Shop EMF Meters & Shielding
Shop EMF Meters & Shielding
Shop EMF Meters & Shielding
Electricsense donation

Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter – My Review

Posted by Lloyd Burrell on January 2, 2012 under Acoustimeter | 66 Comments to Read

There are so many different RF meters to choose from it can be daunting. For the uninitiated I am sure it can be difficult to come to any sort of decision.

In this article I am going to explain everything you need to know, in layman’s terms, so that you can decide if the Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter is the right meter for you.

Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter

I know when I first learned about electromagnetic radiation it did all seem very confusing.

It is a complex subject but I have found “seeing is believing”, having a meter which can show you in a matter of seconds what you need to know, is a big help. Simplicity is one of the strong suits of the Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter.

Technical Specifications

The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter has:

– a two line LCD displaying radiation levels:

peak hold levels are shown in Volts/m (V/m)

peak exposure levels are shown in V/m

average exposure levels in microwatts per square meter (µW/m2)

– two lines of LEDS displaying actual radiation levels:

peak exposure levels are shown in V/m

average exposure levels are shown in µW/m2

– measurement range: 200 MHz – 8 GHz ±3 dB

– sensitivity* (Peak Display): 0.02 V/m – 6.00 V/m

– sensitivity* (Average Display): 1 µW/m2 – 100 000 µW/m2

– pulsing signal may be heard through the audio speaker

– power source: 2x AA Alkaline or Rechargeable (1.2 – 1.5V)

– power draw: 105 mA at 3 V

– battery life 20 hours on average

– size in mm: 190L x 102W x 33D

How To Read The LCD Display

The Acoustimeter display has 2 lines where 3 different readings are shown simultaneously. The display can be read as follows:

– on the top line the reading in brackets, (5.29), corresponds to the “peak hold” reading in V/m, that’s to say the highest reading recorded since the unit has been switched onAcoustimeter EMF meter display

– the number next to this, 2.45, is the current peak signal strength in V/m

– the number on the bottom line, 140, is the average reading in microwatts per square meter (µW/m2)

What Can You Measure With The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter?

The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter is a dedicated radio-frequency (RF) radiation meter. Now what does that mean?

In simple terms it means this meter is ideal for measuring radiation from the following sources:

– Cell phone towers (masts)

– Digital smart meters

– Wimax and WiFi networks

– Cell phones (mobiles)

– Household appliances

– Wireless video games (like the Nintendo Wii, Sony Playstation etc)

– DECT cordless phones

– Wireless Spy cameras

– Digital baby monitors

– Digital TV Broadcasts

– Audio/Video Sender Receivers

– Tetra frequencies

– Wireless burglar alarms

and more.

What Is So Unique About The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter?

There are two things that really differentiate this meter from other RF meters:

– its exceptional range and sensitivity

– its ease of use

I have found the Acoustimeter AM-10 RF meter to be a sensitive meter. But apart from being sensitive it also has very good directional sensitivity for a meter that cannot be defined as a directional meter, strictly speaking. Whereas many RF meters just tell you what the level of RF radiation is, with this meter you can in certain circumstances tell where its coming from. By tilting the meter at different angles you can home in on RF sources in your environment, a hidden cell tower or distant WiFi router, which you could never have imagined picking up a signal from. (If  you are testing in an area where there is RF radiation from many different sources then its unlikely that you will be able to get accurate directional readings).

The second point is the frequency range. Many RF meters only measure up to 2 or 3 GHz. More and more wireless appliances are working above this range, whats the point in buying an RF meter if it can’t measure the RF radiation you are being exposed to? The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF meter measures RF radiation from 200 MHz right up to 8 GHz so in terms of wireless radiation there is not much (if anything) that gets past it.

How To Use The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter

First insert the batteries (2 x AA cells) and move the power switch to “on”. Set the volume to a level where you can comfortably hear whats going on and you are good to go. Start moving the meter around slowly, methodically, in all directions all the time listening for any signal and watching the two columns of LED display lights. There is also an LCD display where you can see the RF levels moving up and down in numbers and the peak level since you last switched it on, shown in brackets.

The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF meter can measure from 1 to 100,000 microwatts per square meter [ μW/m2 ] and from 0.02 to 6.00 volts per metre [ V/m ].

Here is a short video of me using the Acoustimeter AM-10 RF meter to measure WiFi radiation:

How Do I Know When The RF Radiation Is Too High?

The beauty of this meter is its audio function. As soon as you pick up any kind of reading you will hear it on the loud speaker (or on your headset if you plug in on the jack). Then you consult the displays to gain an appreciation of what the radiation levels are exactly. This meter gives you quite a lot of information but if you are looking for a quick and easy way to measure RF levels then just look at the left hand column (the peak V/m readings). Even a reading as low as 0.02 volts per metre (V/m) is shown by a green LED , an increase in radiation levels will then light up more green lights, then the orange LEDs and then the red LEDs.

How you interpret these radiation levels depends on your circumstances. There are 2 things to take into consideration:

1. the duration of exposure

2. your own sensitivity

For instance sleeping in a bedroom with radiation levels at the top end of the scale (a red light in the left hand column) means that you are exposing yourself to high radiation levels over a long period of time, this is not advisable for anyone.

So how do you know when the RF radiation levels are too high? For me personally, as an electrosensitive, I try to ensure that any living areas where I am spending more than a few hours are either giving me zero radiation (no LEDs lit) or radiation at the very bottom of the scale (green LEDs lit).

