Spectra Apex HSR Compared to the BEMER Evo
(Scroll Down for Detailed Discussion)
(Scroll Down for Detailed Discussion)
3D Slew Rate and Intensity Plots Below are created from 7500 Measurement Points and in One Picture Summarizes the Comparison between Spectra and BEMER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spectra's Large 20.5" Diameter Coils (Total Coil Area = 990 in²)
BEMERS Small 5.25" Diameter Coils (Total Coil Area = 240 in²)
|
|
Visualization of Spectra Penetration Depth
Visualization of BEMER Evo's Penetration Depth
|
Complete Review: Spectra Apex HSR vs BEMER Evo
Spectra Apex HSR vs. BEMER Ev0 PEMF Mats
PEMF therapy works by sending magnetic pulses into the body that help stimulate cells, improve circulation, and support the body’s natural healing processes. For these pulses to actually do something meaningful, they must be both strong enough and fast enough. Scientists measure this using something called slew rate, which reflects how much energy is delivered into the body. Research shows that effective PEMF systems typically operate within specific ranges of intensity and speed so the cells can respond properly.
The Spectra Apex HSR PEMF systems are engineered to deliver pulses within these research-supported ranges. Their higher slew rate allows more energy to transfer into the body’s tissues, which may help activate cellular repair, reduce inflammation, and support recovery. In contrast, testing of the BEMER Evo PEMF mat shows that it produces a weaker slew rate because of its slower pulse rise time. Additionally because of its smaller coils compared to Spectra, it quickly fades as it tries to penetrate into the body, meaning less energy reaches deeper tissues like joints, muscles, and organs.
PEMF therapy works by sending magnetic pulses into the body that help stimulate cells, improve circulation, and support the body’s natural healing processes. For these pulses to actually do something meaningful, they must be both strong enough and fast enough. Scientists measure this using something called slew rate, which reflects how much energy is delivered into the body. Research shows that effective PEMF systems typically operate within specific ranges of intensity and speed so the cells can respond properly.
The Spectra Apex HSR PEMF systems are engineered to deliver pulses within these research-supported ranges. Their higher slew rate allows more energy to transfer into the body’s tissues, which may help activate cellular repair, reduce inflammation, and support recovery. In contrast, testing of the BEMER Evo PEMF mat shows that it produces a weaker slew rate because of its slower pulse rise time. Additionally because of its smaller coils compared to Spectra, it quickly fades as it tries to penetrate into the body, meaning less energy reaches deeper tissues like joints, muscles, and organs.
|
|
Part 1: Slew Rate
Based on Faraday's Law, slew rate is a quantitative measurement of how quickly the magnetic field changes with time and it is measured in Tesla/second (T/s) or Gauss/second (G/s). As shown in the graphic here, slew rate is essentially the peak magnetic field intensity (B) divided by the rise time (t). The rise time is the time a PEMF signal takes to reach its peak (the shorter or "faster" the rise time, the greater the slew rate)! A high slew rate means that the PEMF is pulsing or changing quickly and has a steeper slope which means more energy and induced microcurrents are transferred to your body, tissues and cells which then translates into giving you more energy, less pain, and better health/healing.
As a result, slew rate is widely considered one of the most critical performance parameters in PEMF systems because it determines the magnitude of energy transferred to biological tissues. Numerous clinical studies evaluating PEMF therapy have used slew rates ranging from approximately 5 T/s to 160 T/s, along with medium magnetic intensities typically between 10 and 100 Gauss, which have been shown to produce maximum biological effects.
As a result, slew rate is widely considered one of the most critical performance parameters in PEMF systems because it determines the magnitude of energy transferred to biological tissues. Numerous clinical studies evaluating PEMF therapy have used slew rates ranging from approximately 5 T/s to 160 T/s, along with medium magnetic intensities typically between 10 and 100 Gauss, which have been shown to produce maximum biological effects.
