FTC AFFILIATE DISCLOSURE : I receive an affiliate fee-based commission for some of the PEMF products which are competitive to this Healthyline product, which I talk about in other videos in this channel. This means at NO additional cost to you, I may earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase and/or subscribe on such products in those other videos. However, this does not impact my opinions as I am passionate about ONLY sharing the best. What I RECOMMEND is what I personally use!
Biggest Scam in the PEMF industry #1
Coulombs Law (electrons small)/Newtons Gravity (center earth/Light (distant stars point sources).
Usually far away or small
Coulombs Law (electrons small)/Newtons Gravity (center earth/Light (distant stars point sources).
Usually far away or small
1. Intensity is perhaps most important in PEMF according to who??...
Page 13 Power Tools - Intensity most important (Source of the error that paper)
Page 13 Power Tools - Intensity most important (Source of the error that paper)
2. Admits he is the one making the charts
3. Charts and Graphs WRONG (page 13 power tools, page 139 Supercharge your health
|
|
The Most Definitive Debunk of Dr Pawluk's Inverse Square Flaw
Why did he use .5 inches for a 1/4 drop-off?
That assumes a .25 radius sphere
That assumes a .25 radius sphere
Here are the photos of the measurement setup. The tape measure was moved out of the way for the measurements so that the magnetic fields would not couple through the steel. The hall probe used was Asahi Kasei Microdevices part number EQ731L which has a sensitivity of 65mV per millitesla.
Also Noteworthy - One inch outside the coil the field dropped to 86% (2.5 mT)
Also Noteworthy - One inch outside the coil the field dropped to 86% (2.5 mT)
Example 1 - 10.5 Inch Loop 2.9 mT at the surface
|
|
|
0 inches 2.9 mT
|
1 inch is 2.75mt,
|
3 inches is 2mt
|
4 inches above 1.5 mT
|
5 inches is 1.2mt
|
Here are the photos of the measurement setup. The tape measure was moved out of the way for the measurements so that the magnetic fields would not couple through the steel. The hall probe used was Asahi Kasei Microdevices part number EQ731L which has a sensitivity of 65mV per millitesla.
Also Noteworthy - One inch outside the coil the field dropped to 5% (.8mT)
Also Noteworthy - One inch outside the coil the field dropped to 5% (.8mT)
Example 2 - 1.6 inch Diameter Loop - 16mT at the surface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Page 410 Helmholtz wrong - Biot Savart Law in Plain Site in his BOOK!!!
|
|
Inverse Square can be used as an Approximation of Radiation Therapies because there is an approximate point source AND the person is a further distance away.
|
|
Examples and Tests
6. Field Measurements Disprove
Magnetic Magic with hall probe
6mT center --> 1.5 four inches up (25% not .7%)
7. Marcus Truly - 750-1000% off
6. Field Measurements Disprove
Magnetic Magic with hall probe
6mT center --> 1.5 four inches up (25% not .7%)
7. Marcus Truly - 750-1000% off
|
|
8. Dr Pawluk debunking Dr Pawluk with QRS and Medithera
Other PEMF Experts Like Robert Dennis Agree
9. Quotes one study and it was for Analgesia
Studies - Not Many
Interesting Meta analysis from 3249 experiments and 92 publications. The most effective intensity range was found to be between 1-10 mT. Not many high intensity studies and not as effective!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
10. Dr Pawluk's Magic Number and why 1/2 his book is wrong.
Uses Inverse Square law to get 15 gauss/1.5 mT
**15 Gauss Study**
15 gauss (1.5 mT) 4 inches/6 inches up with 20/6 mT loop (coil/center)
To stimulate the Adenosine receptor optimally you need 15 gauss at the receptor site. Have to calculate the dose at that receptor.
Dr Pawluks Recommendation of 4000 Gauss or Higher comes from the WRONG EQUATION
Update: Slew Rate o fthe i-ONE is 3 T/s 500 us rise time! (1100 us pulse width).
Uses Inverse Square law to get 15 gauss/1.5 mT
**15 Gauss Study**
15 gauss (1.5 mT) 4 inches/6 inches up with 20/6 mT loop (coil/center)
To stimulate the Adenosine receptor optimally you need 15 gauss at the receptor site. Have to calculate the dose at that receptor.
Dr Pawluks Recommendation of 4000 Gauss or Higher comes from the WRONG EQUATION
Update: Slew Rate o fthe i-ONE is 3 T/s 500 us rise time! (1100 us pulse width).
ATP
There is a significant need to increase ATP production and improve mitochondrial function, and PEMFs are the ideal tool to do so. It has been shown that using PEMFs for only 20 minutes can stimulate ATP production (Zhang S) up to 600%, averaging 111-241%v
Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
Dr Pawluk quotes this ATP study often 100-600% but it comes for a device LESS THEN 1 uT using Earth Frequencies and Resonance!!!
https://www.drpawluk.com/heart-failure/
There is a significant need to increase ATP production and improve mitochondrial function, and PEMFs are the ideal tool to do so. It has been shown that using PEMFs for only 20 minutes can stimulate ATP production (Zhang S) up to 600%, averaging 111-241%v
Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
Dr Pawluk quotes this ATP study often 100-600% but it comes for a device LESS THEN 1 uT using Earth Frequencies and Resonance!!!
https://www.drpawluk.com/heart-failure/
|
|
More is Not Better! Too Much Induced Microcurrent = LESS ATP!!
Another effect of electric fields is the enhancement of ATP production in the cells involved in the repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that must be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng et al. (1982), who found that currents of 10–1000 μA produced a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels. Higher current levels, into the milliampere range, decreased protein synthesis.
Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
Another effect of electric fields is the enhancement of ATP production in the cells involved in the repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that must be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng et al. (1982), who found that currents of 10–1000 μA produced a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels. Higher current levels, into the milliampere range, decreased protein synthesis.
Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
Stronger is not better. Strong magnetic fields are potentially dangerous. They are not natural. They are not physiologic. They are not effacious. MFT works 100% of the time when you have the right signal. Target various domains and structure.
Household appliances.
If you use magnets of thousands of gauss is NOT natural
Objective in healing (Hippocratic oath) - Do no harm. Use the safest modality imaginable.
Use naturally occurring magnetic profiles... microscopic, mesoscopic, macroscopic health.
Biomedicial researchers have been testing the use of pulsing magnetic fields originating outside the body to induce microcurrents within tissues to stimulate healing.
A consistent observation is that triggering a cellular response requires the applicaton of energy in a very narrow range of frequencies and intensities. Extensive research on fracture non-unions using low intensity and frequency.
===
**Too Much is NECROSIS**
Microampere currents induced from outside the body restart the healing process by recruiting bone-forming cells in a manner similar to a natural repair response. Field effects are highly specific and confined to a narrow power frequency window. To high an induced current stimulates necrosis rather than repair! And the characteristics of a bone healing pulse are different from those of an osteonecrosis pulse. (Oschman Energy medicine pg 271).
The therapeutic effectiveness of the continuous electric current depends on its intensity. Values of electric current ranging from 2 to 20 μA/cm2 are considered optimal for stimulation of osteogenesis
Values of applied current below 2 μA/cm2 are ineffective, while currents of over 50 μA/cm2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical practice is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V). 2-20 uA/cm2 is optimal.
Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
===
Medical researchers have documented a cascade of signal transduction processes from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the genetic material that are facilitated by PEMF therapies (Bassett 1995). High intensity PEMF and high frequency electrosmog appear to have negative effects along the same pathways! (Oschman pf 271).
In General, organisms are poised to respond to minute 'whispers' in the electromagnetic environment. Bassett (1995) suggested an analogy between the arrays of bone cells in the osteon and the phased arrays of radio telescope antennas.
Radio telescope arrays enable astrophysicists to detect extremely weak electromagnetic signals from millions, even billions of light years away.
Bassett suggested that tissues extract information from fields originating outside the body by a process akin to that involved in radio astronomy.
These crystalline arrays are throughout the whole body so this applies NOT just to bone...
MORE IS NOT NECESSSARY!! The Body can tune to weak signals!!
Household appliances.
If you use magnets of thousands of gauss is NOT natural
Objective in healing (Hippocratic oath) - Do no harm. Use the safest modality imaginable.
Use naturally occurring magnetic profiles... microscopic, mesoscopic, macroscopic health.
Biomedicial researchers have been testing the use of pulsing magnetic fields originating outside the body to induce microcurrents within tissues to stimulate healing.
A consistent observation is that triggering a cellular response requires the applicaton of energy in a very narrow range of frequencies and intensities. Extensive research on fracture non-unions using low intensity and frequency.
===
**Too Much is NECROSIS**
Microampere currents induced from outside the body restart the healing process by recruiting bone-forming cells in a manner similar to a natural repair response. Field effects are highly specific and confined to a narrow power frequency window. To high an induced current stimulates necrosis rather than repair! And the characteristics of a bone healing pulse are different from those of an osteonecrosis pulse. (Oschman Energy medicine pg 271).
The therapeutic effectiveness of the continuous electric current depends on its intensity. Values of electric current ranging from 2 to 20 μA/cm2 are considered optimal for stimulation of osteogenesis
Values of applied current below 2 μA/cm2 are ineffective, while currents of over 50 μA/cm2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical practice is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V). 2-20 uA/cm2 is optimal.
Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
===
Medical researchers have documented a cascade of signal transduction processes from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the genetic material that are facilitated by PEMF therapies (Bassett 1995). High intensity PEMF and high frequency electrosmog appear to have negative effects along the same pathways! (Oschman pf 271).
In General, organisms are poised to respond to minute 'whispers' in the electromagnetic environment. Bassett (1995) suggested an analogy between the arrays of bone cells in the osteon and the phased arrays of radio telescope antennas.
Radio telescope arrays enable astrophysicists to detect extremely weak electromagnetic signals from millions, even billions of light years away.
Bassett suggested that tissues extract information from fields originating outside the body by a process akin to that involved in radio astronomy.
These crystalline arrays are throughout the whole body so this applies NOT just to bone...
MORE IS NOT NECESSSARY!! The Body can tune to weak signals!!
|
|
Further Proof MORE is not better
1) When the field strength is relatively high at 7 mT (milliTesla) osteoblasts were stimulated to increase bone production only at the beginning of the experiment. (Diniz 2002/81) Later in the study the osteoblast activity decreased. This is a reminder of the importance of the biological window – and in this case, the amplitude window in exerting consistently positive therapeutic effects. Most beneficial effects occur at very low electromagnetic amplitudes (or “flux densities”).
Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on
the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
2) Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
Rubin, C. T., K. J. McLeod, et al. (1989). Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(3): 411-7.
3) Less than 30 Gauss ** Full Article Here is a paper that says the Nasa PEMF Studies showed that high rise time is critical:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcp.21025
Pulsed therapeutic fields are usually more effective if less than 30 gauss (see Curie's Law and dipole saturation), and frequencies are commonly less than 100 Hz, below which they are referred to as extremely low frequency (ELF). Cell phones are several magnitudes of order larger in both considerations.
Both studies indicate rise time (dB/dt) as a critical determinant of efficacy, a characteristic not previously cited in a literature dominated by field strength, frequency, and duration.
Cooper union in NY study on malignant melanoma cells @4T. Malignant melanoma - saw cells disperse and metastasize. Stronger is not better.
1) When the field strength is relatively high at 7 mT (milliTesla) osteoblasts were stimulated to increase bone production only at the beginning of the experiment. (Diniz 2002/81) Later in the study the osteoblast activity decreased. This is a reminder of the importance of the biological window – and in this case, the amplitude window in exerting consistently positive therapeutic effects. Most beneficial effects occur at very low electromagnetic amplitudes (or “flux densities”).
Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on
the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
2) Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
Rubin, C. T., K. J. McLeod, et al. (1989). Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(3): 411-7.
3) Less than 30 Gauss ** Full Article Here is a paper that says the Nasa PEMF Studies showed that high rise time is critical:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcp.21025
Pulsed therapeutic fields are usually more effective if less than 30 gauss (see Curie's Law and dipole saturation), and frequencies are commonly less than 100 Hz, below which they are referred to as extremely low frequency (ELF). Cell phones are several magnitudes of order larger in both considerations.
Both studies indicate rise time (dB/dt) as a critical determinant of efficacy, a characteristic not previously cited in a literature dominated by field strength, frequency, and duration.
Cooper union in NY study on malignant melanoma cells @4T. Malignant melanoma - saw cells disperse and metastasize. Stronger is not better.
3) This article, we see that 5,600 uT level of 100Hz is bad.
4) Heart Safety and Preventing Extra Beats
***The application of strong magnetic fields in the proximity of the heart should be handled with special precautions***
Formica D., Silvestri S. Biological effects of exposure to magnetic resonance imaging: An overview. Biomed. Eng. Online. 2004;3:11.
Similar arguments (13, 29, 41) show that the most sensitive population percentile should experience cardiac stimulation (extra induced beats) when the peak gradient field reaches about 1875 gauss. Limiting peak gradient fields to approximately 600 gauss should provide a wide safety margin against cardiac stimulation.
Schaefer, D.J., Bourland, J.D. and Nyenhuis, J.A. (2000), Review of Patient Safety in Time-Varying Gradient Fields. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 12: 20-29
Another along this line
Too high of a Slew Rate / Intensity causes potential unhealthy PNS (Peripheral Nerve Stimulation)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cmr.10011
***The application of strong magnetic fields in the proximity of the heart should be handled with special precautions***
Formica D., Silvestri S. Biological effects of exposure to magnetic resonance imaging: An overview. Biomed. Eng. Online. 2004;3:11.
Similar arguments (13, 29, 41) show that the most sensitive population percentile should experience cardiac stimulation (extra induced beats) when the peak gradient field reaches about 1875 gauss. Limiting peak gradient fields to approximately 600 gauss should provide a wide safety margin against cardiac stimulation.
Schaefer, D.J., Bourland, J.D. and Nyenhuis, J.A. (2000), Review of Patient Safety in Time-Varying Gradient Fields. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 12: 20-29
Another along this line
Too high of a Slew Rate / Intensity causes potential unhealthy PNS (Peripheral Nerve Stimulation)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cmr.10011
While its true that MRI machines go up this high, but you would not want to get an MRI every day!
The DIN Institute of Standards in Germany - 400 uT
But even better recommendations (because frequency is also taken into effect) are given by the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON‐IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP is a world-wide authority on safety related to elec- tromagnetic energy. The EU and FDA both rely on their findings.
According to the ICNIRP, the limiting values for safety of time varying PEMF are dependent on both the frequency (usually measureed in Hz) and the flux density (or Intensity - measured in microtesla).
With Frequencies 0-25 Hz, up to 5000uT is safe
But if frequency above 25 Hz, than anything over 5uT is problematic (that’s weaker than earth’s magnetic field).
The higher the applied frequency the lower the limit value for intensity that is safe. This means, if you apply a very low frequency (like the earth fre- quency range 1-25 Hz) you are allowed to apply higher intensities. See link below.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
PAGE 511 – table 7
The Charts below shows Germany (ICNIRP) is one of the Few countries with significant data on lower frequency high intensity being dangerous too. The link below is technical, but clearly shows you should not be using more than 1-5 gauss for frequencies above 10 Hz and MOST pemf devices are operating at 10 hertz or above.
AVOID HIGH INTENSITY PEMF LIKE THE PLAGUE. NOT SAFE FOR DAILY USE. If it has higher frequencies that REALLY AVOID!!
IF you get close to 1 hz, the body CAN tolerate more because that is nearly equivalent to a static field.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
Again the key is frequency resonance, not intensity, so it's best to avoid these machines unless under direct supervisor of a healthcare professional trained in using these devices.
The DIN Institute of Standards in Germany - 400 uT
But even better recommendations (because frequency is also taken into effect) are given by the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON‐IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP is a world-wide authority on safety related to elec- tromagnetic energy. The EU and FDA both rely on their findings.
According to the ICNIRP, the limiting values for safety of time varying PEMF are dependent on both the frequency (usually measureed in Hz) and the flux density (or Intensity - measured in microtesla).
With Frequencies 0-25 Hz, up to 5000uT is safe
But if frequency above 25 Hz, than anything over 5uT is problematic (that’s weaker than earth’s magnetic field).
The higher the applied frequency the lower the limit value for intensity that is safe. This means, if you apply a very low frequency (like the earth fre- quency range 1-25 Hz) you are allowed to apply higher intensities. See link below.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
PAGE 511 – table 7
The Charts below shows Germany (ICNIRP) is one of the Few countries with significant data on lower frequency high intensity being dangerous too. The link below is technical, but clearly shows you should not be using more than 1-5 gauss for frequencies above 10 Hz and MOST pemf devices are operating at 10 hertz or above.