Is This The Right Meter For You?

You might be concerned about radiation being emitted from a nearby smart meter, or maybe you live in an apartment surrounded by other apartments equipped with WiFi and cordless phones. Maybe you are just someone interested in the health benefits of EMF mitigation, or maybe you are someone who is showing the first signs of electrical sensitivity. If you are worried about the radiation levels in your environment but you don’t know what the culprits are, this meter because of its directional sensitivity is the ideal choice because it can tell you what the principal causes are of these high levels. Once you have determined your exposure levels you can shield and protect as appropriate.

What About The Disadvantages ?

– its size, it’s quite a bulky meter

– it’s price

But for this level of sensitivity and accuracy it does seem a fair price. Its not the most expensive meter on the market (you can pay thousands for a professional RF meter) but neither is it the cheapest. And it only measures RF radiation, if you want to measure other EMFs like electrical and magnetic radiation this is not the meter for you.

Where To Purchase The Acoustimeter AM-10 RF Meter?

If you live in the US you will be pleased to know that Amazon.com now stocks this meter. I bought my Acoustimeter through a UK company, it came with a carrying case and user manual.

email
  • Dubal said,

    Hi Lloyd,
    Is this AM-10 directional or omni-directional?
    What do you think of TM-196 from tenmars.com? Says it is tri-axis and measures total strength in any given spot without having to point it to any direction. Is that desirable?
    How would it compare with AM-10?
    Thanks in advance.

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Dubal
    The Acoustimeter is not a tri-axis meter, this means you need to rotate and measure in all 3 axes in every spot you want to measure. I can’t say that I have found this to be a handicap, by tilting the meter at different angles you can home in on the direction of the source.
    I have not tested the TM-196 so I can’t compare the two meters.

  • soma said,

    hello:)
    thanks for the review. i am looking into getting a radio frequency meter and cannot figure out if i should get the acoustimeter AM-10 or the gigahertz solutions HF35C. was wondering if you could help me make the intelligent choice? seems to me like the HF35C may be a more professionally made, accurate, and reliable meter but it is less sensitive than the AM-10 as it starts its readings at 800MHz. i am not sure if that is low enough to measure the 1000 w/square meter that you consider to be the level that RF starts to get dangerous? i will be using the meter to determine if a nearby cell phone tower is emitting unsafe levels of RF to out potential home building site. If so, i will have to cancel the building of our home. this is a very big deal for our family so i want to make sure that i get an RF meter that is super accurate.

    thank you very much for your information, videos, and help!

    peace,
    soma

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Soma
    I have not tested the HF35C so I can only go on what it says in the spec:
    Frequency Range: 800 MHz – 2.5 GHz
    Power flux density: 0.1 – 1999 µW/m²
    This means the HF35C can’t measure anything over 2.5GHz, which could be a handicap given that a growing number of RF sources are in the 5-6 Ghz range. The Acoustimeter measures up to 8 GHz.
    The HF35C only measures in µW/m². Measuring in µW/m², again, can be misleading because it works by taking an average of RF levels over a given time – some peak levels can be 100 times higher than average levels. The Acoustimeter gives V/meter readings of peak levels.

  • soma said,

    dear lloyd,
    thank you so much for your quick and helpful response:))) i will purchase the acoustimeter. you are very kind to take the time to help me.
    peace,
    soma

  • Eric said,

    Hi Lloyd!

    What’s the difference or how do you compare the Cornet vs the Acoustimeter?

    Thanks!
    Eric

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Eric
    As usual the devils in the detail:
    Acoustimeter – has audio function, measures in V/m (therefore gives peak values – considered to be more relevant at non thermal levels), but then it does cost considerably more. The ED85EX is a great meter – for the price.

  • Stephen M. Hall said,

    Hi Eric, have you ever used a Graham-Stetzer (Stetzerizer) Microsurge Meter to measure the most dangerous levels of dirty electricity; i.e. 2KHZ-150KHz? I have been using it for some time now, (and adding the Stetzerizer Power Line Filters to my power points) and have compared the Dirty Power to my new oscilloscope,which also has a filter to separate the RF – Dirty Electricity (2KHz-100KHz) from the the “clean” 50HZ and alslows you to see the dirty power real time on your Laptop, along with the Microsurge Meter GS Unit reading, is amazing. They prove each other and adds to the credibility of what you are measuring and showing your client or observer. I’ll send you a pic if your interested. You will see the “safe” 35 GS Units (Stetzerizer Meter) and the ‘Scope’s Spectrum Analyzer/and 2 Channel Sine Waves on the screen and the dangerous e-radiation of 1800+ GS Units and how the high frequencies (transients and harmonics) RF Radiation on the electrical wires look like!

    I have now taken measurements and pics/BMP’s of what the smart meter does to the 50HZ “carrier” (sine) wave! Before s so-called Smart Meters(mandatory in Australia by 2013)the 50 HZ is smooth and looping nicely, oscilating back and fowards, but after the Smart Meters were installed in our buidling, the 50HZ is totally distrorted and you can see a HF (mictowave?) signal on the wires. They (the Public Utility) are now able to WATCH everything in your home – electrically speaking….This is BIG Brother watching and who knows what they will end up doing with this information about you in the future? This is about CONTROL and not just “marketing”. The RF Radtionan from Smart Meters is so bad that people are literally walking out of their homes and living in camper vans because they are sick and nauseus in the home at night. Maybe, I am the first person in the world to document before and after senarios of smart meter Technology and what it does to our “benign” sineusoidal wave? Keep up the good work… Steve H.

  • DAVID BALFOUR said,

    PLEASE CONFIRM WHETHER THE ACOUSTIMETER IS SUITABLE FOR USE IN CANADA AND WHETHER IT MEASURES RF EX WIRELESS ROUTERS? WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE TRIFIELD 100XE DOES NOT MEASURE RF EFFECTIVELY, PLEASE ADVISE. WE ARE GOING TO SELL OUR CONDO AND BUY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BECAUSE OF MY WIFE’S SENSITIVITIES SO WE WANT TO CHECK OUT NEW HOME AND AREA….WOULD ACOUSTIMETER BE RECOMMENDED OVER THE CORNET FOR THIS SITUATION AND THE FUTURE AS CELL TOWERS CONTINUE TO BE CONSTRUCTED? WE HAVE BEEN TO BE AT LEAST 4 HOUSES SPACE AWAY FROM NEIGHBOURS, WOULD YOU AGREE? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP, LLOYD

  • Lloyd said,

    The Acoustimeter is suitable for use in Canada and it is suitable for measuring RF radiation from wireless routers. The Cornet ED85EX will also work well. If you are wanting to measure cell tower radiation the Acoustimeter is my personal preference – audio capability and more directional information. The Trifield is not sufficiently sensitive in RF meter mode for measuring this type of radiation.

  • Dave said,

    Hello Lloyd,

    I sincerely hope alll is well. Just this year I had developed sensitivity to cell phones, laptops and some electrical devices. I am in a condo and after consulting with a very wise integrative doctor about this I belive it is coming from the present place that I am in. I am looking into the CornetED85EX and the AcoustimeterAM-10 RF. Can you please tell me the price difference and where the best spot may be to purchase either or. I do not think at this moment I can afford the Acoustimeter. However I would like to forward the info on it to others. Finally, On some spec sheets I have come across it says it mentions a few of the things that the Cornet can measure. Is there a bigger list of what else the RF detector could be used for? This is something again Id like to pass on to others. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Dave
    Both of these meters measure radiation from any device which gives off RF (radio frequency) radiation the list on this page is pretty extensive, but just to be clear neither of these meters will measure low frequency radiation – what can be found around electrical wiring, transformer units, surge protectors etc
    The Acoustimeter costs about twice the price of the ED85EX, so maybe it’s not the choice for you. I will be doing a review of a cheaper combo meter over the next week, if you are subscribed to my newsletter you will receive details automatically.

  • Orc King said,

    Great information:
    I am also debating between HF35C and Acoustimeter .
    I am leaning more towards Acoustimeter .
    Two questions for you. Which one is better directional or tri-axis and what is the difference.
    Everyone says that the HF35C is great for measuring smart meters because the pulses are very short, can I say the same about this one?

  • Lloyd said,

    The biggest criticism I have of the HF35C is that its frequency range (800mhz – 2.5 Ghz) is too narrow. The Acoustimteter measures radiation in the range 200 MHz – 8 GHz. If all you are interested in is measuring smart meter radiation then this is fine. Personally I find this too limiting – especially for a meter in this price range – whats the point in knowing that there is no smart meter radiation if you are unable to detect WIFI and other RF sources?
    The fact that the pulses are very short might be a problem for some low end meters but this is not a problem for the Acoustimeter (or the Cornet meters, also reviewed). As my reviews state, all these meters are suited to measuring smart meter radiation.

  • Pat Whitten said,

    The Company which hired the Acoustimeter to me, suggested inserting the meter inside a foil lined box, and this then refined the direction of the radio waves.

  • David Smyth said,

    Hi Lloyd I wonder if you could tell me if any of these meters pick up ley lines – which one scientist told me in his opinion were low levels of micro waves?

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi David
    As far as I am aware none of the EMF meters I have used and reviewed on ElectricSense are sufficiently sensitive to detect ley lines…though I have never tried.

  • AG said,

    Thanks for your website Lloyd. I am finding the level and quality of the information helpful and clear. Also it is reassuring to find, that my search has led me to adopt some of the things you suggest prior to reading about them here, so it reassures me I am moving along on the right lines. I am wondering if I should get my mercury dental fillings taken out to reduce any antennae effect. Prior to recent changes in my electro=polluted environment, a super-connectivity city, 4G introduction, and massive increase of wifi loads using the ‘n’ spectrum and massive increase in the new smart phones. My health was good, now symptom is headaches and other head sensations, when in a heavily exposed situation. A grounding sheet seems to be helpful re: energy levels. What are your thoughts experiences re: mercury fillings?

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi
    Mercury fillings can be a big problem, I wrote about this here http://www.electricsense.com/1595/electrosensitivity-and-mercury-fillings-are-they-compatible/

  • AG said,

    Thanks Lloyd.

  • ad said,

    Well, a review is nice but a test would be nicer.
    I would like to know how accurate the meter is really.
    Annoying is certainly that the values in V/m do not correspond with those on the same level in microWatt/m2.
    Also is important to realize that the higher the frequency the worse the impact likely is, and not just a little bit.
    So analyzing the sound is important.
    I wonder what “current peak” means, since when ?
    Based on the claims of the companies, the new cornet ED85EXS ( also with sound ) seems a better deal although less easy to read.
    I have the ED75 and a gigahertz ME3830B for the LF-range,
    just to have a first impression of my EMF-environment.
    What the cornet is concerned, the green leds should be the red ones, and the values in dBm do not correspond accurately to those in mW/m2.
    Anyhow, these and probably also the acoustimeter are great tools to avoid most EMF-pollution.

