>
> The bars on the bottom are just supposed to act like an
> analog display... in case the radiation is too high for you to
> process the numbers mentally I guess. That feature is not useful at
> low levels.
>
> A non metal tri-pod should be the best, and a non metal table should
> be the same. I sometimes dangle it from the wrist strap. My impression is
> for microwaves you get the same value holding it in hand, but at lower
> frequencies the body acts like an antenna and will exaggerate.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:13 PM, edomor2 <edo@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > We are also using this electrosmog reader (the one with the very
> > comical-looking bright yellow nose) and find it that is very tricky to take
> > readings.
> >
> > As it seems to be so sensitive to being held, is a more accurate reading
> > done with a tripod, or set on top of a stable surface? We've tried bothand
> > sometimes the variance between the two is huge. Which is more accurate?
> >
> > Another question we have about the device are the bars that appear below
> > the reading, usually when it spikes for one reason or another. The manual
> > refers to this as the dynamic range, but the technical writing that follows
> > is all very Greek to me.
> >
> > We are taking our readings in milli or micro W per M squared, as most of
> > the literature seems to use this or CM squared, not V/M. I'm not a mathguy,
> > so I trust the device to convert the readings for me better than I would
> > myself.
> >
> > Edo
> >
> >  
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>