Quantifying the Best Slew Rates Based on 19 Successful Slew Rate Studies [10-120 T/s]
Based on a thorough investigation, there are 19 successful slew rate PEMF studies that can help guide us in what the best slew rates to use. The successful slew rates from these clinical studies (from low to high - all in T/s or Tesla/Second) are 5.3, 5.3, 7.9, 9.5, 10, 15, 15.3, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 30, 30, 30, 30, 90T/s and 120 T/s. The average slew rate across these studies was 26.7 T/s, which can serve as a ballpark figure for the ideal slew rate to use. It is noteworthy to add that these 19 studies covered a wide range of tissue healing and regeneration from nerve to muscle to bone to joint/cartilage to tendons. Also, difficult conditions like breast cancer, major depression, prosthetic recovery, and overall inflammation (inflammation is a root cause of most diseases). All of these slew rate studies are summarized in the chart shown here.
Based on a thorough investigation, there are 19 successful slew rate PEMF studies that can help guide us in what the best slew rates to use. The successful slew rates from these clinical studies (from low to high - all in T/s or Tesla/Second) are 5.3, 5.3, 7.9, 9.5, 10, 15, 15.3, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 30, 30, 30, 30, 90T/s and 120 T/s. The average slew rate across these studies was 26.7 T/s, which can serve as a ballpark figure for the ideal slew rate to use. It is noteworthy to add that these 19 studies covered a wide range of tissue healing and regeneration from nerve to muscle to bone to joint/cartilage to tendons. Also, difficult conditions like breast cancer, major depression, prosthetic recovery, and overall inflammation (inflammation is a root cause of most diseases). All of these slew rate studies are summarized in the chart shown here.
Comparison of Spectra APEX HSR Slew Rate vs BEMER Slew Rate over the centerline of each coil.
The Spectra slew rate is 30 times greater than BEMER at the surface, but 5 inches up the Spectra has 600 times more Slew rate then the BEMER (deeper penetration) and you can see from the magnetic X-ray plot above, the Spectra covers a much large area.
The Spectra slew rate is 30 times greater than BEMER at the surface, but 5 inches up the Spectra has 600 times more Slew rate then the BEMER (deeper penetration) and you can see from the magnetic X-ray plot above, the Spectra covers a much large area.
Independent measurements of the BEMER Evo full-body PEMF mat demonstrate a maximum magnetic field intensity of approximately 2.3 Gauss (0.23 mT) at the surface with a rise time of roughly 270 microseconds. When these values are used to calculate the system’s slew rate, the result is approximately ,76 T/s at best. This “best” slew rate value of the BEMER Evo is substantially below the slew-rate ranges commonly used in published PEMF research. Additionally, field strength declines rapidly with distance from the coil. Measurements indicate that at approximately 5 inches of depth, the BEMER Evo signal has already diminished by nearly 97%, significantly limiting the amount of electromagnetic energy reaching deeper musculoskeletal structures or internal tissues. Given both the low initial intensity and the rise time, the resulting induced electric fields within tissue are correspondingly small and may fall below thresholds typically associated with cellular stimulation in many PEMF studies.
By contrast, the Spectra intensity at the surface is 24 gauss, with a fast 100 microsecond rise time, which yields a slew rate of 24.0 T/s. In fact, this is close to the average slew rate across 19 of the highest-level slew rate studies! [1-19]. The Spectra's slew rate is 30 times greater than the BEMER Evo at the surface (and 600 times greater 5 inches up!).
By contrast, the Spectra intensity at the surface is 24 gauss, with a fast 100 microsecond rise time, which yields a slew rate of 24.0 T/s. In fact, this is close to the average slew rate across 19 of the highest-level slew rate studies! [1-19]. The Spectra's slew rate is 30 times greater than the BEMER Evo at the surface (and 600 times greater 5 inches up!).
|
|
Magnetic X-Ray - SLEW RATE - Images of Spectra vs Bemer
Measurements to Create 3D PEMF Plots Over 7500 measurements using an accurate Hall Effect Probe was done on 12 Popular full body mat PEMF devices in the Spectra Apex HSR and BEMER Evo. Below are the graphs of the Spectra and BEMER. The data was put into an MIT software program with AI to create an accurate visualization based on actual measurements. This is the first time any detailed test like this has ever been performed and gives a clear picture of the actual PEMF fields above a PEMF mat.