  • ad said,

    p.s.

    the following sentence i take back :
    “What the cornet is concerned, the green leds should be the red ones, and the values in dBm do not correspond accurately to those in mW/m2.”
    It seems that how dBm relates to mW/m2 and V/m depends more or less on the frequencies involved, and about what levels are alarming, well that is too subjective.

  • ad said,

    p.p.s.

    sorry for the mess, but this i also take back ( did not see it right on the small picture ) :
    “Annoying is certainly that the values in V/m do not correspond with those on the same level in microWatt/m2.”
    These do correspond, although it is a little bit more complicated than that as well to be exact.
    It looks great and solid.
    Btw, i was told that a frequency response curve is
    included in the user’s manual of the Cornet ED85EXS ( not available on the internet ), that would be interesting too.
    The new version should be a bit more sensitive ( upto 0,18 microWatt/m2 ) than the Accoustimeter, but probably not under 800 Mhz and possibly in addition much less accurate in theory or practice.
    Well, here i found a frequency response curve of an older ED85EX, it does not look too bad ( the upper diagram ), although it is “for reference only” :
    http://www.slt.co/Downloads/Products/1219/ED-85EXUserGuide.pdf
    Frankly, i do not understand the antenna gain part, but it seems that actually under 600 Mhz not much is measured and nothing precise under 1.6 Ghz, and that the Acoustimeter is ( supposed to be ) more reliable in that range :
    200 Mhz to 8 Ghz : +/- 3 dB
    150 to 200 Mhz and 8 to 10 Ghz : +/- 6 dB
    Correct me if i am wrong ( again ) ;).

  • Jon Draw said,

    Thank you, Lloyd for your website and its ability to help people communicate about these perplexing problems that are not easily defined since radiation occurs over a wide spectrum with different health effects from frequency and power levels as well as duration. We can’t see it and theoretically it is said that most of this radiation is above auditory level and cannot be heard (ask my dog!). With me I do not hear it with my ears because if I block my ears and area around both ears that normally would pick up sound waves, the high frequency sounds are still there. They are not tinnitus, which I do have from working in noisy environments in the past, because I can tell when the frequencies come on and/or change frequency and intensity as they do.
    We definitely need to keep communicating about these matters which can have health consequences over time, the extent and severity of which, unfortunately, at present seem unknown. As I understand the regulations at present, supposedly in place to protect the public is based upon the heating effect of such radiation just because it is classified as non-ionizing radiation. Can we even be sure of that as it is penetrating our cells, while we are being considered as lab specimens in microwave ovens!!??
    The limited liability of corporations needs to be reconsidered. Who has the right to grant them limited liability if they are adversely affecting the health of people, animals and our entire environment. Corporations are organizations run by people who need to assume responsibility for their equipment and products. We should have learned that by now. If the people running the corporations are protected from responsibility for adverse effects, where is the incentive for correction of this hazardous radiation before serious damage is done over time, including genetically?
    I will definitely look into your good advice regarding the recommended meter, Lloyd, and Thank you very much. Jon Draw

  • Lar Bear said,

    Hi Lloyd. I work as an engineer, a few months ago while on the job indoors, I was struck down and had an ambulance ride from what appeared to be a heart attack. After all the expensive medical exams, I was told by the cardiologist that I did NOT have a heart attack and he couldn’t find a single thing wrong with my heart, arteries, lungs, stomach, anything! Afterwards I started hearing of several others who have had very similar medical problems imitating heart attacks, chest pain, left arm goes numb, passing out, etc., but no problems could be found by the doctors. Others I know have developed heart murmers. I began wondering about electromagnetic causes relating to ischemia, in the arteries, etc., At work they had recently put in Verizon and T-Mobile cell antennas all over the building, as well as Cisco WiFi. I soon found your information well researched and valuable and thank you for that. From there I bought a couple meters, measured my house, then got rid of all the microwave sources, went back to ethernet cables, no CFL’s, did some shielding… my wife says her skin no longer feels like it “crawls” when she gets up in the morning. But what was surprising is, the Cornet ED85EX meter at work showed a reading of over 1800mW/m2 on all the T-Mobile antennas. I looked up the max exposure levels, I believe this is higher than allowed for continuous public exposure am I right? Don’t know If it would be possible to link an “apparent-but no heart attack” with anything in the EMF arena, but this has taught me alot, and I am now educating a few folks on this issue. Now I feel like the frog in the pot of water. Thanks for your info and videos.

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Lar
    Your reading of 1800mW/m2 is very high. The 2012 BioInitiative report recommends a precautionary level of 0.0003 μW/cm2 to 0.0006 μW/cm2…your reading equates to 180 μW/cm2! But, your readings are within the FCC guidelines, see http://www.electricsense.com/5029/fcc-safety-limits-for-electric-fields-magnetic-fields-rf-radiation/. Quite a few studies have been carried on the link between EMF exposures and heart problems…its impossible to know for sure if what happened to you was as a result of these exposures….given that the studies are showing biological effects at much lower levels than what you are reading with your Cornet… its very possible.

