reply to Quaixeman re. moving

> yes, please tell about the metre for detecting cell towers. I guess it
> must measure RF fields, yes? I have an Acousti Com which registers RF
> fields as low as 0.05v/m (the natural background broadband is
> 0.000003v/m i believe). If you have a metre that is more sensitive
> than the Acom i would be very interested in hearing about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I don't remeber what A Com was, but I think it was not English one, not
> comparable neither by price nor by characteristcs to other affordable
> meters... Try Gigahertz or AAronia.
>
> Drasko
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "canaryyuk" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:53 AM
> Subject: [eSens] Re: Good meter
>
>
> > yes, please tell about the metre for detecting cell towers. I guess it
> > must measure RF fields, yes? I have an Acousti Com which registers RF
> > fields as low as 0.05v/m (the natural background broadband is
> > 0.000003v/m i believe). If you have a metre that is more sensitive
> > than the Acom i would be very interested in hearing about it.

> yes, please tell about the metre for detecting cell towers. I guess it
> must measure RF fields, yes? I have an Acousti Com which registers RF
> fields as low as 0.05v/m (the natural background broadband is
> 0.000003v/m i believe). If you have a metre that is more sensitive
> than the Acom i would be very interested in hearing about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> --- In [hidden email], SArjuna@a... wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > The Trifield is useless except for reading magnetic fields.
> It's much
> > more important to be able to locate electric fields, as these
> exist in so
> > many places where theee is no magnetic field and will contain
> whatever damaging
> > high frequencies are present in your household wiring. (Or
> whatever they
> > have jumped onto before your first Stetzer filter.)
> >
> my trifield supposedly gives me readings for electric, magnetic and
> microwave. I have rarely ever gotten any reading on the electric
> readings. But anyway, what meter do you suggest for getting the
> electric fields?
>
>
> Good luck finding 10 or lower! Have you found it? I found
> that low
> > only in one spot so far, a commune in very rural Minnesota.
>
> No I have never found one that low before. Not even in my own house
> after the stetzer filters have been installed. But I've heard of
> someone who was getting a reading of 17 before any filters were
> installed and were getting really low readings after they were
> installed. I would like to find something that low myself.
> >
>
> Also, now that they are starting to disguise microwave towers (A
> cell
> > tower IS a microwave tower.) you can't just look for them with your
> eyes, you
> > need to meter.
> > (I can recommend a good meter for that, by the way, as I have
> just
> > received a good one and am planning on becoming a rep. for it.
> Feel free to
> > e-mail me privately if you are interested.)
> >
> I usually don't get much of a reading on cell towers along the
> highway on I-70 between K.C. and St. Louis where I drive each day.
> There are lots of towers. Some places there are three and four right
> next to each other. And there is usually always one that I can see
> either in the rear view mirror or up ahead of me in the distance. I
> wondered if cell towers could be detected by my meter or if I was too
> far away and that was why they didn't register. They don't really do
> much to my tri-field when it is on the microwave setting. There is
> one spot just on the edge of Columbia, Mo that caused my meter to
> jump way up on the mircrowave setting as I drove by on the highway
> but it wasn't near a tower. I'm curious as to what it was. But I
> really don't have any use for a meter for this. But as I said above,
> I'd be interested in a meter that can locate the high frequency
> electric currents. Any recommendations?
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> the internet.
>
> The Acom is british make, but they have stopped production.
> It is a listening device.
> Its successor is the Electrosmog Detector, which also claims a high
> sensitivity.
> I have one and am disappointed by its sensitivity.
> It is no meter.
> It is no detector.
> It is a listening device, but inadequate for electrosensible people.
> It gives a false sense of safety (in my opinion)
>
> If you want a good listening device, look at the Esmog Spion or the

>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Norton Antivirus
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 13:18
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Good meter
>
>
> >
> > I don't remeber what A Com was, but I think it was not English

> > meters... Try Gigahertz or AAronia.
> >
> > Drasko
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "canaryyuk" <canary65@t...>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:53 AM
> > Subject: [eSens] Re: Good meter
> >
> >
> > > yes, please tell about the metre for detecting cell towers. I

>
> Dear Charles
>
> I appreciate your recommendations for meters. Could you tell me in
> what ways you think that they are better than the Acousti-Com.
>
> Could you give me an idea of how to use the meters you recommend. Are
> they simple to operate? (The beauty of the Acom is that it is
> instant.) do the meters you recommend involve having to make lots of
> calculations?
>
> All i want is a meter that picks up on the same things as the Acom,
> ie Dects, wifi, TETRA, mobile phone masts, baby alarms, house alarms,
> etc but is much more sensitive.
>
> best wishes
> jane
>
> --- In [hidden email], "charles" <charles@m...> wrote:
> >
> > One should not believe all those specifications they write down and
> post on
> > the internet.
> >
> > The Acom is british make, but they have stopped production.
> > It is a listening device.
> > Its successor is the Electrosmog Detector, which also claims a high
> > sensitivity.
> > I have one and am disappointed by its sensitivity.
> > It is no meter.
> > It is no detector.
> > It is a listening device, but inadequate for electrosensible people.
> > It gives a false sense of safety (in my opinion)
> >
> > If you want a good listening device, look at the Esmog Spion or the
> HF
> > Digitmeter II (www.priggen.com)
> >
> > If you want a good meter with trustable readings, look at Gigahertz
> > Solutions.
> > For starters, the HF 35C is good.
> >
> > Above meters are only for high frequency or radio waves or micro
> waves.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Charles Claessens
> > member Verband Baubiologie
> > www.milieuziektes.nl
> > www.milieuziektes.be
> > www.hetbitje.nl
> > checked by Norton Antivirus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...>
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 13:18
> > Subject: Re: [eSens] Re: Good meter
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I don't remeber what A Com was, but I think it was not English
> one, not
> > > comparable neither by price nor by characteristcs to other
> affordable
> > > meters... Try Gigahertz or AAronia.
> > >
> > > Drasko
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "canaryyuk" <canary65@t...>
> > > To: <[hidden email]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:53 AM
> > > Subject: [eSens] Re: Good meter
> > >
> > >
> > > > yes, please tell about the metre for detecting cell towers. I
> guess it
> > > > must measure RF fields, yes? I have an Acousti Com which
> registers RF
> > > > fields as low as 0.05v/m (the natural background broadband is
> > > > 0.000003v/m i believe). If you have a metre that is more
> sensitive
> > > > than the Acom i would be very interested in hearing about it.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>