Where is the strongest intensity of an electromagnetic field produced by a solenoid?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on optimizing the use of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices for injury rehabilitation, specifically regarding the most effective applicators and placement. It suggests that wrapping the injured area with a straight rope coil to create a solenoid may produce the strongest electromagnetic field, as opposed to using other applicators directly on the skin. Concerns about safety and the need for understanding medical device standards are raised, emphasizing the importance of using FDA-approved devices. The conversation also highlights the variability in recommendations from different retailers about applicator effectiveness and placement. Overall, the need for scientific backing and professional guidance in using PEMF devices is underscored.
CA_PT
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I don't have a strong technical background in this, so need some help. I'm currently investigating pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices to rehab injuries, and trying to figure out the best applicator and placement.

The choices available are coils, mats, butterfly coils, paddles, and a straight rope. From what I've read so far, it seems like the best way to expose injured body parts to the largest electromagnetic field would be to wrap the body part that requires PEMF treatment with as many turns of the straight rope coil as possible to create a solenoid, and pass as much current through the wire as tolerated.

Based off the inverse square law, it seems like holding any of the other applicators on the skin's surface- when trying to reach tissue at any depth underneath the skin- would be much less effective). Can anyone confirm this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

CA_PT said:
I don't have a strong technical background in this, so need some help. I'm currently investigating pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices to rehab injuries, and trying to figure out the best applicator and placement.

The choices available are coils, mats, butterfly coils, paddles, and a straight rope. From what I've read so far, it seems like the best way to expose injured body parts to the largest electromagnetic field would be to wrap the body part that requires PEMF treatment with as many turns of the straight rope coil as possible to create a solenoid, and pass as much current through the wire as tolerated.

Based off the inverse square law, it seems like holding any of the other applicators on the skin's surface- when trying to reach tissue at any depth underneath the skin- would be much less effective). Can anyone confirm this?

(emphasis added by me) Are you familiar with Medical Device Safety Standards like IEC 60601? You can't just be experimenting on people without some understanding of the safety standards and a moderate amount of experience with designing and building circuitry...
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and BvU
Ok, let me re-phrase: PEMF is an FDA-approved device, commercially-available to purchase without physician prescription. To be clear, I'm not building my own machine, or experimenting on people; I don't even own a machine yet.

For the devices that are commercially available, there are multiple applicators available, and there is not much consistent info about them; five different retailers can give you five different opinions about what applicator to use and where to place it. From what I've read about PEMF so far, some of the applicators and placements don't make sense, so I'm just curious about the science behind it.

Appreciate the concern, and I apologize if there was some confusion from my original post. If you have any knowledge to shed more light on the nature of electromagnetic field intensities based on design and location, it'd be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the clarifications. If you are using un-modified FDA approved devices and applicators, that should be fine.

Have you tried looking for the peer-reviewed papers and clinical trials that resulted in those FDA approvals? It would seem there would be some sort of discussion about the different applicators and what they are best at.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
I thought you didn't want really high fields with this. In any event, shouldn't you be working with some medical practitioner to determine the best dose?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta Prime and berkeman
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top