AVOID HIGH INTENSITY PEMF LIKE THE PLAGUE. NOT SAFE FOR DAILY USE. If it has higher frequencies that REALLY AVOID!!
IF you get close to 1 hz, the body CAN tolerate more because that is nearly equivalent to a static field.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
Again the key is frequency resonance, not intensity, so it's best to avoid these machines unless under direct supervisor of a healthcare professional trained in using these devices.
Very Weak Magnetic Fields have Profound Effects
It is probable that future advances in electromagnetic medicine will follow the remarkable discovery by Mikhail Zhadin that vanishingly small magnetic intensities are biologically interactive.
Zhadin who gave convincing evidence, extensively replicated, that fields as low as 40 nT were also interactive, even though these were fully 100 times less than the earlier values which had already been labeled as impossibly interactive by theoreticians. Because magnetic energies scale as the square, this 100-fold reduction in field amounted to a 10,000-fold reduction in energy.
geomagnetic effects on humans has in recent years been strengthened by Zhadin,6 who found that the physical characteristics of amino acids are affected by vanishingly small magnetic fields, as little as 40 nT. This extension of ICR effects to very weak magnetic fields opens the door to the possibility that even the slightest changes in the geomagnetic field are capable of affecting life on earth.
Zhadin MN, Novikov VV, Barnes FS, Pergola NF. Combined action of static and alternating magnetic fields on ionic current in aqueous glutamic acid solutions. Bioelectromagnetics 1998;19:41–5.
**Confirmed in over 50 experiments**
ICR phenomenon remains strictly empirical in nature, despite more than 50 experimental corroborations in at least a half dozen laboratories.
Liboff, Abraham. (2015). Ion Cyclotron Resonance Applications in Medicine.
Subsequent experiments seemed to confirm these observations. Demonstrated effects included a change in free calcium concentration in extra and intracellular media [Liboff, et al., 1987]; change in diatom mobility [Smith, et al., 1987]; disturbance in conditioning [Thomas, et al., 1986]; and a series of other effects under the influence of combined magnetic fields. Three different mathematical models [McLeod and Liboff, 1987; Zhadin and Fesenko, 1990; Lednev, 1991] have been developed attempting to explain the mechanisms of these phenomena
Sample of Research (Shown in Image)
AR, Smith SD, McLeod BR (1987): Experimental evidence for ion cyclotron resonance mediation of membrane transport. In Blank M, Findl E (eds) ‘‘Mechanistic Approaches to Interactions of Electric and Electromagnetic Fields with Living Systems.’’ New York and London: Plenum Press, pp 109–132.
Smith SD, McLeod BR, Liboff AR, Cooksey K (1987): Calcium cyclo- tron resonance and diatom mobility. Bioelectromagnetics 8:215– 227.
Zhadin MN, Fesenko EE (1990): Ionic cyclotron resonance in biomolecules. Biomedical Science 1:245–250.
Lednev VV (1991): Possible mechanism for the influence of weak magnetic fields on biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics 12:71– 75.
Many theoretical attempts have been made to explain these “unreasonable results” showing that very weak electromagnetic fields do interact with living things. To date, the best approach has been that of Emilio Del Giudice6 utilizing the techniques of quantum electrodynamics (QED). One of the most interesting things about this theoretical work is that it directly involves the physical properties of water.
Directly as a result of these data, Del Giudice et al. used quantum electrodynamics to propose a model29 in which water exists in two states, one of which is enhanced by elec- tromagnetic fields. They showed that microscopic water domains are formed which are devoid of internal ions. In this model the ions found on the surface of these domains are free, experiencing much smaller viscosities under magnetic resonance
Del Giudice E, Fleischmann M, Preparata G, Talpo G. On the unreasonable effects of ELF magnetic fields upon a system of ions. Bioelectromagnetics 2002;27:522–30.
It is probable that future advances in electromagnetic medicine will follow the remarkable discovery by Mikhail Zhadin that vanishingly small magnetic intensities are biologically interactive.
Zhadin who gave convincing evidence, extensively replicated, that fields as low as 40 nT were also interactive, even though these were fully 100 times less than the earlier values which had already been labeled as impossibly interactive by theoreticians. Because magnetic energies scale as the square, this 100-fold reduction in field amounted to a 10,000-fold reduction in energy.
geomagnetic effects on humans has in recent years been strengthened by Zhadin,6 who found that the physical characteristics of amino acids are affected by vanishingly small magnetic fields, as little as 40 nT. This extension of ICR effects to very weak magnetic fields opens the door to the possibility that even the slightest changes in the geomagnetic field are capable of affecting life on earth.
Zhadin MN, Novikov VV, Barnes FS, Pergola NF. Combined action of static and alternating magnetic fields on ionic current in aqueous glutamic acid solutions. Bioelectromagnetics 1998;19:41–5.
**Confirmed in over 50 experiments**
ICR phenomenon remains strictly empirical in nature, despite more than 50 experimental corroborations in at least a half dozen laboratories.
Liboff, Abraham. (2015). Ion Cyclotron Resonance Applications in Medicine.
Subsequent experiments seemed to confirm these observations. Demonstrated effects included a change in free calcium concentration in extra and intracellular media [Liboff, et al., 1987]; change in diatom mobility [Smith, et al., 1987]; disturbance in conditioning [Thomas, et al., 1986]; and a series of other effects under the influence of combined magnetic fields. Three different mathematical models [McLeod and Liboff, 1987; Zhadin and Fesenko, 1990; Lednev, 1991] have been developed attempting to explain the mechanisms of these phenomena
Sample of Research (Shown in Image)
AR, Smith SD, McLeod BR (1987): Experimental evidence for ion cyclotron resonance mediation of membrane transport. In Blank M, Findl E (eds) ‘‘Mechanistic Approaches to Interactions of Electric and Electromagnetic Fields with Living Systems.’’ New York and London: Plenum Press, pp 109–132.
Smith SD, McLeod BR, Liboff AR, Cooksey K (1987): Calcium cyclo- tron resonance and diatom mobility. Bioelectromagnetics 8:215– 227.
Zhadin MN, Fesenko EE (1990): Ionic cyclotron resonance in biomolecules. Biomedical Science 1:245–250.
Lednev VV (1991): Possible mechanism for the influence of weak magnetic fields on biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics 12:71– 75.
Many theoretical attempts have been made to explain these “unreasonable results” showing that very weak electromagnetic fields do interact with living things. To date, the best approach has been that of Emilio Del Giudice6 utilizing the techniques of quantum electrodynamics (QED). One of the most interesting things about this theoretical work is that it directly involves the physical properties of water.
Directly as a result of these data, Del Giudice et al. used quantum electrodynamics to propose a model29 in which water exists in two states, one of which is enhanced by elec- tromagnetic fields. They showed that microscopic water domains are formed which are devoid of internal ions. In this model the ions found on the surface of these domains are free, experiencing much smaller viscosities under magnetic resonance
Del Giudice E, Fleischmann M, Preparata G, Talpo G. On the unreasonable effects of ELF magnetic fields upon a system of ions. Bioelectromagnetics 2002;27:522–30.
Further Proof Low Intensity PEMF WORKS - 12 Studies!!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Very weak energy fields at the appropriate frequencies can be profoundly therapeutic. Other frequencies can produce pathological responses (like 4G).
While it may go against intuition, it appears that, within limits, it is not the strength of the signal that determines whether it will be beneficial or harmful, but rather it is the frequency!
Resonance is the reason for this frequency specificity. Biological effects like molecular resonances, are very frequency specific. This is vital for PEMF therapy along with all of energy healing and energy medicine devices.
For a long time scientists were very suspicious about the idea that very tiny energy fields could have any biological effects, let alone profound effects.
More and more evidence is proving that frequency resonance is the key to therapeutic energy healing. A recent study (Pall, 2013) points out that the answer to this question has been hiding in plain sight in the scientific literature for a long time.
An example of this is the relation to bone repair facilitated by exposure to tiny pulsating fields. The fact of this this therapeutic success in increasing osteoblast differentiation and maturation is difficult to challenge, because it is has been the subject of so many studies.
Pall lists these studies for the skeptical reader:
1. Ryabi JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355(Suppl. l):S205–15.
2. Oishi M, Onesti ST. Electrical bone graft stimulation for spinal fusion: a review. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:1041–55.
3. Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;10:579–93.
4. Goldstein C, Sprague S, Petrisor BA. Electrical stimulation for fracture healing: current evidence. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(Suppl. 1):S62–5.