Top Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .03 T/s (Areas of mat not covered under .03 T/s which is already a very weak slew rate).
Bottom Left Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .1 T/s and you can see BEMER does not have much at .1 T/s or higher or better
Bottom Right Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .15 T/s and up, the BEMER does not have anywhere at 1" or above the mat a Slew rate of .15 T/s or better!
Measurements to Create 3D PEMF Plots Over 7500 measurements using an accurate Hall Effect Probe was done on 12 Popular full body mat PEMF devices in the Spectra Apex HSR and BEMER Evo. Below are the graphs of the Spectra and BEMER. The data was put into an MIT software program with AI to create an accurate visualization based on actual measurements. This is the first time any detailed test like this has ever been performed and gives a clear picture of the actual PEMF fields above a PEMF mat.
Top Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .03 T/s (Areas of mat not covered under .03 T/s which is already a very weak slew rate).
Bottom Left Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .1 T/s and you can see BEMER does not have much at .1 T/s or higher or better
Bottom Right Image the Slew Rate Threshold was set to .15 T/s and up, the BEMER does not have anywhere at 1" or above the mat a Slew rate of .15 T/s or better!
|
|
Part 2: Intensity
Robust evidence on the optimal intensity for PEMF comes from a meta-analysis [1] of 3249 PEMF experiments and 92 publications over 20 years (1999-2019) [2]. This study is the most comprehensive analysis of PEMF studies I am aware of. One key takeaway is that a vast majority of successful PEMF studies that reported intensity (around 75%) used intensities between 10 and 100 gauss, or 1 and 10 mT (see chart above). As mentioned, this range of 1-10 mT represents a moderate-to-medium intensity level that also appears to be the "sweet spot" for achieving optimal slew rates. Based on this meta-analysis, approximately 20% of the PEMF studies fell within the low-intensity range (<1 mT or 10 gauss). High-intensity had the LEAST amount of research supporting it (only 2-3% of the studies were high-intensity) compared to low- and medium-intensity systems [2].
This extensive meta-analysis also reveals that medium-intensity studies show a significantly greater positive cellular response than both high- and low-intensity studies (See chart below) [2]. Examples of cellular responses observed in research include gene and protein expression, healthy cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell viability (cell health), and triggering signal transduction pathways [2].
Systems operating near 1 Gauss, therefore, fall outside the intensity range used in the majority of peer-reviewed PEMF investigations. The Spectra's intensity is also at the heart of the highest level of PEMF research, and at the surface is 10 times greater than the BEMER (and 240 times greater 5 inches above the mat).
This extensive meta-analysis also reveals that medium-intensity studies show a significantly greater positive cellular response than both high- and low-intensity studies (See chart below) [2]. Examples of cellular responses observed in research include gene and protein expression, healthy cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell viability (cell health), and triggering signal transduction pathways [2].
Systems operating near 1 Gauss, therefore, fall outside the intensity range used in the majority of peer-reviewed PEMF investigations. The Spectra's intensity is also at the heart of the highest level of PEMF research, and at the surface is 10 times greater than the BEMER (and 240 times greater 5 inches above the mat).
|
|
Comparison of Spectra APEX HSR Intensity vs BEMER over the centerline of each coil.
The Spectra has 10 times the intensity as BEMER at 1 inch up, AND 240 times more intensity 5 inches up and covers a much larger area and penetrates deeper as you can see from the magnetic X-ray plot above.
The Spectra has 10 times the intensity as BEMER at 1 inch up, AND 240 times more intensity 5 inches up and covers a much larger area and penetrates deeper as you can see from the magnetic X-ray plot above.
|
|
Magnetic X-Ray Images of Spectra and BEMER Intensity At 1 Inch and Up
The Spectra has 10 times the intensity as BEMER at 1 inch up, AND 240 times more intensity 5 inches up and covers a much larger area.
The Spectra has 10 times the intensity as BEMER at 1 inch up, AND 240 times more intensity 5 inches up and covers a much larger area.
