Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content

Emf Testers - Why Are They Different? Mel8704 Vs Dt1130

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Faranormal



  • GS Member
  • 41 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UKay

Posted 18 November 2016 - 03:22 PM

I've used DT-1130 as my EMF side-arm for a while now, mainly because I'm brutal at dismissing evidence, and the DT-1130 is generally unequivocal, never giving me annoying false positives... and also because it's pretty cheap. I use it alongside other equipment mainly, rarely does it go solo, because of the nature of EMF signals, a detection on the meter isn't a really complete piece of evidence.

Recently I've started bring a Mel Meter to the party, and I find myself a little perplexed by the results it brings back. For a start it seems more sensitive. But more than that, it seems to pick up a lot that the DT-1130 doesn't. But the DT-1130 seems to pick up a lot that the Mel Meter isn't particularly interested in. I suppose I can use them together as necessary, but I'd like to have a full understanding of the differences. Hopefully someone can explain this to me in a way I can grasp.

My guess is that it's to do with the frequency of the EMF, I think the Mel-8704 goes down to 30MHz? This steps outside my understanding for now, and is what I'd like to discuss. A basic how-it-looks is that the DT-1130 doesn't read anything straight out the door of a microwave oven but it drives the Mel-8704 insane. Yet if I shove their faces into a domestic power outlet, the DT-1130 is the one that sounds the alarm, while the Mel-8704 barely registers anything above baseline.

Attached Files

Posted Image

#2 siguie


    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2016 - 07:20 PM

I'm pretty sure the DT-1130 is most sensitive at detecting house currents in the 50 or 60Hz ranges {The US is 60Hz most everywhere else is 50Hz} since that is literally what it was designed to do. I don't have either so I'm just putting this out there.

I use a TriField Natural EMF meter that is actually meant to filter those frequencies out.

Something to keep in mind is that there is no reason {that I am aware of} to expect a ghost to produce an actual EM field much less a field at a particular frequency :no: As far as I know the detectors are detecting magnetic fields, it just so happens that moving currents produce them hence an EMF.

That said I cannot say that ghosts are not moving currents with specific frequencies BUT I like my trifield meter because it can detect the earths magnetic field {no real frequency} as well as stationary magnets and of course electric fields and radio frequencies.

Personally I'd go with the Mel meter and a nice Tasker EMF script for your phone :yes:
- siguie -

#3 chapsparanormal



  • GS Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oshawa, ON Canada
  • Interests:Paranormal Investigation, Martial Arts, Travel, Geocaching

Posted 27 February 2017 - 06:37 PM

Agreed. We use a number of different ones. More in to debunk or establish base reads. Mels are simple to use, don't set off as easy as say a KII and fairly cheap. I have no idea why we never did get a tri field more I guess cost.

KII fine and dandy as use for a barometer, if doing evp sessions maybe give you a reason to ask another question. No reason nor proof that this a ghost but nothing saying it isn't either, Not hurting anything asking more questions.
We actually did get some crazy KII behavior on our last investigation. Looking into that more. Make more tests based on it to see how I can duplicate that.
Dave Gibb,
Director Canadian Haunting and Paranormal Society
Liaison TAPS Family International.
Oshawa Ontario Canada

#4 siguie


    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 February 2017 - 12:56 PM

I think the KII is better for video since you can see the lights flashing and maybe for walking around looking for hotspots but I'm kinda thinking my next purchase will be a mel-meter. I like the ambient temperature reading and it would pair well with my IR thermometers PLUS the readings are easier to record. I really like my TriField BUT you basically need to be standing still to use it and unless you are in a very steady EMF field it's kind of hard to determine the actual numbers with the pointer waving about.
- siguie -