Doing an EMF survey for someone correctly - how?

>
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> We have access to a Trifield 100XE, and two Gigahertz Solutions meters for
> RF, covering a range of 800 MHz to 6.0 GHz. Oh, and a body voltage meter.
>
> Now, I'm quite comfortable using these meters to gauge a particular
> location for my own tolerances; I know what I'm comfortable with or not, and
> have always based that on the equipment with which I'm familiar.
>
> However, my father may be doing a small, payed EMR survey of someone's
> house, soon. I think the Gigahertz solutions meters are quite accurate for
> their price, without going into very expensive high end equipment. I think
> the body voltage meter is fine, too.
>
> The Trifield is what I'm a bit unsure about. I once compared it to a
> Gigahertz brand Gauss Meter, and the Trifield showed considerably higher
> readings for magnetic fields than the Gigahertz meter. Would someone mind
> explaining to me again the discrepancy between these two?
> I think Bill Bruno said that the Trifield's magnetic setting also takes
> into account higher frequencies above the standard 50/60 Hz AC that the
> Gigahertz is calibrated for, hence the higher readings...something like
> that, but I can't quite recall clearly.
>
> How does this translate to accuracy, if we're giving someone a measurement
> and caution based on that measurement of magnetic fields using the Trifield
> 100XE?
>
> Also, what are your opinions of the accuracy of the Trifield 100XE's
> electrical field readings? I know that the meter made by Gigahertz Solutions
> has to be grounded to read electrical fields, and because I've always used a
> Trifield, that's what I base my readings on; its familiarity, but it makes
> me concerned about accurate reporting to someone who's unaccustomed to this
> sort of thing.
>
> Now, for measuring RF, my method is basically point and shoot and sweep
> through rooms and outdoor areas to determine overall levels, and find
> sources of hotspots/direct radiation. I always have the meter set to "Peak"
> rather than "Average" mode for greater accuracy, and frequently use the
> audio analysis. I find this works well for me, but are there any additional
> techniques my father should take into account during a survey?
>
> (We're not trained Building Biologists, and haven't got any other gear, but
> would like to do a good job).
>
> I am thinking of comparing what my father finds at this place to the Bau
> Biologie guidelines. Sound good?
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> R.
>
>
>

> The Trifield is supposed to read double for 120 Hz, triple for 180 Hz,
> etc.,
> and this makes sense biologically to me (but not to everyone). I think
> it has some sensitivity all the way up to 100kHz, but the response starts
> to decline well before that.
>
> I think the body voltage meter is irrelevant. Electric field reading much
> more
> informative. Also, you need an AM radio too. A loose wire, dimmer switch,
> dirty power generators will show up on AM but not on your other meters.
> Or get one of the GS meters that goes down to 27 MHz. Even then, the
> radio would come in handy. Or get this
> http://lessemf.com/rf2.html#431
>
> I haven't tried it, but it should do the trick.
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:23 AM, rticleone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> We have access to a Trifield 100XE, and two Gigahertz Solutions meters for
>> RF, covering a range of 800 MHz to 6.0 GHz. Oh, and a body voltage meter.
>>
>> Now, I'm quite comfortable using these meters to gauge a particular
>> location for my own tolerances; I know what I'm comfortable with or not, and
>> have always based that on the equipment with which I'm familiar.
>>
>> However, my father may be doing a small, payed EMR survey of someone's
>> house, soon. I think the Gigahertz solutions meters are quite accurate for
>> their price, without going into very expensive high end equipment. I think
>> the body voltage meter is fine, too.
>>
>> The Trifield is what I'm a bit unsure about. I once compared it to a
>> Gigahertz brand Gauss Meter, and the Trifield showed considerably higher
>> readings for magnetic fields than the Gigahertz meter. Would someone mind
>> explaining to me again the discrepancy between these two?
>> I think Bill Bruno said that the Trifield's magnetic setting also takes
>> into account higher frequencies above the standard 50/60 Hz AC that the
>> Gigahertz is calibrated for, hence the higher readings...something like
>> that, but I can't quite recall clearly.
>>
>> How does this translate to accuracy, if we're giving someone a measurement
>> and caution based on that measurement of magnetic fields using the Trifield
>> 100XE?
>>
>> Also, what are your opinions of the accuracy of the Trifield 100XE's
>> electrical field readings? I know that the meter made by Gigahertz Solutions
>> has to be grounded to read electrical fields, and because I've always used a
>> Trifield, that's what I base my readings on; its familiarity, but it makes
>> me concerned about accurate reporting to someone who's unaccustomed to this
>> sort of thing.
>>
>> Now, for measuring RF, my method is basically point and shoot and sweep
>> through rooms and outdoor areas to determine overall levels, and find
>> sources of hotspots/direct radiation. I always have the meter set to "Peak"
>> rather than "Average" mode for greater accuracy, and frequently use the
>> audio analysis. I find this works well for me, but are there any additional
>> techniques my father should take into account during a survey?
>>
>> (We're not trained Building Biologists, and haven't got any other gear,
>> but would like to do a good job).
>>
>> I am thinking of comparing what my father finds at this place to the Bau
>> Biologie guidelines. Sound good?
>>
>> Any help is appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>
>