Part 3: Coils, Area Covered and Penetration Depth
Slew rate is the most important parameter of a PEMF signal, but properly engineered coils of a PEMF system will dictate how well, and how much area of your body a high-slew-rate PEMF signal will cover, and how deeply the PEMF signal will penetrate.
The Spectra Apex HSR coils cover 4 times more area than the BEMER Evo full-body mat and penetrate 240 times better at 5 inches up. So not only does the Spectra have a slew rate 30 times greater than the BEMER at the surface (along with better spectral content), but the coils in the Spectra Apex HSR will deliver this healing energy across more of the body and deeper into it.
The Spectra Apex HSR coils cover 4 times more area than the BEMER Evo full-body mat and penetrate 240 times better at 5 inches up. So not only does the Spectra have a slew rate 30 times greater than the BEMER at the surface (along with better spectral content), but the coils in the Spectra Apex HSR will deliver this healing energy across more of the body and deeper into it.
|
Spectra's Large 20.5" Diameter Coils (Total Coil Area = 990 in²)
|
BEMER's Small 5.25" Coils
|
BEMER Coil Area = 240 in²
|
|
Visualization of Spectra Penetration Depth
Visualization of BEMER Evo's Penetration Depth
|
Part 4: Resonance and Spectral Content
Spectral Content of Spectra vs BEMER EVO
In addition to slew rate and intensity, another mechanism for energy transfer in PEMF systems involves magnetic resonance interactions, which depend on the spectral content of the emitted signal. (the range of frequencies contained within the pulse waveform). Again, when tested with professional equipment, the BEMER Evo has a slightly below-average spectral content of 20 to 3000 Hz. By contrast, the Spectra has a frequency range from 20 to 16,000 Hz, representing spectral content more than five times that of the BEMER Evo! It turns out that a fast rise time (which equates to a higher slew rate), will, by default, have a wide frequency spectrum with fewer gaps, which is why slew rate is easily the most important parameter to look at when comparing PEMF devices. You get the best of both worlds, maximizing energy transfer via Faraday Induction (slew rate) and magnetic resonance to your body, tissues, and cells. This energy turns off pain and inflammation and turns on healing.
In addition to slew rate and intensity, another mechanism for energy transfer in PEMF systems involves magnetic resonance interactions, which depend on the spectral content of the emitted signal. (the range of frequencies contained within the pulse waveform). Again, when tested with professional equipment, the BEMER Evo has a slightly below-average spectral content of 20 to 3000 Hz. By contrast, the Spectra has a frequency range from 20 to 16,000 Hz, representing spectral content more than five times that of the BEMER Evo! It turns out that a fast rise time (which equates to a higher slew rate), will, by default, have a wide frequency spectrum with fewer gaps, which is why slew rate is easily the most important parameter to look at when comparing PEMF devices. You get the best of both worlds, maximizing energy transfer via Faraday Induction (slew rate) and magnetic resonance to your body, tissues, and cells. This energy turns off pain and inflammation and turns on healing.
|
Spectra HSR Frequency Spectrum - 20 - 16,000 Hz
[Window is 0-20,000 Hz] 
|
Frequency Spectrum - 20 - 3000 Hz
[Window is 0-20.000 Hz] 
|
Part 5: Putting it All Together: Webers and Webers/Sec
The magnetic flux (measure in Webers - Wb) of a PEMF coil is basically the area of the coil multiplied by the intensity so it is more important than intensity alone. The units are Tesla* meters². This should make sense why this is more important than intensity alone, because you could have say a 4000 Gauss intensity coil but if it is only 1 inch in diameter, the magnetic field from the coil will only cover that small area. The total magnetic energy in the field depends on the area of the coil multiplied by the intensity. And it takes more power to create the same intensity in a larger coil. For example, an 8 inch radius coil requires four times the current and SIXTEEN times the power to create a 10 Gauss magnetic field than a 2 inch radius coil. That is there is much more energy in the field around larger coils than smaller coils at a given intensity. The 3D magnetic X-ray plot of Intensity below of the Spectra versus the BEMER really visually shows this. You can see the Spectra large 20.5 inch diameter coils generate a lot more energy in the field than the small BEMER 5.25" diameter coils.
