up with a 1/R^3/2 dropoff. I will do a separate video on this point later and reemphasis this point over and over because high intensity companies use the wrong equation to justify needing more intensity.

Important Note Using the Biot Savart to Calculate PEMFs

Because the Law is for steady currents that do not change according to an ammeter) , the calculations are only approximately correct for PEMFs, but still VERY close (I have verified the Biot Savart Law with a Magnetic Field Detector on the IMRS and it is just about perfect for peak magnetic fields.

This is called a quasistatic approximation but it is very close in measuring the B fields through PEMF current loops.

And using the

NOTE: The BioSavart Law is for steady currents but can be used to approximate the gradient VERY WELL. I personally used an accurate meter to verify this!!

That is the PEAK value dropped off exactly according to the BIoSavart Law. I calculated this with a penetration distance where the field dropped off to 10% original value. Because 10% is .1 x Source Peak value I can easily verify the correctness of the Bio Savart Law because the values are the same with the Decimal point moved one place to the left.

Because of this we can call this an intensity gradient as the body is more or less like empty space with regards to penetration deep. That is the magnetic field falls off nearly the same in a vacuum as it does in the body. Image below shows the intensity gradient from the iMRS 2000 pillow at the highest level.

As we'll see because the iMRS pillow pad has 2 coils with radius around 11cm, this gradient is MUCH greater than a similar coil like the OMI Pad which only has coils with radius 1 cm. (calculations later). In fact it is 11 TIMES WEAKER PENETRATION DEPTH!!

Penetration depth is directly scalable to coil radius. So OMI coil would be 1/11 as small gradient field as below. (more on this later). This is the BIG MYTH #1 of Intensity and PEMF companies. Listed Intensities are ONLY SURFACE intenisties. It is really easy to get a higher surface intensity with a small coil, but the penetration depth will be poor. And THAT is what is most important!!

**Bio Savart Law**(magnetic field equivalent to coulombs law), we can calculate the intensity gradients of the source current loops.NOTE: The BioSavart Law is for steady currents but can be used to approximate the gradient VERY WELL. I personally used an accurate meter to verify this!!

That is the PEAK value dropped off exactly according to the BIoSavart Law. I calculated this with a penetration distance where the field dropped off to 10% original value. Because 10% is .1 x Source Peak value I can easily verify the correctness of the Bio Savart Law because the values are the same with the Decimal point moved one place to the left.

Because of this we can call this an intensity gradient as the body is more or less like empty space with regards to penetration deep. That is the magnetic field falls off nearly the same in a vacuum as it does in the body. Image below shows the intensity gradient from the iMRS 2000 pillow at the highest level.

As we'll see because the iMRS pillow pad has 2 coils with radius around 11cm, this gradient is MUCH greater than a similar coil like the OMI Pad which only has coils with radius 1 cm. (calculations later). In fact it is 11 TIMES WEAKER PENETRATION DEPTH!!

Penetration depth is directly scalable to coil radius. So OMI coil would be 1/11 as small gradient field as below. (more on this later). This is the BIG MYTH #1 of Intensity and PEMF companies. Listed Intensities are ONLY SURFACE intenisties. It is really easy to get a higher surface intensity with a small coil, but the penetration depth will be poor. And THAT is what is most important!!

How a Magnetic Field is Generated in a PEMF Device

Electrical currents passed through conductive wire produce magnetic fields by Ampere's Law. Current LOOPS have the special property of MIMICKING perfected a PURE Magnetic Field. There is NO substitute for perfectly circular tightly wound coils!!

Additionally the RADIUS of the Coil and Intensity of the Electrical Current and Number of Windings are all part of the Bio Savart Equation. As we'll see in the Next section THE MOST important parameter with regards to Intensity is the Radius of the COILS used along with the surface magnetic field intensity. Most PEMF companies ONLY tell you the surface intensity. THIS IS INCREDIBLY misleading!!! As we'll illustrate below.

Electrical currents passed through conductive wire produce magnetic fields by Ampere's Law. Current LOOPS have the special property of MIMICKING perfected a PURE Magnetic Field. There is NO substitute for perfectly circular tightly wound coils!!