5. Demitriou R, Babis GC. Biomaterial osseointegration enhancement with biophysical stimulation. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007;7:253–65.
6. Griffin XL, Warner F, Costa M. The role of electromagnetic stimulation in the management of established non-union lf long bone fractures: what is the evidence? Injury. 2008;39:419–29.
7. Huang LQ, He HC, He CQ, et al. Clinical update of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteroporosis. Chin Med J. 2008;121:2095–9.
8. Groah SL, Lichy AM, Libin AV, et al. Intensive electrical stimulation attenuates femoral bone loss in acute spinal cord injury. PM R. 2010;2:1080–7.
9. Schidt-Rohlfing B, Silny J, Gavenis K, et al. Electromagnetic fields, electric current and bone healing – what is the evidence? Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:265–70.
10. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, et al. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treating delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CDO08471. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008471.pub2.
11. Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Assiotis A, et al. Stimulation of bone formation and fracture healing with pulsed electromagnetic fields: biologic responses and clinical implications. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(1 Suppl. 2):17020.
12. Zhong C, Zhao TF, Xu ZJ, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields on bone regeneration in experimental and clinical studies: a review of the literature. Chin Med J. 2012;125:367–72.
Source:
Pall, M.L. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug; 17(8): 958–965.
Published online 2013 Jun 26. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Very weak energy fields at the appropriate frequencies can be profoundly therapeutic. Other frequencies can produce pathological responses (like 4G).
While it may go against intuition, it appears that, within limits, it is not the strength of the signal that determines whether it will be beneficial or harmful, but rather it is the frequency!
Resonance is the reason for this frequency specificity. Biological effects like molecular resonances, are very frequency specific. This is vital for PEMF therapy along with all of energy healing and energy medicine devices.
For a long time scientists were very suspicious about the idea that very tiny energy fields could have any biological effects, let alone profound effects.
More and more evidence is proving that frequency resonance is the key to therapeutic energy healing. A recent study (Pall, 2013) points out that the answer to this question has been hiding in plain sight in the scientific literature for a long time.
An example of this is the relation to bone repair facilitated by exposure to tiny pulsating fields. The fact of this this therapeutic success in increasing osteoblast differentiation and maturation is difficult to challenge, because it is has been the subject of so many studies.
Pall lists these studies for the skeptical reader:
1. Ryabi JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355(Suppl. l):S205–15.
2. Oishi M, Onesti ST. Electrical bone graft stimulation for spinal fusion: a review. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:1041–55.
3. Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;10:579–93.
4. Goldstein C, Sprague S, Petrisor BA. Electrical stimulation for fracture healing: current evidence. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(Suppl. 1):S62–5.
5. Demitriou R, Babis GC. Biomaterial osseointegration enhancement with biophysical stimulation. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007;7:253–65.
6. Griffin XL, Warner F, Costa M. The role of electromagnetic stimulation in the management of established non-union lf long bone fractures: what is the evidence? Injury. 2008;39:419–29.
7. Huang LQ, He HC, He CQ, et al. Clinical update of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteroporosis. Chin Med J. 2008;121:2095–9.
8. Groah SL, Lichy AM, Libin AV, et al. Intensive electrical stimulation attenuates femoral bone loss in acute spinal cord injury. PM R. 2010;2:1080–7.
9. Schidt-Rohlfing B, Silny J, Gavenis K, et al. Electromagnetic fields, electric current and bone healing – what is the evidence? Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:265–70.
10. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, et al. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treating delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CDO08471. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008471.pub2.
11. Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Assiotis A, et al. Stimulation of bone formation and fracture healing with pulsed electromagnetic fields: biologic responses and clinical implications. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(1 Suppl. 2):17020.
12. Zhong C, Zhao TF, Xu ZJ, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields on bone regeneration in experimental and clinical studies: a review of the literature. Chin Med J. 2012;125:367–72.
Source:
Pall, M.L. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug; 17(8): 958–965.
Published online 2013 Jun 26. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088
Even Dr Pawluk Admits Slew Rate is Important (see video clip below)
An Errata is post-publishing corrections to a book, especially books that have incorrect quantitative information.
Pages 8-18 in Dr Pawluk's Book, "Power Tools for Health", is a chapter on Electrodynamics and Physics that contains MANY serious mistakes that lay the foundation for the ENTIRE book.
Most egregious are his misuse of the Inverse Square law that leads to answers off by up to 5600% AND his misunderstanding of Faraday's Law of Induction. There are Many other scientific mistakes we'll explore but THESE are the main two he uses to justify NEEDING a high intensity PEMF device. So basically he is using INCORRECT physics in telling people that they need high intensity.
Pages 8-18 in Dr Pawluk's Book, "Power Tools for Health", is a chapter on Electrodynamics and Physics that contains MANY serious mistakes that lay the foundation for the ENTIRE book.
Most egregious are his misuse of the Inverse Square law that leads to answers off by up to 5600% AND his misunderstanding of Faraday's Law of Induction. There are Many other scientific mistakes we'll explore but THESE are the main two he uses to justify NEEDING a high intensity PEMF device. So basically he is using INCORRECT physics in telling people that they need high intensity.
While there are SEVERAL errors related to Physics in Dr Pawluk's Book Power Tools for Health, there are TWO mistakes that are so bad that they totally discredit the THESIS of his book. What I mean is Dr Pawluk USES these two laws as justification of needing high intensity! And as we'll see his bad science gives answers that are off by over 5000%!!
Let's take a deeper look at these very serious mistakes as they APPEAR in his book. Dr Pawluk's errors in his book are in red and direct quotes and italicized for emphasis. Correct Physics is in green for clarity.
Let's take a deeper look at these very serious mistakes as they APPEAR in his book. Dr Pawluk's errors in his book are in red and direct quotes and italicized for emphasis. Correct Physics is in green for clarity.
***Not only does he use bad science, but he literally quotes HIS OWN Study on page 14 to justify Needing High Intensity!!
"Research evidence continually and consistently shows that the intensity of a therapeutic magnetic field is important, perhaps more so than any other component. Even the other components of a magnetic field, such as frequency or waveform, rely on the intensity of the PEMF signal at the tissue being stimulated."
Footnote 331 on Page 270
Pawluk W. Clinical dosimetry of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Chapter 17, In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, CRC Press, publication Jan 2017, Markov M, Editor.
So by quoting his OWN study this is clearly his opinion and it is an opinion that is based on bad physics and cherry picking research studies to prove his point.
"Research evidence continually and consistently shows that the intensity of a therapeutic magnetic field is important, perhaps more so than any other component. Even the other components of a magnetic field, such as frequency or waveform, rely on the intensity of the PEMF signal at the tissue being stimulated."
Footnote 331 on Page 270
Pawluk W. Clinical dosimetry of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Chapter 17, In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, CRC Press, publication Jan 2017, Markov M, Editor.
So by quoting his OWN study this is clearly his opinion and it is an opinion that is based on bad physics and cherry picking research studies to prove his point.
Evidence that MORE is not better.
1) Induced electric fields enhance ATP in the cells which is needed for the healing and repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that need to be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng (1982) who found that currents between 10-1000uA produced a 3 to 5 fold increase in ATP levels. Higher currents into the milliampere range DECREASE protein synthesis!!! This has important clinical applications on the healing of wounds.
The effects on AtP production can be explained by proton movements on the basis of the chemiosmotic theory of Mitchell, while the transport functions are controlled by modification in the electrical gradients across the membranes.
Cheng N, Van Hoof H, Bockx E, Hoogmartens MJ, Mulier JC, De Dijcker FJ, Sansen WM, De Loecker W. The effects of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport of rat skin. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Nov-Dec;(171):264-72. PMID: 7140077.
=====
2) Values of applied current below 2uA/cm^2 are ineffective, while currents over 50 uA/cm^2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical pace is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V).
Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1970 Nov;131(5):894-9. PMID: 5471542.
======
3) For both clinical and experimental applications, use has been made of signals with frequency of repetition rate rang- ing from 2 to 100 Hz, with spectral content up to 100 kHz, with intensity between 0.1 and 30 gauss of magnetic induction (10 G = 1 mT) and with induced electric field from 0.01 to 10 mV/cm. More limited findings have been reported with magnetic fields of greater intensity, up to 200 Gauss.
Cadossi, Matteo & Frizziero, Antonio & Vulpiani, Maria & Creta, Domenico & Costantino, Cosimo & Santamato, Andrea & Valent, Alessandro & Franceschi, Francesco & Setti, Stefania. (2014). Clinical Application of biophysical stimulation on bone in Europe.
