> Charles wrote:
> the Multidetektor II Profi is a shambles and does NOT measure correctly. > > Somebody had shielded some walls with special LF Paint, but measured still > high values. > I had to remeasure it with a grounded serious meter, and the values were > correct, as one should expect. > > Shivani replies, Was it you, Charles, who said not too long ago that a couple of years ago this meter was state of the art? Did the meter change? Was the second meter you used distinguishing between low and high frequences of the same ranges that the Multidetector does? Otherwise, it might miss frequencies. What was the 2nd meter? What was the frequency range found by the two? Did you take the initial readings with the Multidetector yourself, or did someone else take them? I have found the Detector to be extremely useful, and not to indicate a field where there is none. Dave Stetzer likes it. Have others used it? Emil, you carry this one. What do you think of it? Regards, Shivani [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Hello Shivani,
no, you are mixing two different things. The Multidetektor II is a meter for lowfrequencies, and is not good. The HF Detektor II Profi is a meter for high frequencies (RF) and is not bad, but today not according to present standards. (Btw. the HF Detektor II Profi is better than the new Spectrans!) Neither of the two meters distinguish between frequencies, nor do they measure frequencies, nor do they detect frequency ranges.. The Multidetektor only measures up to 20 kHz, not higher, and the values are 10 times higher than is. And does not detect german railway frequency fields. The values of detected magnetic fields between 50 and 100 Hz are displayed too low. It is nice that the LED's are flickering, but they do not represent real values. The meter I use is sensible up to 400 kHz, but that is not so important. But my meter needs to be grounded for electrical fields. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie www.milieuziektes.nl www.milieuziektes.be www.hetbitje.nl checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 01:46 Subject: [eSens] Re: Multidetector >> Charles wrote: >> the Multidetektor II Profi is a shambles and does NOT measure correctly. >> >> Somebody had shielded some walls with special LF Paint, but measured >> still >> high values. >> I had to remeasure it with a grounded serious meter, and the values were >> correct, as one should expect. >> >> Shivani replies, > Was it you, Charles, who said not too long ago that a couple of years > ago this meter was state of the art? Did the meter change? > Was the second meter you used distinguishing between low and high > frequences of the same ranges that the Multidetector does? Otherwise, it > might > miss frequencies. What was the 2nd meter? What was the frequency > range found > by the two? Did you take the initial readings with the Multidetector > yourself, or did someone else take them? > I have found the Detector to be extremely useful, and not to indicate > a > field where there is none. > Dave Stetzer likes it. > Have others used it? Emil, you carry this one. What do you think > of > it? > Regards, > Shivani > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > |
In reply to this post by SArjuna
HI Shivani,
Yes, I am very familiar with it. Its usefulness depends on what information you are seeking. This is true of all meters. If you want a very sensitive meter which covers a wide range of frequencies for both electric and magnetic fields, this is a good meter. If you need high accuracy, high resolution, more durability, or need to look at specific frequencies, you will should use a different piece of equipment. Emil ----- Original Message ----- From: <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:46 PM Subject: [eSens] Re: Multidetector >> Charles wrote: >> the Multidetektor II Profi is a shambles and does NOT measure correctly. >> >> Somebody had shielded some walls with special LF Paint, but measured >> still >> high values. >> I had to remeasure it with a grounded serious meter, and the values were >> correct, as one should expect. >> >> Shivani replies, > Was it you, Charles, who said not too long ago that a couple of years > ago this meter was state of the art? Did the meter change? > Was the second meter you used distinguishing between low and high > frequences of the same ranges that the Multidetector does? Otherwise, it > might > miss frequencies. What was the 2nd meter? What was the frequency > range found > by the two? Did you take the initial readings with the Multidetector > yourself, or did someone else take them? > I have found the Detector to be extremely useful, and not to indicate > a > field where there is none. > Dave Stetzer likes it. > Have others used it? Emil, you carry this one. What do you think > of > it? > Regards, > Shivani > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |