Welcome to LLIFS Forums!
A place you can be your spooky self! Please feel free to start a new discussion or join in on an existing one! If at anytime you need a moderator, please message SarahLLIFS, Jess89, ST00154 or ThingsThatGoBump

EDI - thoughts?

Recently purchased an EDI to use for investigating this year. What do you think of it?

I like the data logging


  • edited January 10

    Thanks for starting this discussion, Sarah, it has prompted me to think about my past experiences with "Paranormal Devices" over the years.

    The EDI seems to be a well built device (i.e. not cobbled together with glue and tin foil) and the data logging function is a useful function. I believe it has gone through a number of design iterations over the years which means at least someone is reviewing the components and the applications.

    Like many other Paranormal Investigators / Researchers / Ghost Hunters, etc I have used the EDI, REM Pods, Geophones, Spirit Boxes, Ovilus, Smart Phone apps and countless other beeping boxes of lights during investigations and experiments (as per photo in this post to demonstrate). My own personal opinion is that none of these devices have ever provided me with anything I would have deemed to have been reliable in terms of "evidence". As a result, I have always been mistrusting and sceptical of multipurpose devices, primarily because poor shielding and other design weaknesses can lead to false positives. I think I'm correct in saying that the EDI's environmental detection functions cannot be calibrated, which is a common flaw in many (if not all) purpose-built paranormal devices.

    If we consider that there's somewhere in the region of 12,000 Paranormal Investigators (self-styled or otherwise) out there doing their thing each weekend, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that the majority of those individuals will have little or no scientific qualifications or indeed have any knowledge of how to employ "The Scientific Method" to their research procedures. Such a community is therefore largely unable to gather robust evidence let alone analyse it afterwards to establish what is normal and what falls outside of standard deviations.

    None of this is intended to be an insult by the way; I'm speaking as someone who has no formal Scientific qualifications myself, I just happen to be someone who readily acknowledges my weaknesses in certain areas of what I do. None of us are perfect and there's always something to be learned, no matter how long one has been involved with a particular subject.

    My point is that unless an Investigator can 'reverse engineer' a "paranormal device" themselves or with the assistance of a qualified professional and review how well the evidence contamination risks have been mitigated and/or at least obtain access to detailed schematics from the manufacturer to see how it has been built and what its architecture is, then I think these devices will always carry inherent flaws and cannot be fully trusted. Sadly, it's unlikely that any manufacturer of such a device would provide the level of detail required for someone to fully understand it due, in part, to a need to protect intellectual property but also perhaps to avoid revealing any flaws or failings of that device.

    As a result of a lack of transparency about design and construction, such flaws remain unknown (even in the most famous and commercially available devices), thus leading to unreliable data and poor conclusions being drawn a result (i.e. "The alarm went off and there was nothing near it, therefore Ghost because the instructions say that this detector only detects Spirit Energy").

    Given that it is you, Sarah, who has purchased an EDI, I look forward to reading about the paces you will no doubt be putting the device through. I would love to see a Blog post all about your tests and the associated results.

    On a final note, let's not forget the infamous "GhostArk" device. For those who are unfamiliar with that particular device, I would recommend a quick Google Search and read about how that particular story unfolded.

    Thanks again for the opportunity to get involved in this discussion. I am really looking forward to reading what others think about this subject.

    Best wishes,


  • I don't have a lot of thoughts on the device as of yet as it has barely been used being the holidays and all but the initial observations:

    It is not as sensitive as a K2 meter when using EMF - as in when you have the devices side by side it does not pick up weak signals like a K2 meter does. Whether this is a benefit or not I have not decided.

    It is very sturdy which is great because I drop a lot of equipment and break it.

    What I like about it (because I am into data logging) is that it has the data logging feature. I am yet to analysis graphs or get any real data but this is where the main point of interest for me lies.

    Of course as we know equipment is only as good as our interpretation of the results so will see what the next few months bring with this device. I am interested to hear from those who use this device and what modes you use and what kind of results you have had

  • The thing is though, how reliable is the device? So it may log data, but can the sensors be calibrated? If not, then how do you know that the data is not false?

  • I can't answer that question until I understand how it works which at the moment I don't because I haven't really used it much nor even looked through the manual. That is why I am going to be testing it and trying to understand it better over coming months. I would guess it is likely the sensors are auto calibrated and not manually. Speaking for myself, my data logging would certainly not hold up to scientific method and there would be a lot of holes in many of my methods if it was scrutinised. It is just something I like doing because I like studying the numbers and it helps me with my own research when it comes to trying to understand things. The last time I had an anomaly on a cheap data logger I had, I had to throw the data out and assume it was a device malfunction but it raised other questions in my mind and led me down other paths so it still had a purpose for myself anyway as I don't just concentrate on the data itself, I like to look at everything as a whole. Some people like broken radios, I like data loggers LOL

    Anyway will see how it goes over the coming months.

  • Yes, it really comes down to the purpose of the data. If you ever planned on publicly justifying a theory, experience or to prove the occurrence of something through the use of your data then you would have to prepare yourself for the inevitable scrutiny and criticism, however if it's intended just for personal use then there's no harm whatsoever as ultimately you're the only person you need to convince. This is why there is such a large gap between "Ghost Hunters" in their many forms and Institutional Researchers; ultimately those researchers will require their results to be peer reviewed and, ultimately, published if such a review concludes that their results are worthy.

    I fall somewhere in between which is why even though I have a pile of equipment I no longer use it because I know whatever it is telling me will not be "admissible" as reliable evidence. A few years ago I went through a phase of inventing new gadgets such as building my own infrared nightvision goggles and a portable sound lab where I can generate a Jurgenson Wave for combined DRV and EVP experiments. However, the only things I tend to use now are DSLR cameras, 4K video cameras, cassette recorders, digital voice recorders, notepad and pen.

    The paranormal field is extremely diverse and whilst that's a good thing for the development of experiments and theories, it's not so good for consistency of evidence gathering methods, thus making any analysis almost impossible and severely limits the potential for drawing meaningful conclusions. It's frustrating, but I know that the SPR have plans a'foot to attempt to bring people together and work towards that consistency, so keep a look out for that.

Sign In or Register to comment.