It we calculate the actual Flux in webers of both the Spectra and the BEMER we find the Spectra has 43 times MORE FLUX or Webers than the BEMER!! That comes from the Spectra having BOTH a higher intensity 24 Gauss compared to 2.3 Gauss AND larger coils with four times more total area!
It we calculate the actual Flux in webers of both the Spectra and the BEMER we find the Spectra has 43 times MORE FLUX or Webers than the BEMER!! That comes from the Spectra having BOTH a higher intensity 24 Gauss compared to 2.3 Gauss AND larger coils with four times more total area!
|
|
The Gold Standard in Comparing PEMF Devices: Webers/Sec = Voltage
But taking this an important step further, it is not the Magnetic field intensity that induces energy or voltage in the cells, tissues, organs and body, but CHANGE in the magnetic field intensity. And the faster it changes, the more energy is transferred. This is most easily explained by slew rate as we already did in part 1, but like magnetic field intensity, slew rate is just a point measurement. It turns out the total induced Voltage around a PEMF coil is governed by Faradays law which is the change in the magnetic flux (webers) per second. Simply put the Webers/second which has units of Voltage, is the Slew rate multiplied by the Area. Again you could have a slew rate of 160 T/s in a small 1.6 inch diameter coil, but that slew rate only covers a small area. The image below is a comparison showing the slew rate of the Spectra compared to the BEMER across the whole of the full body mats. The total induced voltage comes from the area of the coil multiplied by the slew rate. So you can see that the Spectra slew rate is not only greater at the surface but covers a much larger area.
If we calculate the Webers/Sec or total induced voltage of both the Spectra and BEMER we find the Spectra induces a total of 15.36 Volts and BEMER only induces .133 Volts. That is a HUGE difference in total energy transferred from the respective PEMF mats to your body, tissues and cells. This gigantic disparity comes the Spectra BOTH having a 30 times higher slew rate than the BEMER, AND larger coils with 4 times the area. This overall means the Spectra will induce 115 times more energy to your body tissues and cells than the BEMER.
But taking this an important step further, it is not the Magnetic field intensity that induces energy or voltage in the cells, tissues, organs and body, but CHANGE in the magnetic field intensity. And the faster it changes, the more energy is transferred. This is most easily explained by slew rate as we already did in part 1, but like magnetic field intensity, slew rate is just a point measurement. It turns out the total induced Voltage around a PEMF coil is governed by Faradays law which is the change in the magnetic flux (webers) per second. Simply put the Webers/second which has units of Voltage, is the Slew rate multiplied by the Area. Again you could have a slew rate of 160 T/s in a small 1.6 inch diameter coil, but that slew rate only covers a small area. The image below is a comparison showing the slew rate of the Spectra compared to the BEMER across the whole of the full body mats. The total induced voltage comes from the area of the coil multiplied by the slew rate. So you can see that the Spectra slew rate is not only greater at the surface but covers a much larger area.
If we calculate the Webers/Sec or total induced voltage of both the Spectra and BEMER we find the Spectra induces a total of 15.36 Volts and BEMER only induces .133 Volts. That is a HUGE difference in total energy transferred from the respective PEMF mats to your body, tissues and cells. This gigantic disparity comes the Spectra BOTH having a 30 times higher slew rate than the BEMER, AND larger coils with 4 times the area. This overall means the Spectra will induce 115 times more energy to your body tissues and cells than the BEMER.
Part 6: Other Considerations
Besides all the important performance specs like slew rate, coil area, penetration depth, spectral content, etc., there are other important considerations when looking to purchase a PEMF device like the local applicators. price, money back guarantee, warranty and FDA status. Both units are fairly comparable in these areas on price, guarantee and accessories, but the Spectra does come with a standard 4 year warranty and is made in the USA. And because the Spectra outperforms the BEMER in every performance category and spec of PEMF, because they are the same price, the Spectra is a much better value.