Additionally the RADIUS of the Coil and Intensity of the Electrical Current and Number of Windings are all part of the Bio Savart Equation. As we'll see in the Next section THE MOST important parameter with regards to Intensity is the Radius of the COILS used along with the surface magnetic field intensity. Most PEMF companies ONLY tell you the surface intensity. THIS IS INCREDIBLY misleading!!! As we'll illustrate below.

**The BIGGEST LIE OF INTENSITY - PEMFs DROP OFF WITH AN INVERSE SQUARE LAW**

SO HERE IS THE GENERAL GEOMETRY Form of the Inverse Square Law. Because it is actually based on pure geometry.

The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a

Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr2 ) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. Gauss's law is similarly applicable, and can be used with any physical quantity that acts in accordance with the inverse-square relationship.

The KEY is that the inverse square law ONLY works when you START WITH A POINT SOURCE!!!

The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a

**point source**in three-dimensional space. NOTE: HAS TO BE A POINT SOURCE.Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr2 ) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. Gauss's law is similarly applicable, and can be used with any physical quantity that acts in accordance with the inverse-square relationship.

The KEY is that the inverse square law ONLY works when you START WITH A POINT SOURCE!!!

Magnetic Fields DO NOT DROP OFF as an inverse square because there are NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.

This Lie is being told by a LOT OF HIGH INTENSITY so called experts like Dr Pawluk and Marcus Friedalman, and high intensity companies like Curatron. Basically ALL THESE PEOPLE SELL HIGH INTENSITY DEVICES!!!

Using the inverse square law to justify high intensity is BAD BAD SCIENCE!!

In fact the answer end up being off by orders of magnitude!!!

PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS BEFORE BUYING EXPENSIVE AND DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY.

**THAT IS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MAGNETIC POINT SOURCE AS WE'LL SEE!!**This Lie is being told by a LOT OF HIGH INTENSITY so called experts like Dr Pawluk and Marcus Friedalman, and high intensity companies like Curatron. Basically ALL THESE PEOPLE SELL HIGH INTENSITY DEVICES!!!

Using the inverse square law to justify high intensity is BAD BAD SCIENCE!!

In fact the answer end up being off by orders of magnitude!!!

PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS BEFORE BUYING EXPENSIVE AND DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY.

Marcus in his video and Dr Pawluk on pags 10-15 of his book are using the WRONG EQUATION to calculate magnetic field intensity. They use incorrectly the inverse square (1/R^2), and Marcus uses inches instead of meters! First of all, Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law of Newton, are inverse square forces. But you have to use meters, because all the units and constants in the equations are S-I units, and the S-I unit for strength is meters. So if you say an inch is one-half, and two inches is a fourth, and three inches is a ninth, you can tell he’s using the 1/R2 drop-off. But he’s using inches not meters! Again, just bad science. That’s bad dimensional analysis.

Secondly, he’s using the wrong equation altogether. Coulomb’s law measures electric field. The Biot Savart law is the magnetic field equivalent of Coulomb’s law. That’s the equation you need to measure the intensity of a magnetic field above the surface of a coil, a current loop. I did the calculations. You can look up the equation and do them yourself. One foot above just one coil is 20% of the surface. Six inches above is 55%. Three inches above is 83%. And one inch above is 98% (not one-half). These numbers are independent of the intensity. These drop-off percentages to even the high intensity ringer devices. Because the intensity is higher, it will still be higher, but the percent drop-off (that’s what he’s talking about) is the same. Same thing goes for Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law. It doesn’t matter the mass or the charge. It’s still a 1/R2 drop-off. Just very bad science.

Even with ONE coil the calculations are as follows

1 foot above one coil intensity is 19% of surface

6 inches above one coil intensity is 55% of surface

3 inches above one coil intensity is 83% of surface

1 inche above one coil intensity is 98% of surface (NOT 1/2 as Marcus says).

But because the field is additive, the overall percentage drop-off IS LESS. I wanted to show EVEN FOR ONE loop that his numbers were still WAY WAY off.

NOTE - iMRS which has 6 coils each, 8.5 inches in diameter = .2159 meters = R in the equation above. The numbers do change for different values of R.