  • Alex said,

    Hi Lloyd. When using the Accoustimeter, holding it in one hand at arms length and looking at the display, which direction is the signal coming from? Is it from the direction the top end of the meter is pointing at? or from the direction the back of the meter faces? (I realize RF can reflect off surfaces, so the incoming direction doesn’t necessarily indicate the source.) Thanks.

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Alex
    I’d say its a combination of the two, so the source is not exactly where you point your meter but your meter is about 10 degrees higher than the source.

  • Pat said,

    Hi Lloyd and Hi Alex.
    A UK Company that sells the Acoustimeter , told me that if I slip the meter inside a foil lined little box, a bit larger than the meter itself, I can get a direction on the source of the EMFs. Doing this tidied up the signals, enough for me to track the two incoming directions of the cellphone towers. It involved therefore just signals mainly entering the top of the meter , I presume?
    There was at that time an online map of cell phone towers in our areas in the UK, but it has now closed. It still exists with its old information in the form of long lists of tables and no map, so it all involves map references and post codes. The mapping site did not contain comprehensive information because it was voluntary. When a Government Minister tried to make it compulsory, all of the Companies withdrew! What does that tell you?
    Lloyd, does this information about the foil lined box add anything to the question posted by Alex or not? I am not sure?

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi Pat
    I’ve not tried this myself….I’ve found the directional information on this meter to be very good but
    I have also heard that a foil lined box can improve the directional capability of the Acoustimeter.

  • yan said,

    Thank you for the great information.

    I’ve narrowed down the meter selection to the Acoustimeter AM-10 and the newer Cornet ED78S, which is a third of the AM-10.

    I currently have Multidetector Profi II whose range is much narrower. For casual use, can I get away with the ED78 or would you recommend the AM-10 for reduced obsolescence?

  • Lloyd said,

    The ED78S is a great meter for the price….but the AM-10 is more sensitive. Whats best for you…I can’t really say.

  • Alex said,

    Thanks Lloyd and Pat.
    I will assume that when you say “point” you mean pointing the top end toward a certain direction (the way you point a TV remote, for example). And when the meter is in a foil lined box, I assume it’s the top end that’s left open in order o receive the signal. Makes it a bit tricky to read the display, I imagine! :-)
    Alex

  • Jim Henkel said,

    What a great meter. I work at tower sites and you can easily find hot spots with the Acoustimeter and avoid them. I also used it house hunting. Some of the houses I visited where the hosts, thought I had some sort of “Ghostbuster thingy.” My realtor is now a believer. Currently in an apartment, I was checking out how much the Uverse router puts out, which is more than a cell phone with a default level of 400mw. I set it to the minimum of 25mw and still had “excellent” signal. Just trying to minimize after years of exposure. While looking at the radiation levels, my daughter fired up the over the stove microwave. The signals on the left hand side of the meter went to almost full scale and 10,000 on the right. We evacuated the kitchen till it stopped and put in a trouble ticket. They were not convinced it’s broken, so it is unplugged. Time to move.

  • Pat said,

    Hello Alex.

    Very good points raised! My query was indeed, are the signals only coming in through the top end which is pointed rather like a TV remote as you say?( and I think it is a really good question that you have offered) We are still not sure about it are we?. Sometimes the meter has to be held nearly vertically to pick up the signals.
    When using a foil lined box, I rely on the accoustics to determine the strength of signal and type of / source of signal. After that I keep the meter steady on the signal, and slide it forward slightly to read the digital information which is not an ideal method. I have to forgo the led lights readout though, until I work without the box. The method of using the box around the body of the meter, revealed much more clearly two separate streams of cell phone transmissions into the house. Indoors these streams create a jumble of signals indoors as they bounce around . They bounce especially in front of the cast iron fireplace! However the streams are still not that easy to identify outside either, without the foil box. So just maybe, the jumble of signals indoors might bounce back out through the house walls and confuse the outdoor reading? Is that such a wild thought? Any further ideas on this?

  • Pat said,

    Hi Lloyd and Alex.
    I have consulted EMFields.co.uk on this subject, while asking about something else, and the following came up.
    The signal comes in at the top, or more precisely at the top back. But I became totally lost by the explanation of using the “biscuit tin” method of laying the acoustimeter in that ( screened box ) and then the readings can be read from the front panel of the meter.
    It was explained several times, and I still dont understand. My concept of which part of the meter is exposed seems to be different from EMFields? I really do need a diagram from someone for this answer.
    One important point however is that I am told that people commonly think of the signals as being straight and bouncing around in straight lines. I do. Well apparently the signals flow! That is a problem for our conjectures about screening in aeroplanes,( over on the Forum ) where it has been pointed out that screening might just possibly do more harm than good! Can you help with this misconception please Lloyd?
    Thanks for everything on your site. Pat : )

  • Alex said,

    Alert for users of cordless phones:
    If you want to reduce RF exposure, beware of DECT 6.0 phones! After unsuccessfully searching for a corded phone, I recently bought a DECT 6.0 phone at Best Buy. It came as a corded base unit with three cordless handheld remote handsets. I figured if I only use the corded base unit (all wired with a landline connection) I would avoid generating RF. However, the Accoustimeter detected very high levels of RM simply from plugging the black transformer box (needed to run the display) into a wall socket. Levels dropped immediately to zero when unplugged. This occurs regardless of whether the phone is in use or not. I called the manufacturer and learned that the base unit transmits 24/7, whether or not you use any of the remote handsets, and this feature cannot be turned off. Fortunately, plain corded phones can still be found at some drugstores.

  • Concerned Tenant said,

    Hi Lloyd,

    I recently purchased the Acoustimeter and in my apartment it was reading “>6v/m”, is that alarming and should I consider moving?

    Are microwatts per square meter or v/m the right unit to be looking at if I am trying to avoid unhealthy RF levels? Also what are healthy and unhealthy ranges? Thank you for all of your prompt responses!

  • Lloyd said,

    Hi
    The left hand column, V/m, is the most pertinent information. Prolonged exposure at these levels is dangerous…..to get an idea of whats safe and whats dangerous read what the BioInitiative Report says, see http://www.electricsense.com/4766/bioinitiative-report-2012-emf-dangers-health/ the recommended safety levels are in the order of 1000 times lower than your readings.

  • Enrico said,

    Hey

    IS the Acoustimeter AM-10 RF suffiecent to meausres all RF waves?

    Thanks

    Enrico

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Hi Enrico
    The Acoustimeter only measures RF radiation in the range 200 MHz – 8 GHz….but the RF spectrum is extremely broad….its not important (or practical) to measure all frequencies…. whats important is having a device that can measure RF radiation at frequencies that are commonly used by wireless devices and being able to measure frequencies that are known to have adverse health consequences….

  • Enrico said,

    Hey Lyoyd,

    So basically, can the accoustimeter measure cell phone, wi fi, smart meters, Cordless phone devices very effectively?

    Would you consider it to be one of the best measurement devices for the following devices which I named above?

    Thanks again

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    “So basically, can the accoustimeter measure cell phone, wi fi, smart meters, Cordless phone devices very effectively?” — Yes, and it can measure RFR from many other devices, as listed in my review.
    “Would you consider it to be one of the best measurement devices for the following devices which I named above?” — That depends how you define ‘best’….in terms of sensitivity, accuracy and completeness of information this meter is difficult to beat but then its also the most expensive RF meter I have tested.

  • Karen said,

    Hi LLoyd,
    You must be sick of all the meter questions, but we always have more. I purchased the Acousticom 2. I am still able too return it if suggested. It picks up EMF throughout my whole house as I am close to a cell tower- possibly. I am waiting on my stetzerizer meter and filters to arrive. I walk my dog under power lines at times. 1) Will my meter measure anything or do they only give off magnetic? My meter goes off the chart with my laptop and wireless router but stays “mostly” amber next to my cell phone. 2) I thought the cell would would show the highest reading as in your video. Could my meter be defective? 3) I have a smart meter and it does not measure above amber on that also-inside and out. My only other thought is to buy the trifield meter to use as a companion. Thank you for your time and help with our concerns and questions.

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Hi Karen
    1) “Will my meter measure anything or do they only give off magnetic (fields)?” — Magnetic fields are the principal concern with power lines, the Acousticom 2 does not measure MFs.
    2) “I thought the cell would show the highest reading as in your video. Could my meter be defective?” — It’s possible…..EMF exposures are rarely what you assume they will be….but if you think its defective send it back.
    3) “I have a smart meter and it does not measure above amber on that also-inside and out. My only other thought is to buy the trifield meter to use as a companion.” The Trifield meter is ideal for measuring MFs from power lines & other sources – its RF meter capability is nothing like as good as the Acousticom 2.

  • Yardley said,

    Lloyd,

    Read all of the comments so far.

    Your responses were very, very helpful.

    I had an Acoustimeter

    Loved the way it detected all the RF with sound & LED’s.
    but I mailed it to a colleague with some of my other meters:

    1 – Trifield Meter Model 100XE,

    2 – Graham-Stetzer (Stetzerizer) Microsurge Meter,

    3 – A brand new Greenwave EMI meter – monitors levels of dirty electricity, or electromagnetic interference (EMI) – does something similar to the Stetzerizer but measures dirty electricity forms from 2 Kilohertz up to 10 Megahertz.

    My colleague has decided to keep the meters and continues to take measurements in 4 states.

    I am now replacing some of my meters.

    I am back to the same question I had before I purchased an RF meter:

    should I buy an HF35C instead of the Acoustimeter?

    My only concern is how well does Acoustimeter detect RF from the different types of Smart Meters.

    From EMFields Web site they have this caution about the Acoustimeter:

    2. Peak readings are what they say – the highest sampled reading – though the sampling and processing rate means that there are some gaps and it will not always react to a SINGLE VERY short pulse (less than about 5 microseconds duration) – though it will react correctly to much shorter pulses that are regularly transmitted (such as from WiFi).
    The peak-hold reading on the LCD screen can be higher for some types of signal than the highest LED seen flashing as the Peak LED display does not show all the pulses in order to make it easier to see.

    Not sure if this would affect the ability of the Acoustimeter to detect RF from Smart Meters?

    I have only been able to detect Smart Meters about 3 to 5 feet away with the Acoustimeter.

    Now the Smart Meters that I’ve tested could be different than other Smart Meters and are safe at least for RF only 5 feet away.

    As Rob States mentions, in the Darker Side of Smart Meters – the RF from Smart Meters can travel up to 92 feet in open space – without any structures that may minimize the RF.

    Would this caution by EMFields limit how far I can detect a Smart Meter with an Acoustimeter?