Conclusion
Referring to the table above, when you compare the Spectra Apex to the BEMER, you find the Spectra outperforms the BEMER in every way possible. And the differences are not small, the Spectra has for example a slew rate that is 30 times higher (five inches up it is 600 times higher), a penetration depth and coil area that is 4 times greater, a spectral content 5 times greater, and when you look at the total induced voltage or energy, the Spectra has 115 times more than the BEMER.
The Spectra HSR (High Slew Rate) PEMF systems are engineered to produce substantially higher rates of magnetic field change, allowing them to achieve clinically relevant slew rates within the ranges commonly reported in PEMF literature. By combining optimized magnetic intensity, rapid pulse rise times, and broader spectral content, Spectra Apex HSR systems maximize energy transfer into biological tissues through both Faraday induction (high dB/dt) and frequency-dependent resonance mechanisms. This design approach enables more efficient stimulation of cellular pathways associated with inflammation modulation, tissue repair, and neuromuscular regulation, aligning system performance more closely with the parameters utilized in many published PEMF studies.
The Spectra HSR (High Slew Rate) PEMF systems are engineered to produce substantially higher rates of magnetic field change, allowing them to achieve clinically relevant slew rates within the ranges commonly reported in PEMF literature. By combining optimized magnetic intensity, rapid pulse rise times, and broader spectral content, Spectra Apex HSR systems maximize energy transfer into biological tissues through both Faraday induction (high dB/dt) and frequency-dependent resonance mechanisms. This design approach enables more efficient stimulation of cellular pathways associated with inflammation modulation, tissue repair, and neuromuscular regulation, aligning system performance more closely with the parameters utilized in many published PEMF studies.
Methodology Examples (Slew Rate, Spectral Content, and 3D Measurements)
|
Spectra Slew Rate Test
Test Probe Used: AKM EQ730L
Above is the measurement at the surface in the center of the coil: 312.1 mV divided by 13mV per gauss equals 24.0 gauss intensity. For this measurement, the rise time is 1.0 us, yielding a slew rate of 24.0 T/s. (2.40 mT/.100 ms = 24.0 T/s) |
BEMER EVO Slew Rate Test
Test Probe Used: NVE ALT021-10E-TR7
Above is the measurement on the surface center of the larger coil. The measured voltage was 1,064 mV divided by 455mV per gauss equals 2.3 gauss intensity. The pulse rise time in this measurement is .270 millisecond (ms). So for this measurement, the slew rate is .76 T/S. |
Spectra Content Measurements
In the case of Spectral content measurements, we are analyzing the magnetic field of PEMF mats to see what frequencies are contained in the magnetic field. It is important to know that the electrical signals that come out of the controller do not equal the magnetic fields coming out of the coil. These measurements are all taken with the same settings and the same sensor to show the relative difference between each mat. Using the same settings and sensor is important because a Fourier Transform can look very different based on the settings.
The measurements were taken with the following parameters:
In the case of Spectral content measurements, we are analyzing the magnetic field of PEMF mats to see what frequencies are contained in the magnetic field. It is important to know that the electrical signals that come out of the controller do not equal the magnetic fields coming out of the coil. These measurements are all taken with the same settings and the same sensor to show the relative difference between each mat. Using the same settings and sensor is important because a Fourier Transform can look very different based on the settings.