Anyone can use the equation below and get these numbers (set Z=0 for surface and divide two equations - you'll find the ratio from Z above to surface DOES NOT depend on anything but the radius of the coil and the distance Z above. Keep in mind there are SIX coils which are additive so even though the field goes down a little in between you have to ADD all the coils contribution. This is a very complicated calculation, but using one coil we can easily see the BAD Science involved.

Interestingly These ratios apply to PEMF devices of ANY INTENSITY, including high intensity... Again Marcus needs a science refresher course.

I did a video demonstration to really show you beyond a shadow of a doubt, that low-intensity PEMF, like the iMRS-2000, not only has a significant intensity above the body, like at a foot above, but I hold a MicMag Handy, which is a very sensitive magnetic field detector. Three feet above, and you can still see a very significant intensity. So please, please watch that video. It’s a video demonstration in real time.

https://youtu.be/SUUtyJ-Oobg

Secondly, he’s using the wrong equation altogether. Coulomb’s law measures electric field. The Biot Savart law is the magnetic field equivalent of Coulomb’s law. That’s the equation you need to measure the intensity of a magnetic field above the surface of a coil, a current loop. I did the calculations. You can look up the equation and do them yourself. One foot above just one coil is 20% of the surface. Six inches above is 55%. Three inches above is 83%. And one inch above is 98% (not one-half). These numbers are independent of the intensity. These drop-off percentages to even the high intensity ringer devices. Because the intensity is higher, it will still be higher, but the percent drop-off (that’s what he’s talking about) is the same. Same thing goes for Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law. It doesn’t matter the mass or the charge. It’s still a 1/R2 drop-off. Just very bad science.

Even with ONE coil the calculations are as follows

1 foot above one coil intensity is 19% of surface

6 inches above one coil intensity is 55% of surface

3 inches above one coil intensity is 83% of surface

1 inche above one coil intensity is 98% of surface (NOT 1/2 as Marcus says).

But because the field is additive, the overall percentage drop-off IS LESS. I wanted to show EVEN FOR ONE loop that his numbers were still WAY WAY off.

NOTE - iMRS which has 6 coils each, 8.5 inches in diameter = .2159 meters = R in the equation above. The numbers do change for different values of R.

Anyone can use the equation below and get these numbers (set Z=0 for surface and divide two equations - you'll find the ratio from Z above to surface DOES NOT depend on anything but the radius of the coil and the distance Z above. Keep in mind there are SIX coils which are additive so even though the field goes down a little in between you have to ADD all the coils contribution. This is a very complicated calculation, but using one coil we can easily see the BAD Science involved.

Interestingly These ratios apply to PEMF devices of ANY INTENSITY, including high intensity... Again Marcus needs a science refresher course.

I did a video demonstration to really show you beyond a shadow of a doubt, that low-intensity PEMF, like the iMRS-2000, not only has a significant intensity above the body, like at a foot above, but I hold a MicMag Handy, which is a very sensitive magnetic field detector. Three feet above, and you can still see a very significant intensity. So please, please watch that video. It’s a video demonstration in real time.

**I address what Marcus (and Dr Pawluk) says at 3:10-5:54 in my video below.**https://youtu.be/SUUtyJ-Oobg

Power Tools for Your Health By Dr Pawluk... Big Mistake pps 10-15.

Like Marcus he uses INVERSE SQUARE... THIS IS THE WRONG EQUATION.

Dr Pawluk is a colleague I admire and his work in the PEMF industry has spanned over 20 years.

However in the past couple years he has heavily leaned to higher intensity PEMF devices, is constantly changing brands, and overall I feel is confusing people with contradictory and bad information. This has only been recently, as followed him for many years. He used to promote almost exclusively low frequency and low intensity devices like the QRS and I even worked with him with the iMRS 2000 while he was selling it.

His recent book Power Tools for Health while it is CERTAINLY well researched, it has a FATAL FLAW on pages 10-15. That is , his MAIN premise for recommending HIGH intensity PEMF devices is that supposedly low intensity devices do not penetrate through the body. But here is the punchline:

Again, as I said above Magnetic fields are NOT an inverse square law but the Biot Savart Law.

