Great explanation video, Bruce! You listed three important factors about meter quality - Frequency Response, minimum Pulse Width detection and Power reading accuracy. It seems to me that two other measures might be relevant -- pickup antenna pattern for the meter and in which units the power value is represented. In the former case, incoming antennas for different meters may be omnidirectional (in some fashion) or very directional and that is hardly documented yet seems quite relevant since with a directional antenna the meter perhaps won't produce a realistic & reproducible RF measure. One exception is if there is a resettable MAX feature that allows the meter with a directional antenna to be wiggled in all three axes, but even in this case this cannot be tested in the anechoic chamber without some mechanized 'arm'. The other aspect that offers some confusion is whether the meter represents the measure of the RF field in terms of V/m or microwatts/m^2. My understanding is that there is no simple mathematical relationship between these two, except if the radiation is all Continuous Wave (ie, not pulsed or having a duty cycle). How the meter surfaces its RF field measure and how to normalize that among all meters seems another challenge relevant to the theme of this video. Looking forward to your enthusiasm in future videos. Microwaves are tricky and I appreciate the wisdom you've shared.
I would love to see the new "Esmog Spion 5G" be tested like this...I hope you guys can get your hands on one. I would like to see a frequency response plot from that one and a test on narrow pulses etc. It would also be cool to see the same done for it's electric mode compared to electric modes from common EMF meters.
I like your suggestions for the manufacturers products as well but for me the most important thing is the relative indication of the presence of rf energy. I used to have an ED85EXS that had an sma connector for an external antenna with a few external antennas available. I DO agree with you trying to interpret their antennas' performance data did NOT make sense. The numbers they cited for graph terms were iffy at best and like you stated, open for considerable confusion factor. My take on that would probably be they couldn't be held to a solid performance standard. You're right. Now to try and convince the manufacturers (at least the honest and sincere ones) to try and comply with some measurement standards. Thanks for your video!
Hello Bruce, Thanks for these informative videos. Do you have your standard published? I am currently doing some work in this area in the UK, it would be great to be aligned. I am very used to working with EMC and safety standards, it would be great to see your measurement process as a document
Hi Paul, thanks for your feedback! Yes, we have produced a detailed document. Safe Living Technologies is managing the publication logistics. I'd suggest to contact them for further details.
I’m having trouble with this. I have a classic 2, then I bought a pro 2. I put them together to compare accuracy and I get completely different readings. The classic 2 in my garage will be at the 10+ range with a few spikes into 100+. The pro 2 will consistently be in the 200-300 range. Assuming something is wrong I ordered another pro 2 to exchange. Got the second pro2. Take both pro 2s in the garage and the newer is even higher. Go to the side of my house where they pickup my neighbors wifi really well. One pro 2 will be in the 5000s the other in the 11000s. So at the moment I’ve got 3 safe and sound rf meters, 1 classic and 2 pro 2s. All give me different readings by a lot. I don’t expect them to be exactly the same but I do expect them to be similar. I don’t know which to return. There’s no consistency. I went with safe and sound because of videos like this and I thought they were the top choice for consumer use but i am losing faith in them because I have three meters giving me three different readings. These are expensive to be this inconsistent.
Great explanation video, Bruce! You listed three important factors about meter quality - Frequency Response, minimum Pulse Width detection and Power reading accuracy. It seems to me that two other measures might be relevant -- pickup antenna pattern for the meter and in which units the power value is represented.
In the former case, incoming antennas for different meters may be omnidirectional (in some fashion) or very directional and that is hardly documented yet seems quite relevant since with a directional antenna the meter perhaps won't produce a realistic & reproducible RF measure. One exception is if there is a resettable MAX feature that allows the meter with a directional antenna to be wiggled in all three axes, but even in this case this cannot be tested in the anechoic chamber without some mechanized 'arm'.
The other aspect that offers some confusion is whether the meter represents the measure of the RF field in terms of V/m or microwatts/m^2. My understanding is that there is no simple mathematical relationship between these two, except if the radiation is all Continuous Wave (ie, not pulsed or having a duty cycle). How the meter surfaces its RF field measure and how to normalize that among all meters seems another challenge relevant to the theme of this video.
Looking forward to your enthusiasm in future videos. Microwaves are tricky and I appreciate the wisdom you've shared.
Great explanations and I really enjoyed learning about it. Reminds me of "The Curiosity Show" that I watched as a child 😄 Thanks!
ua-cam.com/video/7jS5Py05Kf4/v-deo.html
maybe you could have such a dramatic intro in your videos, too
I would love to see the new "Esmog Spion 5G" be tested like this...I hope you guys can get your hands on one. I would like to see a frequency response plot from that one and a test on narrow pulses etc. It would also be cool to see the same done for it's electric mode compared to electric modes from common EMF meters.
I like your suggestions for the manufacturers products as well but for me the most important thing is the relative indication of the presence of rf energy. I used to have an ED85EXS that had an sma connector for an external antenna with a few external antennas available. I DO agree with you trying to interpret their antennas' performance data did NOT make sense. The numbers they cited for graph terms were iffy at best and like you stated, open for considerable confusion factor. My take on that would probably be they couldn't be held to a solid performance standard. You're right. Now to try and convince the manufacturers (at least the honest and sincere ones) to try and comply with some measurement standards. Thanks for your video!
Вы правы,из теории известно,чем более узкий одиночный импульс,тем он более широкополосный,и состоит из из большего количества гармоник.
Hello Bruce, Thanks for these informative videos. Do you have your standard published? I am currently doing some work in this area in the UK, it would be great to be aligned. I am very used to working with EMC and safety standards, it would be great to see your measurement process as a document
Hi Paul, thanks for your feedback! Yes, we have produced a detailed document. Safe Living Technologies is managing the publication logistics. I'd suggest to contact them for further details.
I’m having trouble with this. I have a classic 2, then I bought a pro 2. I put them together to compare accuracy and I get completely different readings. The classic 2 in my garage will be at the 10+ range with a few spikes into 100+. The pro 2 will consistently be in the 200-300 range. Assuming something is wrong I ordered another pro 2 to exchange. Got the second pro2. Take both pro 2s in the garage and the newer is even higher. Go to the side of my house where they pickup my neighbors wifi really well. One pro 2 will be in the 5000s the other in the 11000s. So at the moment I’ve got 3 safe and sound rf meters, 1 classic and 2 pro 2s. All give me different readings by a lot. I don’t expect them to be exactly the same but I do expect them to be similar. I don’t know which to return. There’s no consistency. I went with safe and sound because of videos like this and I thought they were the top choice for consumer use but i am losing faith in them because I have three meters giving me three different readings. These are expensive to be this inconsistent.
Hi! Have you tried to contact Safe Living Technologies about this issue? If so, could you please let us know about their reply? Thank you.