Trifield vs EM Natural Trifield

[johnnycakes]

Sorry to dig this back up, but I am wanting a little advice.  Since there is a chance now that I will be able to field a group later this year, I am reviewing all of my equipment and re-writing my group training manual. 

I went back through the thread - but would like a summary answer from one of our experts:

if you had to choose between the Trifield and the EM natural - which would you buy and why?  (If you were only going to buy one.)

Would there be any benefit to purchasing both of them?

[Really Old Guy]

I'm inherently skeptical of anything and everthing in use today, since there's nothing that produces repeatable results. Especially anything associated with the term "ghost." (How do they validate that)

I'd save the money and get the cheapest thing that (sort of) works. EM fields are everywhere. That's a known fact. A cheapie will give an idea of the relative strength. When on site, take a reading. Then turn off the power to the investigation site. If the meter dips, you identified the source.

Why not build one? It would have a lot more gee-whiz factor. IMHO.

[johnnycakes]

actually, that is pretty much the only use we have for them...i rarely carry one around with me, unless we are specifically doing EM sweeps.  If the owner of the property will let you turn off the power, that is standard for us too.

I wouldn't build one for 2 reasons:

1.  I am not that mechanically inclined

2.  Homemade equipment is too suspect.  At least with standardized equipment, you have a known starting point and a good backing of professionally done field testing and results to work with.  Anything homemade lacks that and the results from the equipment would be questionable.

[Really Old Guy]

2.  Homemade equipment is too suspect.  At least with standardized equipment, you have a known starting point and a good backing of professionally done field testing and results to work with.  Anything homemade lacks that and the results from the equipment would be questionable.

Not to argue the point exactly,  but it's *ALL* questionable. That's precisely why I build my own equipment. Remember, they wouldn't be selling it if they weren't making a buck (or more). And I can control the quality, the shielding, signal integrity issues, testing, ... I could go on.

I'd wager you're of above average intelligence. Trust me on this, it's not difficult. The odds are very good there's someone you know nearby that already has the skills, too.

But for a very small investment, consider something as simple as the Evp Listener: http://www.lessemf.com/ghost.html#Other I had one and I didn't even know it.   I was very surprised to discover how sensitive it is to EM fields. Now I use to test my EMI/RFI shielding.

I'm only suggesting that $100-200 ain't exactly pocket change. And it won't do anything to prove/disprove anything.

[johnnycakes]

oh, I understand that using EMF meters for paranormal work is all questionable - which is one of the reasons I rarely use them for investigations.

I am referring to the fact that factory made ones, used as standards in the fields they are created for, are tested and verified pieces of equipment.  Homemade equipment isn't.  That is the point I was making.

Thank you for the compliment though!  LOL!   

I think I am reverting back to being a less gadget person, more focused on video and audio equipment and observations.

I do sincerely appreciate you input though...

[mrgaldor]

I agree with making your own stuff in part, although I dont make hardware.  Instead of using a program like photoshop for analysis of "paranormal" photos, I made my own software for it.  Ofcourse it doesnt have as many features, but I know exactly what every feature does in the theoretical and computational sense.  This helps me know, not only what I have done, but what I could try in any situation.  It also isnt as user friendly, but since Im the only user it doesnt really matter.  Plus, if I want a new feature I simply program it in.

Ive also made my own audio analysis algorithms but the paranormal field doesnt seem tohave advanced far enough to implement them yet and Ive been too busy with dissertation work for it.

[Really Old Guy]

Ofcourse it doesnt have as many features, but I know exactly what every feature does in the theoretical and computational sense.

IMO - It doesn't need (and probably shouldn't have) a lot of pheechurs. I'ts perfect if it faithfully and accurately reproduces the orignal content. Other than say, notch filters, additional pheechurs are just an excuse to alter to suit.

Ive also made my own audio analysis algorithms but the paranormal field doesnt seem tohave advanced far enough to implement them yet and Ive been too busy with dissertation work for it.

I'm in need of a subsonic (0-20Hz) analyser with infinite configurable filters. Let me know when the beta's available? 

[Mok]

I'm in need of a subsonic (0-20Hz) analyser with infinite configurable filters. Let me know when the beta's available? 

Before you need an analyzer, you would first need subsonic recording equipment.  Congrats if you already have it, as it's my understanding that it gets pretty pricey.

[Really Old Guy]

Congrats if you already have it, as it's my understanding that it gets pretty pricey.

I was actually being facetious toward mrgaldor since it's obvious he's deeply involved in his studies.

I have three types of detectors that I developed (working or almost working):

Isobaric subs. I have about $150 invested, but the amplifiers are tricky. One detector. Working.

Electret array. This is what the big boys are using for volcano study. About $10 per element. I have 10 elements working

Piezoelectric transducer array. Really still developing, but shows a lot of promise. About $20 per element. 5 elements. Sort of working.

In each case, the rest of the system includes a FET-based mixer ($10 in parts), a PLL frequency multiplier ($20 in parts), and a laptop (free).

That's why I advocate DIY.

[McSteeler]

One has to realize that in doing investigations, the goal isnt to find ghosts; its to find answers for a homeowner who doesnt have anyone else to turn to with these problems.

EMF detectors are essential in my investigations, because EMF is often the culprit in the claims of hauntings.

Medically speaking it interrupts the flow of electrical impulses along the neural pathways, giving you false positives.
Tactile, auditory, olfactory, and visual hallucinations are not uncommon, as well as feelings of dread, panic and of being watched.

[Kegger]

I agree with Jeff, I honestly believe that your EMF meter, Tactile Inducer, etc, is just tools in your tool belt to provide answers that aren't necessary under the heading of paranormal

[Really Old Guy]

Tactile, auditory, olfactory, and visual hallucinations are not uncommon, as well as feelings of dread, panic and of being watched.

Now you got me wondering. The single most powerful (common) EM field we are likely to be exposed to in our lifetime, is during an EMI scan.  I've never thought about it before, but I've never heard of anyone hallicinating. Why do you suppose that is?

I've only had two or three, but my Mrs. has had many. Might explain a thing or two...

[johnnycakes]

We do sweeps of the house, but like I said, I don't use them during actual investigation, but during the preliminary investigations - not when we are looking for ghosts.  So, I don't discount them for doing environmental surveys....