Below is the chart from page 13 in his book with THE INCORRECT FIELD STRENGTHS.

By Using the Wrong Equation, Dr PAWLUK leaves out a critical piece of information --> THE RADIUS OF THE COIL!!!

So in order for his chart to be ACCURATE, he would need to have a 3D matrix to include coil radius OR have a different chart for several different Radii.

Just for fun, I did a calculation to determine exactly what radius is need to come up with his numbers IN RED.

Like Marcus he uses INVERSE SQUARE... THIS IS THE WRONG EQUATION.

Dr Pawluk is a colleague I admire and his work in the PEMF industry has spanned over 20 years.

However in the past couple years he has heavily leaned to higher intensity PEMF devices, is constantly changing brands, and overall I feel is confusing people with contradictory and bad information. This has only been recently, as followed him for many years. He used to promote almost exclusively low frequency and low intensity devices like the QRS and I even worked with him with the iMRS 2000 while he was selling it.

His recent book Power Tools for Health while it is CERTAINLY well researched, it has a FATAL FLAW on pages 10-15. That is , his MAIN premise for recommending HIGH intensity PEMF devices is that supposedly low intensity devices do not penetrate through the body. But here is the punchline:

**HE USES THE WRONG EQUATION IN PHYSICS TO SUPPORT THIS!!!!**Again, as I said above Magnetic fields are NOT an inverse square law but the Biot Savart Law.

Below is the chart from page 13 in his book with THE INCORRECT FIELD STRENGTHS.

By Using the Wrong Equation, Dr PAWLUK leaves out a critical piece of information --> THE RADIUS OF THE COIL!!!

So in order for his chart to be ACCURATE, he would need to have a 3D matrix to include coil radius OR have a different chart for several different Radii.

Just for fun, I did a calculation to determine exactly what radius is need to come up with his numbers IN RED.

First off, he didn't even use the inverse square law properly.

0 inches away from a source is an infinite number.

If you use 1/r^2 and put in 0 you get 1/0^2 = infinity.

So honestly I don't know what equation he used.

BUT just for fun, I used the Biot Savart Law (The Correct Equation) to see WHAT radius coil was needed

to produce these numbers. The fact that a different radius comes out for different distances and intensities is ALSO evidence the wrong equation is used. My sample (scroll down) of OMI pad and iMRS 2000 pillow when I did a similar CHECK, the radius stayed constant (as it should), because the radius of the coil in a mat is NOT CHANGING - that is absurd!!!

But on average the radius needed to roughly give the answers Dr Pawluk lists in his book is around .01-.02 Meters = 1-2 cms. That is a VERY small coil!!!

So yes a tiny coil would drop off, BUT NOT AS AN INVERSE SQUARE!!

(See my example below).

Now if these numbers were correct, which they are not, then his argument for higher intensity might be at least a little more plausible, but as we'll see in the frequency section, resonance is the key, not intensity.

But a BIG PART OF HIS BOOK IS RECOMMENDING MIDDLE TO HIGHER INTENSITY PEMF BASED ON USING THE WRONG FORMULA!!!

Just BAD BAD science!!

0 inches away from a source is an infinite number.

If you use 1/r^2 and put in 0 you get 1/0^2 = infinity.

So honestly I don't know what equation he used.

BUT just for fun, I used the Biot Savart Law (The Correct Equation) to see WHAT radius coil was needed

to produce these numbers. The fact that a different radius comes out for different distances and intensities is ALSO evidence the wrong equation is used. My sample (scroll down) of OMI pad and iMRS 2000 pillow when I did a similar CHECK, the radius stayed constant (as it should), because the radius of the coil in a mat is NOT CHANGING - that is absurd!!!

But on average the radius needed to roughly give the answers Dr Pawluk lists in his book is around .01-.02 Meters = 1-2 cms. That is a VERY small coil!!!

So yes a tiny coil would drop off, BUT NOT AS AN INVERSE SQUARE!!

(See my example below).

Now if these numbers were correct, which they are not, then his argument for higher intensity might be at least a little more plausible, but as we'll see in the frequency section, resonance is the key, not intensity.