=======
IF YOUR MUSCLES TWITCH - ITS TOO MUCH!!!!
10 Milliamps / 35 Volts to induce twitching.
First twitches begin around 4-6 mA, and maximum force contraction begins around
Muscle cross section 100 cm^2
50 uA/cm^2 * 100 cm^2 = 5000 uA = 5 mA.
2.3 Volts
1) Induced electric fields enhance ATP in the cells which is needed for the healing and repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that need to be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng (1982) who found that currents between 10-1000uA produced a 3 to 5 fold increase in ATP levels. Higher currents into the milliampere range DECREASE protein synthesis!!! This has important clinical applications on the healing of wounds.
The effects on AtP production can be explained by proton movements on the basis of the chemiosmotic theory of Mitchell, while the transport functions are controlled by modification in the electrical gradients across the membranes.
Cheng N, Van Hoof H, Bockx E, Hoogmartens MJ, Mulier JC, De Dijcker FJ, Sansen WM, De Loecker W. The effects of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport of rat skin. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Nov-Dec;(171):264-72. PMID: 7140077.
=====
2) Values of applied current below 2uA/cm^2 are ineffective, while currents over 50 uA/cm^2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical pace is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V).
Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1970 Nov;131(5):894-9. PMID: 5471542.
======
3) For both clinical and experimental applications, use has been made of signals with frequency of repetition rate rang- ing from 2 to 100 Hz, with spectral content up to 100 kHz, with intensity between 0.1 and 30 gauss of magnetic induction (10 G = 1 mT) and with induced electric field from 0.01 to 10 mV/cm. More limited findings have been reported with magnetic fields of greater intensity, up to 200 Gauss.
Cadossi, Matteo & Frizziero, Antonio & Vulpiani, Maria & Creta, Domenico & Costantino, Cosimo & Santamato, Andrea & Valent, Alessandro & Franceschi, Francesco & Setti, Stefania. (2014). Clinical Application of biophysical stimulation on bone in Europe.
=======
IF YOUR MUSCLES TWITCH - ITS TOO MUCH!!!!
10 Milliamps / 35 Volts to induce twitching.
First twitches begin around 4-6 mA, and maximum force contraction begins around
Muscle cross section 100 cm^2
50 uA/cm^2 * 100 cm^2 = 5000 uA = 5 mA.
2.3 Volts
Robert O. Becker pointed out repeatedly that using microcurrent or PEMF therapy for regeneration of damaged or missing body parts is far more natural than surgery, transplants or prosthetics.
Becker has shown that very low levels of electrical stimulation can cause cultures of so-called differentiated cells to de-differentiate into totipotent cells capable of forming all of the tissues needed to replace a lost or damaged part. His fascinating description of this breakthrough research can be found in his book, "The Body Electric".
The key to Becker's demonstration was reducing the strength of the electrical stimulation. Following the usual way scientists tend to look as such matters, he assumed a large current would be more effective than a small one. The OPPOSITE was correct.
In the experiments on frog red blood cells, conducted by a student named Frederick Brown, the test current was reduced, a step at a time, until they reached the lowest current the apparatus could produce, with the intensity control turned to ZERO, which was about a billionth of an ampere (amp). This stimulation produced dramatic de-differentiation = INCREASED STEM CELLS!!
That is, the LOWEST or smallest current created the GREATEST healing and regeneration effects. PROOF THAT LESS IS MORE in PEMF and micro-current therapy.
NOTE: PEMF INDUCES micro-currents deeper and better than even micro-current devices due to the nature of the body being transparent to magnetic fields. Micro-currents (TENS/EStim, etc) get blocked and slowed down via impedance/resistance effects of the skin and tissues.
=====
Mikhail Zhadin
Discovered that vanishingly small magnetic intensities are biologically active down to nano and picotesla intensities. He found many therapeutic PEMF devices turned out to be even more efficacious when smaller intensities are used.
- From Liboff Chapter 34 "Electromagnetic Therapy" a Primer
Bioelectromagnetic and Subtle Energy Medicine
Liboff, Abraham. (2015). Electromagnetic Therapy: A Primer.
Becker has shown that very low levels of electrical stimulation can cause cultures of so-called differentiated cells to de-differentiate into totipotent cells capable of forming all of the tissues needed to replace a lost or damaged part. His fascinating description of this breakthrough research can be found in his book, "The Body Electric".
The key to Becker's demonstration was reducing the strength of the electrical stimulation. Following the usual way scientists tend to look as such matters, he assumed a large current would be more effective than a small one. The OPPOSITE was correct.
In the experiments on frog red blood cells, conducted by a student named Frederick Brown, the test current was reduced, a step at a time, until they reached the lowest current the apparatus could produce, with the intensity control turned to ZERO, which was about a billionth of an ampere (amp). This stimulation produced dramatic de-differentiation = INCREASED STEM CELLS!!
That is, the LOWEST or smallest current created the GREATEST healing and regeneration effects. PROOF THAT LESS IS MORE in PEMF and micro-current therapy.
NOTE: PEMF INDUCES micro-currents deeper and better than even micro-current devices due to the nature of the body being transparent to magnetic fields. Micro-currents (TENS/EStim, etc) get blocked and slowed down via impedance/resistance effects of the skin and tissues.
=====
Mikhail Zhadin
Discovered that vanishingly small magnetic intensities are biologically active down to nano and picotesla intensities. He found many therapeutic PEMF devices turned out to be even more efficacious when smaller intensities are used.
- From Liboff Chapter 34 "Electromagnetic Therapy" a Primer
Bioelectromagnetic and Subtle Energy Medicine
Liboff, Abraham. (2015). Electromagnetic Therapy: A Primer.
I. Serious Mistake #1 Faraday's Law
Page 10-11 in his Book Power Tools for Health and his videos.
Page 10-11 in his Book Power Tools for Health and his videos.
Incorrect or Misleading Statements about Faraday's Law pgs 10-12
1) "Therapeutically speaking what matters most is is the amount of time it takes for the wave to reach its peak from the baseline on the front edge of the waveform. This is represented as dB/dT. This means the change (d) in intensity (B) divided by the change (d) in time (T)." (pg 10)
This is INCORRECT, Faraday's Law is
EMF = -dΦ/dt
Φ is the FLUX and is equal to the Intensity of the Field TIMES the AREA!!
You have to incorporate the size and Geometry of the Coil to Get the Right Answer!!
EMF is the electromotive force in Volts which is the drive force for ion transport in the body. Φ= L*I which means it depends on BOTH the intensity AND the geometry or SIZE of the coil!
Also he forgets the MINUS sign which is a critical error ... Minus sign is Lenz's law that states the Induced EMF will will circulate in a direction to create an opposing magnetic field to change. Nature abhors a change in flux. What this means it TAKES ENERGY do change the flux.
2) "The bigger the dB/dT, the greater the energy production in the tissues being stimulated." (pg 10)
FALSE this is NOT Energy. Energy is U = 1/2*L*I^2 or also it can be represented as u = B^/2u but you have to integrate over the entire volume...
3) "It's likely that dB/dT, and therefore magnetic field intensity, is the more important factor for the therapeutic use of PEMFs." (pg 10)
Again False
EMF = -dΦ/dt
I tell people the -dΦ/dt is important, one of THE most important things along with the frequency spectrum the signal produces... But INTENSITY is only 1/3 of Faradays law and even there not the most important thing!!
The key point is Both EMF AND energy depend on 3 Things!
1) The Intensity I or B (current or magnetic field)
2) L, the inductance which is the size and geometry of the source coil
3) How rapidly the FLUX Φ changes (not B).
See video below with an example of .7 Gauss PEMF created GREATER inductance than a 5 Gauss!!! Dr Pawluk does not understand Faraday's Law (clearly) since he sells sine wave devices!!
1) "Therapeutically speaking what matters most is is the amount of time it takes for the wave to reach its peak from the baseline on the front edge of the waveform. This is represented as dB/dT. This means the change (d) in intensity (B) divided by the change (d) in time (T)." (pg 10)
This is INCORRECT, Faraday's Law is
EMF = -dΦ/dt
Φ is the FLUX and is equal to the Intensity of the Field TIMES the AREA!!
You have to incorporate the size and Geometry of the Coil to Get the Right Answer!!
EMF is the electromotive force in Volts which is the drive force for ion transport in the body. Φ= L*I which means it depends on BOTH the intensity AND the geometry or SIZE of the coil!