    As I understand, with the HF35C, people have picked up smart meters over 25 feet and maybe farther away.

    I noticed that the HF35C also has a rather complex antenna that appears to make the HF35C better able to detect RF from a Smart Meter from a greater distance?

    Have you personally or know of others who have detected RF from Smart Meters at this greater distance with the Acoustimeter?

    I am mainly looking to detect unsafe levels of RF.

    If the RF from a Smart Meter is detected at a greater distance but the RF values are at a safe level based on the most recent findings like the Bioinitative 2012 Report or other such recent findings, that is OK.

    It appears that a lot of people who are spending more than $400 US to detect RF from Smart Meters are using a Gigahertz Solution meter and a lot of them are using the HF35C.

    Another question Is the Acousticom 2 by EMFields that recently came out.

    Is the Acousticom 2 as good as the Acoustimeter with a few less LED’s and without the Average Exposure?

    The Acousticom 2 appears to be about half the cost of the Acoustimeter.

    I was thinking about buying the HF35C and the Acousticom 2 so I could use both.

    Note: the Acousticom 2 goes down lower then the Acoustimeter to .01 V/m but has about 8 LED’s vs. 15 LED’s on the Acoustimeter.
    Also the Acoustimeter has a

    Two line LCD displaying actual levels:
    » Peak exposure levels in V/m
    » Peak hold levels in V/m
    » Average exposure levels in µW/m2

    Measurement range: 200 – 8 000 MHz ±3 dB

    Sensitivity (Peak Display): 0.02 V/m – 6.00 V/m
    Sensitivity (Average Display): 1 µW/m2 – 100 000 µW/m2

    Acousticom 2 has

    No LCD display – might be difficult to detect Peak levels

    Measurement range: 200 – 8 000 MHz ±6 dB

    Sensitivity (Peak Display): 0.01 – 6.00 volts per metre (V/m)
    0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.3 1.0 3.0 6.0 V/m;

    (0.5 to 100,000 µW/m)2

    I can’t find so far anyone who has compared the Acoustimeter with the HF35C in the field?

    One last area since both of these meters will not measure low frequency radiation – which can be found around electrical wiring, transformer units, surge protectors – which meter or meters would you recommend for measuring low frequency radiation?

    Thanks in advance for your help?

    Yardley

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Hi Yardley
    – the Acoustimeter is well suited to measuring smart meter radiation. It doesn’t actually say this on the EMFields website (they are the manufacturers) but it does say it on their Acousticom 2 page…..the Acoustimeter and Acousticom have the same microwave detector.
    – I questioned Alasdair Philips (of Powerwatch and EMFields) about the functioning of the Acoustimeter he explained to me “it is the peak hold reading on the LCD that is much better than then LEDs and the number is held until the meter is switched off and on again. What people were confusing is that the Acoustimeter correctly displays the true average rather than a notional “peak power” which is not meaningful in any real sense. Most of the other meters that read in power levels all display the approx. peak power (to varying degrees of accuracy) but that number does not relate to ICNIRP or the FCC Guidelines which both quote true average power.”
    – regarding the Gigahertz solutions meters he went on to say that “Gigahertz Solutions meters are very good. However, they actually measure the RF in volts per metre (V/m) internally and then convert this to an equivalent power. They do this as if the RF is a continuous signal so it is a peak-power measurement (that cannot be directly compared with the official power level exposure standards as those are actual power time-averaged over 1 second minimum which gives a very different answer for short pulsed signals).”
    – for measuring low frequency radiation for most people the ME3030B is adequate, a better meter is the ME3951A which can also measure intermediary frequencies, but comes with a hefty price tag.

  • Sheryl said,

    The Acoustimeter can only measure frequencies as low as 200 MHz. The Cornet ED85EXS can measure down to 1 MHz. What would I be missing if I get the Acoustimeter, that would be between 1 and 200 MHz?

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Lots of things operate below 200 Mhz…FM radio is the first thing that comes to mind…if you look at a transistor radio you can see the FM range goes from 88-107 Mhz.
    Thank you for your donation.

  • ad said,

    Why do you censor my sensible and down-to-earth response ?!
    The Cornet ED85EXS will not measure down to 1 MHz, nor 200 Mhz, not with a normal antenna at least.
    If you promote the meter without rectifying the sales-tactics, you are misleading your readers.
    Beside of the dishonesty, this nonsense can create a false sense of security among non-technical users, the questioner included.
    I thought you were a nice guy, but my new impression is one of arrogance and/or some form of politics.

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    I did not censor your comment. Unfortunately the website went down just before Christmas and some comments were lost…I’m guessing yours was one of them.

  • Annie said,

    Time for a moderating word I feel.

    I sent a comment once to a site elsewhere, and the site went down, and I felt as if I had been banished! Fortunately I counted to 1659 perhaps..: ) …and many weeks later the site returned, without it having anything to do with me. I had felt bad, but waited.

    So Lloyd, We all almost to a man, appreciate and treasure your assistance with getting to the facts of a not too easy subject! Additionally it is all accomplished in an excellent way. Thank you! : )

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Thank you Annie!

  • Linda Penrod said,

    Do you think this device would help me find the hacking/stalking device hidden in my house?

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    If there is a device in or around your home that is emitting RF radiation then this is probably your best bet for finding it – its very sensitive and has a broad frequency range.

  • Gene Aum said,

    As I’ve mentioned before I’m now starting to capture the audio from my Acoustimeter to a laptop. So far I’ve got two overnights, and plan on daytime captures as well.