The measurements were taken with the following parameters:
- Asahi Kasei Microdevices/AKM EQ-730L with 5v power supply
- A USB Ossilocope with configurable FFT settings in the software (waveforms software in particular used with these measurements)
- The start frequency is 20hz and the end frequency is 20khz
- The window setting is rectangular
|
3D Mapping “Magnetic X-Ray” Methodology
To create the 3D maps, we used a highly controlled robotic arm, called a gantry, to move two specialized magnetic sensors across an area measuring 30 inches by 80 inches where the PEMF devices were placed. The Scanning Process The robotic arm moved precisely to measure the magnetic field strength across a 3D grid:
|
Data Collection and Software
We programmed the instrument (the oscilloscope) to detect the specific magnetic pulse we were looking for while rejecting electrical noise caused by the robotic arm's motors. Although the automated measurements are slightly different than if they were taken manually (because of the electrical filtering requirement), the relative difference in strength between all the mats remained accurate. Finally, dedicated plotting software took the raw data, smoothed out any remaining minor electrical interference, and then generated the visual map. The software can either show only the area measured (up to 5 inches) or create a projected view to estimate what the magnetic field would look like beyond that height. A separate manual measurement was required to determine how quickly the magnetic pulse rises or falls (called the 'slew rate' or dB/dT) for each mat, which was then used to generate a slew rate view. |
Magnetic X-Ray Images of 7 Popular PEMF Full Body Mats
(A=Spectra, B=iMRS, C=BEMER, D=Centropix, E=QRS/PureWave, F=Sedona Pro/MAS, G=Higher Dose).
Measurements to Create 3D PEMF Plots Over 7500 measurements using an accurate Hall Effect Probe was done on 12 Popular full body mat PEMF devices. Below are the graphs of 7 of these. The data was put into an MIT software program with AI to create an accurate visualization based on actual measurements. This is the first time any detailed test like this has ever been performed and gives a clear picture of the actual PEMF fields above a PEMF mat. Below are seven examples showing the magnetic field intensities above 40 microtesla (.4 Gauss). This threshold was selected so you could see the weak fields of these popular low intensity PEMF mats.
(A=Spectra, B=iMRS, C=BEMER, D=Centropix, E=QRS/PureWave, F=Sedona Pro/MAS, G=Higher Dose).
Measurements to Create 3D PEMF Plots Over 7500 measurements using an accurate Hall Effect Probe was done on 12 Popular full body mat PEMF devices. Below are the graphs of 7 of these. The data was put into an MIT software program with AI to create an accurate visualization based on actual measurements. This is the first time any detailed test like this has ever been performed and gives a clear picture of the actual PEMF fields above a PEMF mat. Below are seven examples showing the magnetic field intensities above 40 microtesla (.4 Gauss). This threshold was selected so you could see the weak fields of these popular low intensity PEMF mats.
**19 High Slew Rate Studies Below
[1] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[2] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[3] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[4] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[5] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[6] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[7] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[8] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[9] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[10] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[11] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[12] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[13] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[14] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[15] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[16] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[17] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[18] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[19] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[20] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
[21] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part I: Overview and First Observations. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2019; 1(1)DOI
[22] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)
[23] Dennis, R.G., Dow, D. E. (2007) Excitability of skeletal muscle during development, denervation, and tissue culture. Tissue Engineering, 13:10, 2395-2404, October.
[24] Dennis, R.G., Paul E. Kosnik, Mark E. Gilbert, and John A. Faulkner. (2001) Excitability and contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primary cultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280: C288-C295.
[25] Dennis R.G., Kosnik P.E. (2000) Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 36(5): 327-335.
[26] Kosnik P. Jr., Faulkner J.A., and Dennis R.G. (2001) Functional development of engineered skeletal muscle from adult and neonatal rats. Tissue Engineering, 7(5) 573-584.
[1] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[2] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[3] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[4] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[5] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[6] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[7] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[8] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[9] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[10] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[11] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[12] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[13] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[14] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[15] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[16] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[17] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[18] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[19] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[20] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
[21] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part I: Overview and First Observations. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2019; 1(1)DOI
[22] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)
[23] Dennis, R.G., Dow, D. E. (2007) Excitability of skeletal muscle during development, denervation, and tissue culture. Tissue Engineering, 13:10, 2395-2404, October.
[24] Dennis, R.G., Paul E. Kosnik, Mark E. Gilbert, and John A. Faulkner. (2001) Excitability and contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primary cultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280: C288-C295.
[25] Dennis R.G., Kosnik P.E. (2000) Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 36(5): 327-335.
[26] Kosnik P. Jr., Faulkner J.A., and Dennis R.G. (2001) Functional development of engineered skeletal muscle from adult and neonatal rats. Tissue Engineering, 7(5) 573-584.