Also he forgets the MINUS sign which is a critical error ... Minus sign is Lenz's law that states the Induced EMF will will circulate in a direction to create an opposing magnetic field to change. Nature abhors a change in flux. What this means it TAKES ENERGY do change the flux.
2) "The bigger the dB/dT, the greater the energy production in the tissues being stimulated." (pg 10)
FALSE this is NOT Energy. Energy is U = 1/2*L*I^2 or also it can be represented as u = B^/2u but you have to integrate over the entire volume...
3) "It's likely that dB/dT, and therefore magnetic field intensity, is the more important factor for the therapeutic use of PEMFs." (pg 10)
Again False
EMF = -dΦ/dt
I tell people the -dΦ/dt is important, one of THE most important things along with the frequency spectrum the signal produces... But INTENSITY is only 1/3 of Faradays law and even there not the most important thing!!
The key point is Both EMF AND energy depend on 3 Things!
1) The Intensity I or B (current or magnetic field)
2) L, the inductance which is the size and geometry of the source coil
3) How rapidly the FLUX Φ changes (not B).
See video below with an example of .7 Gauss PEMF created GREATER inductance than a 5 Gauss!!! Dr Pawluk does not understand Faraday's Law (clearly) since he sells sine wave devices!!
Further Comments:
And if the dB/dt or More correctly -dΦ/dt is so imporant as dr Pawluk SAYS it is, WHY DOES HE SELL A SINE WAVE PEMF DEVICE (Biobalance) and actually RECOMMEND IT CURRENTLY AS THE GO TO FULL BODY MAT TO GET???
See charts below of Signal of Biobalance at 5 Gauss (500 uT) and how it INDUCES LESS VOLTAGE THAN iMRS 2000 which is .7 Gauss or 70 uT!
Based on my repeated test that I verified over and over on Biobalance on Highest setting using several programs, the BEST reading I could get was below! And this was putting the current loop LITERALLY in the middle of the coil. IMRS induced 4x the Voltage at 1/7 the intensity... WHY?
Two Reasons iMRS induced more Voltage
1) Larger Coils = More Flux
2) iMRS sawtooth has great -dΦ/dt that Biobalance
3) Intensity is only 1/3 of Faraday's Law. Even though Biobalance has more intensity it has much smaller coils (4cm radius vs 11 cm radius) and much slower rise and fall.
Clearly INTENSITY IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN FARADAY'S LAW AS DR PAWLUK SAYS!!
He literally contradicts himself saying one thing in his book and SELLING on his website the very opposite of what he says is most important (dB/dt)
And if the dB/dt or More correctly -dΦ/dt is so imporant as dr Pawluk SAYS it is, WHY DOES HE SELL A SINE WAVE PEMF DEVICE (Biobalance) and actually RECOMMEND IT CURRENTLY AS THE GO TO FULL BODY MAT TO GET???
See charts below of Signal of Biobalance at 5 Gauss (500 uT) and how it INDUCES LESS VOLTAGE THAN iMRS 2000 which is .7 Gauss or 70 uT!
Based on my repeated test that I verified over and over on Biobalance on Highest setting using several programs, the BEST reading I could get was below! And this was putting the current loop LITERALLY in the middle of the coil. IMRS induced 4x the Voltage at 1/7 the intensity... WHY?
Two Reasons iMRS induced more Voltage
1) Larger Coils = More Flux
2) iMRS sawtooth has great -dΦ/dt that Biobalance
3) Intensity is only 1/3 of Faraday's Law. Even though Biobalance has more intensity it has much smaller coils (4cm radius vs 11 cm radius) and much slower rise and fall.
Clearly INTENSITY IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN FARADAY'S LAW AS DR PAWLUK SAYS!!
He literally contradicts himself saying one thing in his book and SELLING on his website the very opposite of what he says is most important (dB/dt)
|
|
II. Mistake #2 Inverse Square Law
Page 11-14 in his Book Power Tools for Health and his videos.
Page 11-14 in his Book Power Tools for Health and his videos.
Incorrect or Misleading Statements about Inverse Square Law pgs 11-14
1) "Intensity is measured in gauss (G) or Tesla (T). For our purpose, intensity is a measurement of the strength or power of a magnetic field. It's actually more scientifically accurate to use the terms "flux density" or "magnetic induction" when dealing with magnetic fields." (pg 11)
1) "Intensity is measured in gauss (G) or Tesla (T). For our purpose, intensity is a measurement of the strength or power of a magnetic field. It's actually more scientifically accurate to use the terms "flux density" or "magnetic induction" when dealing with magnetic fields." (pg 11)
This is only partly true...
Yes intensity is measured in Gauss or Tesla and yes intensity is ALSO called magnetic flux density... But I don't think he understands what that really means.
Magnetic field flux density or INTENSITY, is just a point measurement of the field. To get the entire MAGNETIC FLUX we need to INTEGRATE over the entire area of the coil.
Also incorrectly he says magnetic intensity is also called magnetic induction... WRONG! As we stated in the last section, magnetic induction is
EMF = -dΦ/dt where Φ is the FLUX!
In fact Magnetic FLUX is more important than intensity because it is FLUX that related to EMF, Energy and POWER NOT INTENSITY!!!!
Yes intensity is measured in Gauss or Tesla and yes intensity is ALSO called magnetic flux density... But I don't think he understands what that really means.
Magnetic field flux density or INTENSITY, is just a point measurement of the field. To get the entire MAGNETIC FLUX we need to INTEGRATE over the entire area of the coil.
Also incorrectly he says magnetic intensity is also called magnetic induction... WRONG! As we stated in the last section, magnetic induction is
EMF = -dΦ/dt where Φ is the FLUX!
In fact Magnetic FLUX is more important than intensity because it is FLUX that related to EMF, Energy and POWER NOT INTENSITY!!!!
2) "The Inverse Square Rule is a basic law of physics that refers to the intensity (in this case, of a magnetic field) being inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of the field. Put simply, the intensity of an electromagnetic field decreases rapidly as you move away from the source... The degree of reduction is based on the inverse square rule." (pg 11)
This is True, but ONLY FOR POINT SOURCES!!! The image below is used on many high intensity websites as so called evidence for needing high intensity, but it is WRONG FOR PEMF COILS!!! Unless of course the coils were infinitesimally small!
For coils like the iMRS 2000 or BEMER, this gives answers that are WAY WAY OFF!!!
This is True, but ONLY FOR POINT SOURCES!!! The image below is used on many high intensity websites as so called evidence for needing high intensity, but it is WRONG FOR PEMF COILS!!! Unless of course the coils were infinitesimally small!
For coils like the iMRS 2000 or BEMER, this gives answers that are WAY WAY OFF!!!
Further Comments:
THIS IS MISLEADING AND INCORRECT IN THE WAY HE DOES THE CALCULATIONS.
The Inverse Square is for a point or spherical source ONLY... And even a spherical source it is 1/R^2 where capital R is the Radius of the sphere. So larger spheres have slower dropoffs (like the earth) then smaller spheres.
The final equation you need to use depends on the SIZE and geometry of the SOURCE!!! It is almost NEVER an inverse square with most objects. We gave to have to INTEGRATE over the source of the charge, mass, light or CURRENT in the case of PEMF.
THIS IS MISLEADING AND INCORRECT IN THE WAY HE DOES THE CALCULATIONS.
The Inverse Square is for a point or spherical source ONLY... And even a spherical source it is 1/R^2 where capital R is the Radius of the sphere. So larger spheres have slower dropoffs (like the earth) then smaller spheres.
The final equation you need to use depends on the SIZE and geometry of the SOURCE!!! It is almost NEVER an inverse square with most objects. We gave to have to INTEGRATE over the source of the charge, mass, light or CURRENT in the case of PEMF.
|
|
|
You need to use the Biot Savart Law and Integrate over the Source of the Coil. This does NOT give you an inverse square drop-off... Dr Pawluk is using the WRONG EQUATION!!
And since most PEMF devices use (usually) a circular current loop the final equation becomes like in image below where the drop-off depends on NOT only the distance away "z" (like a 1/r^2 law) but ALSO THE RADIUS OF THE COIL "R"!!
And since most PEMF devices use (usually) a circular current loop the final equation becomes like in image below where the drop-off depends on NOT only the distance away "z" (like a 1/r^2 law) but ALSO THE RADIUS OF THE COIL "R"!!
As we'll see when you use the Inverse square law incorrectly like Dr Pawluk's book, videos, presentations and website - it gives answer off by over 5000%!
