Firstly great forum, Ive been reading some threads today, and already gathered a wealth of information.
So about me, Im not EHS, Im just very conceous of EMF/RF around my environment, and more so now as i have a 3 week old baby in the house.
Basically I am trying to source a reliable and accurate EMF and RF meter. Initially I was considering an all in meter like the Cornet ED88T or the Trifield TF2 (still unsure which is more accurate), but then thought two sperate meters i.e. EMFields Accousticom2 and a PF5, might be more reliable/accurate.
I have a budget of 200-300€.
Im edging towards the Cornet as i like that its an all in one mete, and has some great reviews..
One of key aspect to consider is whether the EMF meter can measure both electric and magnetic waves. Also note that some devices can measure ELF and RF-EMF radiation, while others can only measure certain frequencies. Ultimately, the right meter for you depends on what devices you plan to measure, and your budget.
The ED88T is good at detecting both radio and magnetic fields. But it doesn't measure frequencies between 50 KHz and 100 MHz. I use a Radio Shack 12-467 that I bought on eBay to detect some of those.
And as I said in other posts, the radio mode on mine stopped working after a bit more than a year.
I also can't vouch for its accuracy except that the results it gives for strong fields are basically sensible. (A big transformer shows a stronger magnetic field than a small one, and putting it close to a cell phone will show periodic spikes as well as longer spikes when someone calls. It might not be as accurate for weak fields as they claim.)
I own and use the Cornet ED-88TPlus, Acoustimeter AM-10 and PF5 Pocket.
The Cornet feels cheaply made and is sometimes quite difficult to pick up on some RF signals that the Acoustimeter picks up.
The Acoustimeter and the pf5 feel better quality and work well for rf, magnetic and electric.
The Cornet has the combination of fields in one meter for less money but you will not get accurate fast results the same as the emfields(Acoustimeter,Acousticom 2, pf5) meters
The Safe and Sound Pro
1) Detects all fast pulses tested up to 3 microseconds.
2) Consistancy of RF level: fairly good
The Accousticom AM10
1) One fast pulse slipped past detection at 25 microseconds, and much more slips at 10 microseconds. Not tested at 5 because he says it will not register.
2) Consistent RF values.
1) Fast pulses start to slip at 10 microseconds and at 5 microseconds barely registers anything anymore.
2) Inconsistent RF levels: the values drop to almost nothing with faster pulses.
Gigahertz HF 59B
1) Catches all pulses tested up to 3 microseconds.
2) Consistent RF values.
(You can find the specifications for the Analog Devices 8318 chip here: https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/609/AD8318-1517492.pdf ... It's capable of detecting a -75 dBm signal if a special setting called VSET is changed, with the side effect that it can't detect levels higher than -30 dBm.)
Originally I was looking for a different multi-function meter that I saw in this review:
Here is an eBay review for the meter in the first link:
"This power meter is useful within its limitations. It measures and displays RF power in dBm and peak to peak voltage into 50 ohms.
It also displays Frequency in MHz and Offset in dB. Frequency and Offset are user entries rather than measurements.
With the Frequency entry, YOU tell it the frequency of the power source it is measuring. It then adjusts the power and voltage readings to correct for its built in error sources, probably from a look-up table of corrections. These corrections can be rather large. The point is that the frequency response is not flat, so the corrections are required. With this caveat, accuracy isn't bad. I like my power meters to have a flat response with frequency, so I don't recommend this unit.
With the Offset entry, YOU can enter corrections if you determine errors with your own calibration source. A more practical application of the Offset feature is to adjust for the attenuator(s) that YOU add to the input in order to extend the input range to higher power. If you add a 30 dB attenuator, adjust the reading to read 30 dB higher.
Finally, if you connect the USB cable to a laptop to provide power, it also sends measurements of power in dBm and voltage in mVpp as a serial data stream at 9600 baud to a serial port on the laptop. For this to work, YOU MUST locate and install suitable drivers for the CH340G USB chip common in inexpensive versions of Arduinos from China. Locate and download ch341serDOTexe."
First of all, do not expect serious measurements from any of these meters.
See here to get an idea :
https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/German-Test-Report-RF-Meters.pdf E.g., about the Acoustimeter :
"Like the other meters, the specification for 8 GHz is also clearly exaggerated: not a single test signal of 10 μW/m² (threshold level between the slight and severe anomaly range of the SBM) above 2.7 GHz was detected by the meter. It only displayed its own noise."
"In this higher frequency range, the Acoustimeter responded to stronger test signals, but the displayed measurement values were 25 to more than 30 times lower."
With your budget, i would get a Cornet ED85EXPlus and a Gigahertz ME3030B.
I've a Trifield TF2 too, it's a nice meter but misses too much RF ( like DECT for instance ) and the "weighted mag" starts with 0.7 mG ( at least in my device, hence i ignore that function ) but for standard magnetic and electrical fields it is not too bad.
EMFields meters are all way overpriced and there is little development in this company, while Cornets are improved upon every year.
To the mentioned Cornet you could later on attach better antennas, which will improve the actual frequency range and sensitivity.