But a BIG PART OF HIS BOOK IS RECOMMENDING MIDDLE TO HIGHER INTENSITY PEMF BASED ON USING THE WRONG FORMULA!!!

Just BAD BAD science!!

**Example Case (w/Calculations) - OMI Pad vs IMRS 2000 Pillow pad.**

To Illustrate the Bio Savart Law Lets Use the OMI and IMRS 2000 PIllow as an example, as it VERY DRAMATICALLY shows the difference in intensity above the surface depends LARGELY on the radius of the coils.

Below right is a picture of both imrs and OMI coils from dissecting the respective mats. The OMI uses cheap thin copper but we'll ignore that for now. The OMI PAD intensity is rated at 15-20 uT at the surface. If we use the 100 intensity on iMRS 2000 pillow, we can duplicate the surface intensity of the OMI.

Using the Biot Savart Law to find the distance Z above the mat a given dropoff percentage is reached we arrive at the equation Z = R

**√(K-1) where K = C^(-2/3). C is percentage of dropoff. So in table below it is the first column.**

Z = R

**√(K-1)**

Note: You can also solve for R, but calculations easier solving for Z.

From the calculations it is PAINFULLY obvious a 1/r^2 equation DOES NOT WORK for magnetic field intensity because the intensity of the coils depends HEAVILY on the radius of the coil. In fact, it is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL!!!

The iMRS Pillow pad coil is 22cm compared to the cheap tiny OMI coils that are only 2cm.

So the Radius is 11cm compared to 1 cm.

What this means using the correct equation for magnetic field dropoff, is that EVEN if you start the iMRS 2000 pillow and OMI at the SAME intensity, the IMRS 2000 will be 11 times stronger than the OMI at a distance Z above the axis along the center of the coil.

The reason for this is you need a STRONGER current in a larger diameter coil than a smaller diameter coil to produce the same intensity in the center. How much stronger? Well it is proportional to the Radius!

As we see in the Frequency Section, the New Science of Wireless Energy Transfer is ALL ABOUT the frequency and diameter of coils, NOT INTENSITY!!

Finally technology is proving what I have been saying all along!!

COILS

(windings, diameter, thickness, # coils, how tightly wound)

The iMRS Pillow pad coil is 22cm compared to the cheap tiny OMI coils that are only 2cm.

So the Radius is 11cm compared to 1 cm.

What this means using the correct equation for magnetic field dropoff, is that EVEN if you start the iMRS 2000 pillow and OMI at the SAME intensity, the IMRS 2000 will be 11 times stronger than the OMI at a distance Z above the axis along the center of the coil.

The reason for this is you need a STRONGER current in a larger diameter coil than a smaller diameter coil to produce the same intensity in the center. How much stronger? Well it is proportional to the Radius!

**Here is the fundamental flaw with using a 1/r^2 law to calculate magnetic fields**

1) There are no magnetic monopoles (or point sources for magnetic fields)

2) The correct equation is the Biot Savart Law which depends on BOTH distance and Radius of source coil.1) There are no magnetic monopoles (or point sources for magnetic fields)

2) The correct equation is the Biot Savart Law which depends on BOTH distance and Radius of source coil.

**1/r^2 Coulombs law and Newtons law of gravity depend ONLY on the distance because the sources for the field are assumed to be point charges or point center of mass.**

3) And finally magnetic fields ALWAYS have a North and South pole so they approximate an electric dipole at LARGE distances as Z---> infinity. Point charges and masses do not have to come in plus/minus pairs (though in the case of an electric dipole, they do!!3) And finally magnetic fields ALWAYS have a North and South pole so they approximate an electric dipole at LARGE distances as Z---> infinity. Point charges and masses do not have to come in plus/minus pairs (though in the case of an electric dipole, they do!!

As we see in the Frequency Section, the New Science of Wireless Energy Transfer is ALL ABOUT the frequency and diameter of coils, NOT INTENSITY!!

Finally technology is proving what I have been saying all along!!

COILS

(windings, diameter, thickness, # coils, how tightly wound)

**Dosimetry (Dose-im-e-tree)**

The accurate measurement of doses especially in radiation.

the process or method of measuring the dosage of ionizing radiation.

the measurement of the doses of medicines.