Why not an inverse square? We have to integrate or add up all the little current segments to get the TOTAL field.
A loop of current depends on TWO variables, the radius of the loop AND the distance away. Larger Loops create larger magnetic fields (which makes sense because there is MORE current flowing in a larger loop) with greater magnetic fluxes and gradients (more on this later).
Because of this HUGE Error Dr Pawluk's chart's and graphs are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being accurate, in fact they are off by over 5000%!!
A loop of current depends on TWO variables, the radius of the loop AND the distance away. Larger Loops create larger magnetic fields (which makes sense because there is MORE current flowing in a larger loop) with greater magnetic fluxes and gradients (more on this later).
Because of this HUGE Error Dr Pawluk's chart's and graphs are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being accurate, in fact they are off by over 5000%!!
Charts and Comments from Pages 11-12 in Dr Pawluk's Book
3) ""In Figure 1.5, the intensity of the magnetic field is represented on the vertical axis and measured in mT, ranging from 1mT (10 gauss) to 100 mT (1000 gauss). This distance from the surface of the applicator is represented on the horizontal axis and measured in centimeters, from 1 to 13 cm. This figure shows that at about 8 cm away from the applicator, all the magnetic field intensities are at or below 1mT (10 gauss)."
"In Figure 1.6, at at 6 cm away from the applicator, a 100 mT (1000 gauss) magnetic field has dropped to around 2 mT (20 gauss). This is a 98% drop in the intensity of the magnetic field in this short distance. The same ratio of intensity applies to all of the different magnetic field strengths in the graphic, extending from 1-100mT."
3) ""In Figure 1.5, the intensity of the magnetic field is represented on the vertical axis and measured in mT, ranging from 1mT (10 gauss) to 100 mT (1000 gauss). This distance from the surface of the applicator is represented on the horizontal axis and measured in centimeters, from 1 to 13 cm. This figure shows that at about 8 cm away from the applicator, all the magnetic field intensities are at or below 1mT (10 gauss)."
"In Figure 1.6, at at 6 cm away from the applicator, a 100 mT (1000 gauss) magnetic field has dropped to around 2 mT (20 gauss). This is a 98% drop in the intensity of the magnetic field in this short distance. The same ratio of intensity applies to all of the different magnetic field strengths in the graphic, extending from 1-100mT."
This is ONLY if you use a .25 inch radius coil!! This is about .6 Centimeters in Radius! See below... I spent A LOT of time trying to figure out what he was doing with these graphs above and chart below, which come from the incorrect use of the inverse square law. To make these numbers work for 0, .5, 1 and 2 inches you need to use a sphere of radius .25 inches of .63 cm.
To give you a sense of HOW SMALL this is, here is the OMI 1 centimeter Radius Coil which by the way is one of the SMALLEST coils I have seen and it is STILL 2x as big as Dr Pawluk's Calculations!!!
So that little dinky OMI coil will still create LARGER INTENSITY VALUES THAN Dr Pawluk's Chart.
Magnetic flux numbers are r^2 based on area, so the iMRS 2000 coil will have literally about 300 TIMES more flux than Dr Pawluk's small coil/sphere.
EVEN THE OMI COIL WILL HAVE 2.5 TIMES MORE FLUX!!!
These NUMBERS IN Dr Pawluk's Book ARE TOTAL B.S. (Bad Science) because NO ONE IS USING SUCH TINY COILS IN THEIR PEMF DEVICES!!!
To give you a sense of HOW SMALL this is, here is the OMI 1 centimeter Radius Coil which by the way is one of the SMALLEST coils I have seen and it is STILL 2x as big as Dr Pawluk's Calculations!!!
So that little dinky OMI coil will still create LARGER INTENSITY VALUES THAN Dr Pawluk's Chart.
Magnetic flux numbers are r^2 based on area, so the iMRS 2000 coil will have literally about 300 TIMES more flux than Dr Pawluk's small coil/sphere.
EVEN THE OMI COIL WILL HAVE 2.5 TIMES MORE FLUX!!!
These NUMBERS IN Dr Pawluk's Book ARE TOTAL B.S. (Bad Science) because NO ONE IS USING SUCH TINY COILS IN THEIR PEMF DEVICES!!!
4) "If you start with a low intensity magnetic field at the surface of an applicator, the you will end up with an extremely low intensity magnetic field on the other side of the body. This is one of the primary reasons I emphasize maximum magnetic field intensity so much so when it comes to healing the body." (pg 13).
WRONG!!!
Again the KEY is Magnetic FLUX and -dΦ/dt AND Frequency Spectrums and Resonance of the signal NOT intensity. Intensity is only 1/3 of Faradays law and Faradays law is 1/2 of what you should be looking for!!
But when you DO calculate intensity, you NEED TO USE THE BIOT SAVART law and integrate over the source current loop. Dr Pawluk's arguments are all based on a .63 cm radius coil (that no PEMF company uses and BAD BAD Physics!!!
WRONG!!!
Again the KEY is Magnetic FLUX and -dΦ/dt AND Frequency Spectrums and Resonance of the signal NOT intensity. Intensity is only 1/3 of Faradays law and Faradays law is 1/2 of what you should be looking for!!
But when you DO calculate intensity, you NEED TO USE THE BIOT SAVART law and integrate over the source current loop. Dr Pawluk's arguments are all based on a .63 cm radius coil (that no PEMF company uses and BAD BAD Physics!!!
5) "This table describes the intensity of a 100 uT or 1 gauss PEMF up to 5 inches or 13 centimeters away (or into the body) from the surface of an applicator.
At 5 inches or 13 cm away from the applicator there is little magnetic field left. In terms of Faraday's Law (dB/dT), this means the magnetic field is creating almost no charge in the tissues at the point. Lying on your back on a comparable (1 gauss) whole-body magnetic system, then, will produce virtually no magnetic field in the front of the body." (pg 13)
At 5 inches or 13 cm away from the applicator there is little magnetic field left. In terms of Faraday's Law (dB/dT), this means the magnetic field is creating almost no charge in the tissues at the point. Lying on your back on a comparable (1 gauss) whole-body magnetic system, then, will produce virtually no magnetic field in the front of the body." (pg 13)
Again this is ONLY true IF you are using a .63 centimeter radius coil.
THAT IS A COIL (or rather a Sphere) SMALLER THAN A DIME!!!
NO PEMF PRODUCTS ARE USING COILS THAT SMALL!!!
The ACTUAL value at 5 inches away of an 11cm radius coil LIKE the iMRS 2000 is NOT .5 uT but rather 28 uT!! That is a 5600% ERROR!! This is Unacceptable, especially when he CLEARLY uses this as justification of NEEDING higher intensity!
THAT IS A COIL (or rather a Sphere) SMALLER THAN A DIME!!!
NO PEMF PRODUCTS ARE USING COILS THAT SMALL!!!
The ACTUAL value at 5 inches away of an 11cm radius coil LIKE the iMRS 2000 is NOT .5 uT but rather 28 uT!! That is a 5600% ERROR!! This is Unacceptable, especially when he CLEARLY uses this as justification of NEEDING higher intensity!
"Research evidence continually and consistently shows that the intensity of a therapeutic magnetic field is important, perhaps more so than any other component. Even the other components of a magnetic field, such as frequency or waveform, rely on the intensity of the PEMF signal at the tissue being stimulated."
Footnote 331 on Page 270
Pawluk W. Clinical dosimetry of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Chapter 17, In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, CRC Press, publication Jan 2017, Markov M, Editor.
Footnote 331 on Page 270
Pawluk W. Clinical dosimetry of extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields. Chapter 17, In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, CRC Press, publication Jan 2017, Markov M, Editor.
So to incorrectly justify needing High intensity PEMF, he quotes his OWN research study, Uses Faraday's Law Incorrectly AND uses the wrong equation for the Inverse Square law. This gives answers off by up to 5600%!
So Besides cherry picking research studies he gives NO SCIENTIFICALLY VALID REASON FOR NEEDING TO USE DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY PEMF DEVICES!!
So Besides cherry picking research studies he gives NO SCIENTIFICALLY VALID REASON FOR NEEDING TO USE DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY PEMF DEVICES!!
Dr Pawluk Debunks Dr Pawluk AGAIN
Pg 410-411 Supercharge Your Health
Below Shows CORRECT EQUATION, NOT inverse square like Dr Pawluk says.
Pg 410-411 Supercharge Your Health
Below Shows CORRECT EQUATION, NOT inverse square like Dr Pawluk says.
|
|
More Misunderstandings of Physics from his Book Page 8-9 in his Book Power Tools for Health.