With a cheap radio one can detect signals that the common emf-meters that do not register.
Below 700 MHz not much is shown usually, while TETRA, radio and tv, and plenty of other frequencies, are pretty important too.
Ignore the specifications of the manufacturers, it seems they love your money more than your interests.
Better than any meter is being sensitive yourself, that is : without being harmed much, but that is another topic.
Even if a meter would be accurate, it does not know how an individual responses to a chaotic mix of many frequencies and type of waves.
Of course one's own sensitivity is also not totally to be trusted, what is felt does not need to be too unhealthy and vice versa, but my bet is that it easily can beat any meter in the case of most people reading this forum.
Last but not least : NEVER over-expose an emf-meter to very strong fields, like holding it near ( within a few feet of ) a mobile phone or router, even when the meter is switched off, as this may damage it.
That looks like a reasonable new meter.
In a video it is stated that it detects upto 0.1 µW/m², and in text it's upto 0.001 µW/m², so what is it ?
Probably below 0.1 µW/m² it will miss a lot ( more ) or show way too low readings.
Those test results do not mention any applied signal strength ( i did not see it ), which makes them almost useless.
Also in the real world you do not have single, clean waves that make it easier to pass a test.
Nevertheless, it does not look too bad at the first impression.
However it should outperform the Cornet ED-88TPlus significantly in order to make it a better deal, as the price is about the double.
I doubt it does though, it has already less functions to begin with : no dBm or V/m units, no magnetic and electrical fields, no frequency analysis and no datalogging.
These features may be of no personal interest or suck in quality, but are still better than nothing when we compare the meters.
I think the discussion of meters get muddied when people talk about EMF and RF meters at the same time. I think meter discussions on this list need to be separated into separate subject posts.
Each of these meters should be a separate post:
Radio Frequency Meters (RF),
AC, DC or AC/DC Gauss Meters (for Magnetic Fields) - Single or Triple Axis,
AC, DC or AC/DC Electricity Meters (for electrical fields),
Combo Triple Axis AC/DC Gauss / Electric Meters,
EMI Dirty Electricity Meters
All are different.
By now, not to be snooty, but don't you think this list should have come to some consensus on what are the best meters for the best price for each category? Just saying. Maybe, as a group, we should start making a chart, and compile the info. because people will keep on asking for it. I have an Acoustimeter. But I need a new Triple Axis AC/DC Gauss meter, which i am researching right now. I would appreciate some input, but seems like everybody has the Tri-Field meter and that is not as professional as I am looking for.
In keeping with my suggestions, I am making a new Post on the Subject of "Measuring 5G".
there aren't really "best" meters, because most meters have pro's and cons
and can do different things.
Even very expensive meters are not always the best in everything:
for example: the most expensive Gigahertz meter,
the NFA1000 (2000€) measures down to 1nT triple axis.
and my "cheaper" Gigahertz ME3851A (500€) measures down to 0.1nT (but single axis).
Most people won't need to measures so low, but i do because of the tests i do.
If you compare a Cornet ED88TPlus and a Trifield TF2:
The cornet has better RF detection, but the Trifield should have better magnetic detection.
So people saying to other people the Cornet is the best (budget) meter to buy
isn't really accurately true.
Both a Cornet ED88TPlus and Trifield TF2 measure down to 10nT.
Most meters only measure AC btw.
i haven't seen much DC meters, i know nobody who has one.
I don't even know how they work and if they are important.
Some recommend the "Alphalab AC Milligauss Meter UHS2" for magnetic,
that should be more than good enough if you don't like a TriField for AC magnetic,
but i'm not sure you will find more than a Trifield does, in general i mean, except if you are planning
to do very fine measurements and tests similar to the ones i did on the mice for example.
Then it can be useful to pay more for a better meter.
The UHS2 only measures magnetic, no electric. Down to 1nT but triple axis.
It claims to measure between 13Hz – 75kHz versus my ME3851A who claims to measure between 5 Hz - 100 KHz, but is only single axis, however measures lower down to 0.0nT and has an electric mode. The very low frequency measurement capabilities seem less important though, i rarely measure below 50Hz. But which one is "best" now ? or "best" for magnetic ? Not so easy to say is it. Then we haven't even discussed accuracy, and if the specifications the companies provide are accurate.
There are other meters on the market, but who knows how those perform ?
When meters are compared, pros and cons become more obvious,
but not many are able to make such videos, nor have the money to buy multiple meters that do about the same thing.
For the higher frequencies of "5G" there aren't really meters yet that we can afford,
if they are going to use such high frequencies.
I tried the Safe and Sound Pro II and i was in pain using it,
so i measured it with my Gigahertz ME3851A and found quite high magnetic between 2kHz and 100kHz.
I can't use this meter. It's unfortunate, because it seems like a high quality meter overall, i liked it and was planning to make videos with it.
They should fix this in newer models. Some EHS people seem to tolerate it though since they use it and recommend it. Maybe i'm too sensitive. idk. Jeromy Johnson also recommends it on his site, he has a beta model of this version.