>
> For a while I had one.  It picked up some things, but
> usually I found using it in AM mode was sufficient.
>
> I think for most sources, it's better to have as big a bandwidth
> as possible.  Cheaper radios usually have broader bandwidth.
>
> I'm also starting to think, if you get to really big bandwidth,
> you want to make sure the system is "phase linear" which
> means only first order filters (The Ramsey ABM1 has incredible
> 18MHz bandwidth, but the filters are not first order so the bandwidth
> is basically wasted unless you build it from the kit version and
> bypass the filters).
>
> The MFJ-856 has about 100kHz bandwidth, versus about 10kHz
> for an AM radio, and I have reason to think it is phase linear.
>
> There is also a version with a smaller nondirectional antenna
> which LessEMF sells as the Power Line Noise Finder or something.
>
> I think anyone who has $160 left after buying their microwave
> meter should get one of these.  A Tri-field meter is good to have
> too, (with 100x external probe if you have low enough fields)
> but for some people the MFJ-856 will be more important.
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Use an AM radio
> >
> > Question:
> >
> > An AM Radio is commonly recommended here as an alternative to an EMF meter.
> > An AM Radio receives signals from 500 - 1600 khz.
> >
> > I'm wondering if there would be any advantage in seeking out a radio
> > that receives "longwave" broadcasts (150 - 300 khz), or "shortwave"
> > broadcasts (1700 - 30000 khz). Perhaps there are some harmful frequencies
> > that would be picked up by these radios that are not picked up by an AM
> > Radio?
> >
> > Marc
> >  
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>