## What is the ideal __Amplitude__ or Intensity?

“Small is powerful, Less is More”

W.R. Adey

Next there is the

The graph to the left gives a visual of the range of both intensity and frequency plotted vs positive physiological effect. If either the frequency or amplitude is outside this window, the body and cells do not respond (favorably).

Again research by Adey and Bawin, and Sisken and Walker; along with the NASA study and others has shown that a low intensity (within the earth range - 33-66 uT) OR LOWER, works best AND it is the safest. Our cells are so sensitive they can pick up signals even in the picotesla range (100,000 times weaker than the earths magnetic field).

So, you know the old saying, sometimes “Less is More”. In Fact, when it comes to PEMF Therapy LESS is essential, beneficial and safe and MORE can be ineffective and even harmful. And there is plenty of research to suggest that the lesser field strengths (in the earth’s natural range and weaker) actually work better in clinical studies.

For example, the iMRS 2000 uses extremely low field strengths. The “biological windows” of the human body are optimally accessed at field strengths in the low μT range.

But as we showed, more important than Field strength is PENETRATION DEPTH. And Penetration Depth DEPENDS ON THE RADIUS OF THE COILS USED, NOT INTENSITY.

So the IDEAL PEMF DEVICE HAS

1) A full body mat with several coils (6 ideal) along with local applicators (pillow and probe)

2) Coils in full body and large local applicator have coils with a LARGE radius but not too large to be impractical.

3) Intensity should be close to natural Earth Intensity.

4) Coils need to be perfectly circular and tightly wound.

Some PEMF devices on the market have intensities that are way too high. Don’t be fooled by companies that tell you that you need a stronger intensity to get results.The key is coil diameter, and as we'll frequency resonance, not intensity. So look for a device that uses intensities close to what the earth provides with larger diameters of perfectly circular and tightly wound copper.

Next we'll look at the most important factor for PEMF therapy... FREQUENCY RESONANCE!!

W.R. Adey

Next there is the

**Amplitude**or intensity. We have talked a lot about the ideal frequency range for the body being in the of 0-30 Hz range (Adey Window), but there is also an amplitude window or intensity window that the body ideally responds. Within the cells, if the amplitude is too weak, there is no affect, if the amplitude is too strong it can be harmful.The graph to the left gives a visual of the range of both intensity and frequency plotted vs positive physiological effect. If either the frequency or amplitude is outside this window, the body and cells do not respond (favorably).

Again research by Adey and Bawin, and Sisken and Walker; along with the NASA study and others has shown that a low intensity (within the earth range - 33-66 uT) OR LOWER, works best AND it is the safest. Our cells are so sensitive they can pick up signals even in the picotesla range (100,000 times weaker than the earths magnetic field).

So, you know the old saying, sometimes “Less is More”. In Fact, when it comes to PEMF Therapy LESS is essential, beneficial and safe and MORE can be ineffective and even harmful. And there is plenty of research to suggest that the lesser field strengths (in the earth’s natural range and weaker) actually work better in clinical studies.

For example, the iMRS 2000 uses extremely low field strengths. The “biological windows” of the human body are optimally accessed at field strengths in the low μT range.

But as we showed, more important than Field strength is PENETRATION DEPTH. And Penetration Depth DEPENDS ON THE RADIUS OF THE COILS USED, NOT INTENSITY.

So the IDEAL PEMF DEVICE HAS

1) A full body mat with several coils (6 ideal) along with local applicators (pillow and probe)

2) Coils in full body and large local applicator have coils with a LARGE radius but not too large to be impractical.

3) Intensity should be close to natural Earth Intensity.

4) Coils need to be perfectly circular and tightly wound.

Some PEMF devices on the market have intensities that are way too high. Don’t be fooled by companies that tell you that you need a stronger intensity to get results.The key is coil diameter, and as we'll frequency resonance, not intensity. So look for a device that uses intensities close to what the earth provides with larger diameters of perfectly circular and tightly wound copper.

Next we'll look at the most important factor for PEMF therapy... FREQUENCY RESONANCE!!