It is well known the famous Mel put in its different versions. There is an identical model of device. In this case of a Spanish company but surely there will be more. The differences are the color of the outer box. The color of the illumination of the display. And the addition by the North American company of the probe type “k” in the base model and the integrated box ghost or rem pod integrated into other more expensive versions.
images of both devices.
Let’s go by parts. What is the ELF? It is between the 3 and the 300 Hz (Hz) frequency range, a Hz is a cycle per second.
|Extremely low frequency (ELF):|
|Cycles per second: 3 Hz to 300 Hz and wavelength: 100,000 km 10,000 km|
Our meter part from them 30Htz. But there is data to take into account like this one for example: natural ELF waves.
The land presents waves ELF of form natural due to the resonance of the region comprised between the ionosphere and the surface. Begin with rays, that make oscillate the electrons of the atmosfera.1 the fundamental mode of the earth-ionosphere cavity has a wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth, resulting in a resonance frequency of 7.8 Hz. This frequency, and other modes resonant of 14, 20, 26 and 32 Hz appear as peaks in the spectrum ELF; This phenomenon is called resonance of Schumann.
As you can see in bold those 32 Hz would be within the range of detection of the device.
Then, is easy or difficult their use?
The self-criticism is necessary and more in this field. We’ve also wandered with him everywhere holding it in hand in search of a strange reading. Full of passion and curiosity was the way that we had seen use and is true that we were doing it wrong. Far from receive a critical outside before such procedure when gave the jump to approach us to a vision more protocol and scientific, saw that them data collected not us gave any signal that could use is low no hypothesis. All worked could rule out a stroke without any problems. This not us helped in anything.
The difficulty of proper use of the device is to be single shaft must be aimed at issuing the field focus. As this decreases with the distance reading a value does not mean that we visualize the three variables that would have to know:
-location of the emitter focus.
-intensity of the field generated in the focus.
The measurement of 1.0 mili gauss can for example correspond to a distance of 20 cm from a computer or 45 meters of a high-voltage Tower. As the measurement also does not display the value of the frequency with which is issued the field the question is even greater. (Let alone the Kii).
The distance of detection depends on of the power of the field and the guidance right of the device of measurement. A low-power field must be very close to a few cm. A tower of high voltage meters.
If read them instructions of measurement would have that advance towards the focus to locate it and move in different orientations the meter to know its address of emission. In a field with a fleeting phenomenology experimentation this is basically impossible. So the best option is static placement near record on working with TCI and recorders, or devices of the subject in the case of working with Kinect. In a margin of distance which can detect clear field EMF (/ELF),
For other experiments the site always appoint depending on the hypothesis that wants to show, for example:
There is a field electromagnetic ELF (30 Hz to 300 Hz) associated to the movement of an object?
To search for the answer device should be on tripod and at a distance which is valid for reading. Without interfering with the movement of the same and taking into account the possible directivity of the field. Scoring exact positions of all elements to repeat in the same conditions experimentation many times as necessary.
Come up with a comparative small of both models and the review.
As you can see the specifications are identical on all settings.
Again both are identical. Again they are more than similar. The differences are the probe type “k” and the fast measurement (measurement showing the value read in the probe in the display canceling the temperature reading).
It is an instrument with which we can know if there is an Association of ELF electromagnetic field and anomalous event. But to long term after contrast many experiments and all made under a same protocol of placement instrumental and methodology, (it recommended would be a meter of 3 axes x, and, z but the capabilities economic of each one are different). By itself a “peak” at the moment no evidence practically much except a curious, since if it is not verifiable with other records in the same conditions not really has any validity.
There are that have in has the note that appears in both models. Marked with an asterisk in small print: “due to electromagnetic interference in the environment, the display reading will show small values before checking it, for example less than 0.05 micro Tesla.” This is not a defect of the meter”.
As well as would which cutoff which would begin the anomaly?
Simple answer: always above that value.
Really items sold for experimentation with anomalous events were designed to do so or are standard instruments with marketing back to its sell-off?
The answer is obvious. Business is brutal and belief and disinformation play in your favor if you don’t know that you buy does not criticize him.
How does its misuse in the exterior view of experiments?
They do that credibility is lost in the evidence provided by the different groups.
The users end really know the procedure for the measurement of a field EMF or simply emulate it seen in television or youtube?
There you should answer yourself if you have got to read up to here.
Are we able to have a self-criticism and to remedy our failure of procedure?
These are questions that we must make us all in order to perform experiments that provide valid data for contrasts. without these we will always be stuck in the emulation of others. We will remain without own critical thinking and without the possibility of ever throwing any valid and objective answer. Be for validation or disposal of possible evidence.
Raúl Barranco García firstname.lastname@example.org
Mel manual meter model: Mel 8704 R of acquisition and own test.