    I’m hearing tones and phenomenon that differ from the four or five tone samples that I’ve downloaded from a website (which I can’t seem to locate the website again :*( ).

    I’m looking for additional tone samples, such as 4G, etc., and any info on the repetitive tones and pulses that are being recorded. Anyone know if they exist?

    Also, if anyone is interested in my captures I’ll be glad to make them available for download.

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    I’m interested in your recordings Gene, if you send me the recordings in Mp3 format I can load them up to the website…I’m sure others are interested in this.

  • Sheryl said,

    Just an update: I purchased the Acoustimeter. Today I plan to buy some 1.5 volt AA Lithium cell batteries for it, because I was told by the tech department at EMFields that these batteries perform better at cold temperatures. (It is 5 degrees Fahrenheit today, and that is the high.)

  • Nicolas said,

    Is it true that this EMF meter along with all other consumer based meters do not have the ability to measure EMF radiation from sources greater than 100m (like cell phone towers)because they are not sensitive enough?

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Different RF (radio frequency) meters have very different measuring capabilities….all the RF meters I’ve tested can measure RF radiation quite easily from 100m or more…typically they are a lot more ‘challenged’ measuring exposures at close range (e.g. from a cell phone) this has to do with the design of the antenna and the sensitivity of the device…the Acoustimeter being one of the more sensitive consumer RF meters on the market is quite effective at picking up readings even from a cellphone.

  • David said,

    Hello Lloyd! Last December i bought myself a Swiss Shield Naturell canopy, as i live in an apartment building with no one under me(only basement storage), the bottom is not covered but all the sides are. I slept like a baby the first weeks but now couple of months later i dont feel the same way, my cellphone has full coverage in there!?!? & my wifi ipad does too. I remember vaguely in the beginning i couldnt call from the inside? Nor surf on the ipad who have sucky wifi anyway. A week ago I found myself a battery transmitter that transmits 15hz,i consoled the person i bought the canopy from about putting it in the tent, which he didnt have anything against so i did 3 nights. But i fear that this might of damaged it someway? Why isnt this blocking these signals, i cant believe how much ive paid for this? This canopy hasnt been washed. My question is, are these nets really for long term use? I feel like if i can sit and talk with my cellphone in there with full reception, why have it at all? Hopefully i can resell this Cotton net. i really think that theres huge disinformation or ive simply misunderstood its purpose.

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    The golden rule when using any type of shielding is to test….I’ve bought a number of defective products(not shielding nets) from very reputable companies that didn’t work….my meter told me it didn’t work so I sent them back and got refunded my money. Contact the company you bought it from….they might refund you even though you’re outside the return period.

  • Drew said,

    When I hold my ACOUSTIMETER AM-10 in front of the cell tower, which is about 800 metres (1/2 mile) away I get left readings of about 0.65 V/m and the right ones top near 500 W/m, but usually are much less, below 100 W/m. Sometimes I may get as high as 1 V/m on the left reading and 500 W/m on the right reading. Are those readings high and dangerous?

    I also noticed that when I drive close to the cell tower, within 10 meters from it, under it or just 100 to 300 meters from it, the radiation is lesser than if I am at 800 meters from the tower. So as it seems that living right under or near the tower is safer than living 800 meters away from it.

  • Steve said,

    Dear Lloyd,

    I have the Acoustimeter AM10.
    A tower, containing three antennae, was recently installed on top of a two storey residential building in the middle of our village. When I measure from across the road from the tower I am getting 5-6V/m peak readings at a particular location (and no, I don’t have a mobile phone nearby).
    These are much higher than the <1V/m max. admitted by two companies who have been called in to check the transmitted levels. I think the difference is partly due to the AM10 being a broadband instrument whereas I think the professionals are monitoring one frequency at a time? Possibly they monitor with a directional antenna whereas the AM10 is rather omnidirectional? My knowledge is not sufficient to convincingly explain the difference, apart from these type of guesses. Since their results are in V/m I presume they also are referring to a peak reading.
    Seeing that the measurement results are so different the consensus is that my results are not correct especially, as has been pointed out to me, the meter has no calibration certificate.
    Where can I find the information regarding measurement procedure etc. to enable me to compile a convincing argument for these results?
    Thanks

  • rpvgadget said,

    Awesome website and information, Lloyd. I stumbled upon your website and the world of RF and EMF Meters as me and my daughter are researching for a meter for her school science project. Along the way I really got seriously interested in this world for personal reasons of finding RF level as well. So for a science project, do you think Acoustimeter AM-10 is a good choice. Cost is not a deciding factor. (we will cut down on restaurants/movies for few days :)) My daughter wants to measure RF radiation from all house hold devices like cell phone/tablets/router/Google TV/security systems/tablets etc and compare radiation level when they are in use. After her experiment, i will use for finding and updating levels in various rooms and to minimize them.I personally like this, but is the tri-axis important? Can you help me on the directional concept? I thought RF presence will be directed if it is present there. Why reduction is important. If I have to measure RF of the above household items, how should I point this.

    again you are doing incredible service in educating the masses.

  • Lloyd Burrell said,

    Hi
    The Acoustimeter is an excellent choice for a school science project. None of the RF meters I’ve used are tri-axis….this really isn’t an issue whats important is sensitivity and accuracy….this meter has that.

Add A Comment


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.