These first mistakes confuse electromagnetic waves for pure magnetic fields from current loops. Electric fields, electric currents, magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves are ALL qualitatively DIFFERENT kinds of energy. They have different force equations and VERY different biological effects. Confusing magnetism with electromagnetic waves shows a serious lack of understanding electrodynamics!
I have done a couple videos showing the differences
https://youtu.be/zfAVIL_PWlE
Image below from this video...
https://youtu.be/jJdSlqP9wnk?t=182
Bioelectricity, Biophotons and Biomagnetism are three very different types of energies the body emits. In fact even biophotons are very different from random thermalized incoherent energy that is the what Dr Pawluk's chart is showing.
These first mistakes confuse electromagnetic waves for pure magnetic fields from current loops. Electric fields, electric currents, magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves are ALL qualitatively DIFFERENT kinds of energy. They have different force equations and VERY different biological effects. Confusing magnetism with electromagnetic waves shows a serious lack of understanding electrodynamics!
I have done a couple videos showing the differences
https://youtu.be/zfAVIL_PWlE
Image below from this video...
https://youtu.be/jJdSlqP9wnk?t=182
Bioelectricity, Biophotons and Biomagnetism are three very different types of energies the body emits. In fact even biophotons are very different from random thermalized incoherent energy that is the what Dr Pawluk's chart is showing.
Confuses Electromagnetic Energy for Magnetic Energy
Yes human body as a black body of 98.6 will have an emission spectrum right around 32 Terahertz which is RIGHT at the peak of the image below... HOWEVER, this is NOT the frequencies of the Body's biomagnetic field!!
Chart below from page 9 in his book....
Yes human body as a black body of 98.6 will have an emission spectrum right around 32 Terahertz which is RIGHT at the peak of the image below... HOWEVER, this is NOT the frequencies of the Body's biomagnetic field!!
Chart below from page 9 in his book....
|
|
The Human body as a black body of around 310 K (98.6 degrees) emits frequencies PEAKED at 32 Terahertz... This is almost exactly the frequency of the peak in this graph.
This is random, incoherent and thermal energy that is NOT by any stretch important as a block of charcoal at 98.6 degrees has the same peak.
Incorrect or Misleading Statements
1) Somewhat surprisingly, the body produces its own frequency emissions from the Schumann Resonances through much of the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, microwaves, light, UV, and x-rays (pg 8)
2) Whether or to what extent these are all produced by the body or simply passing through is not completely known. Nevertheless, the body is itself dealing with a vast array of EMF frequencies....
This is true, but it is NOT the frequencies we want OR NEED for healing. Sure infrared sauna's are nice and we can get similar spectrums
3) Most healing magnetic fields have very long wavelengths. Frequencies under 10 Mhz are longer than Six Feet. The Goal for any PEMF frequency is to be able to completely pass through the body, whether it's the length of the body, the width side to side, or front to back. A magnetic frequency wave of 20 Hz is about 9000 miles long. So again PEMFs have have sufficient long wavelengths to completely penetrate the body.
This statement further shows he is confusing pure magnetic fields with electromagnetic waves. Low frequency and low intensity PEMF DO NOT RADIATE so that do not have wavelengths of 9000 miles long!
This is random, incoherent and thermal energy that is NOT by any stretch important as a block of charcoal at 98.6 degrees has the same peak.
Incorrect or Misleading Statements
1) Somewhat surprisingly, the body produces its own frequency emissions from the Schumann Resonances through much of the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, microwaves, light, UV, and x-rays (pg 8)
2) Whether or to what extent these are all produced by the body or simply passing through is not completely known. Nevertheless, the body is itself dealing with a vast array of EMF frequencies....
This is true, but it is NOT the frequencies we want OR NEED for healing. Sure infrared sauna's are nice and we can get similar spectrums
3) Most healing magnetic fields have very long wavelengths. Frequencies under 10 Mhz are longer than Six Feet. The Goal for any PEMF frequency is to be able to completely pass through the body, whether it's the length of the body, the width side to side, or front to back. A magnetic frequency wave of 20 Hz is about 9000 miles long. So again PEMFs have have sufficient long wavelengths to completely penetrate the body.
This statement further shows he is confusing pure magnetic fields with electromagnetic waves. Low frequency and low intensity PEMF DO NOT RADIATE so that do not have wavelengths of 9000 miles long!
Page 17 he says himself:
Since all of the tissues of the body, particularly the brain, have their own frequencies and are flexible to varying degrees, outside frequencies applied to the body can cause or "tune" the body's frequencies to be synchronized with the externally applied frequencies. So, a small amount of PEMF energy that is resonant with the molecules or cells of the body produces a much stronger response than when there is no resonance.
This is CORRECT however....
This is ALL he says about resonance in the entire BOOK!! Also, in his talks and podcasts he rarely emphasizes the PRIMARY importance of resonance!
This is Huge because he downplays resonance and focuses on Intensity... He definines resonance But the WHOLE KEY TO PEMF WORKING IS RESONANCE!!!
The key with PEMF is resonance and the MAIN Biomagnetic resonant frequencies of the body are mainly in the 0-50 Hz Range!! See video and Chart below (and my book, PEMF the Fifth Element of Health).
Since all of the tissues of the body, particularly the brain, have their own frequencies and are flexible to varying degrees, outside frequencies applied to the body can cause or "tune" the body's frequencies to be synchronized with the externally applied frequencies. So, a small amount of PEMF energy that is resonant with the molecules or cells of the body produces a much stronger response than when there is no resonance.
This is CORRECT however....
This is ALL he says about resonance in the entire BOOK!! Also, in his talks and podcasts he rarely emphasizes the PRIMARY importance of resonance!
This is Huge because he downplays resonance and focuses on Intensity... He definines resonance But the WHOLE KEY TO PEMF WORKING IS RESONANCE!!!
The key with PEMF is resonance and the MAIN Biomagnetic resonant frequencies of the body are mainly in the 0-50 Hz Range!! See video and Chart below (and my book, PEMF the Fifth Element of Health).
Here is What he says:
Faraday’s law and the inverse square rule PEMFs help the body by stimulating energy our charge of the tissues.
Faraday’s law requires that the more charge needed for healing the higher the intensity that PEMF needs to be. Faraday’s law is a scientific term DB/DT where D is change B is intensity and T is time, this means the change in intensity over the change in time. the higher the intensity reached in the shortest time the higher the DB DT. the higher this value the greater the energy produced in the tissues some high intensity PDFs have DB DT s high enough to cause muscles to contract I have found them to be very effective.
This is INCORRECT, Faraday's Law is
EMF = -dΦ/dt
Where Φ is the FLUX and is equal to the Intensity of the Field TIMES the AREA!!
You have to incorporate the size and Geometry of the Coil to Get the Right Answer!!
The other law is the inverse square rule magnetic field intensities drop off the farther the tissue being stimulated is from the source of the magnetic field so based on Faraday’s law intensities need to be high enough to generate enough charge to create change in the tissues.
This is INCORRECT, you need to use the Biot Savart Law and Integrate over the Source of the Coil. This does NOT give you an inverse square drop-off...
In fact Dr Pawluk's Chart in his book gives answer off by over 5000% because he is using the Wrong Equation!
Faraday’s law and the inverse square rule PEMFs help the body by stimulating energy our charge of the tissues.
Faraday’s law requires that the more charge needed for healing the higher the intensity that PEMF needs to be. Faraday’s law is a scientific term DB/DT where D is change B is intensity and T is time, this means the change in intensity over the change in time. the higher the intensity reached in the shortest time the higher the DB DT. the higher this value the greater the energy produced in the tissues some high intensity PDFs have DB DT s high enough to cause muscles to contract I have found them to be very effective.
This is INCORRECT, Faraday's Law is
EMF = -dΦ/dt
Where Φ is the FLUX and is equal to the Intensity of the Field TIMES the AREA!!
You have to incorporate the size and Geometry of the Coil to Get the Right Answer!!
The other law is the inverse square rule magnetic field intensities drop off the farther the tissue being stimulated is from the source of the magnetic field so based on Faraday’s law intensities need to be high enough to generate enough charge to create change in the tissues.
This is INCORRECT, you need to use the Biot Savart Law and Integrate over the Source of the Coil. This does NOT give you an inverse square drop-off...
In fact Dr Pawluk's Chart in his book gives answer off by over 5000% because he is using the Wrong Equation!