Research update ·
Linus Tech Tips removed the Aires wearables from its chamber. The signal on the analyzer looked the same. A physics team in Vilnius found that adding an Aires prototype changed the strength of a radio field by different amounts at different distances. Both observations matter. Aires designs its devices for use while your phone stays connected. Here is what researchers have measured in the field, on the silicon and in people.
What can you measure with an RF instrument? In Vilnius, a physics team moved the receiver and compared readings with and without a prototype. They reported about a 27% average decrease in electric-field strength in the tested arrangement. With their 800 W source, the difference disappeared beyond 1.2 metres. See the field measurements.
Does the etched pattern make a physical difference? Yes. In a 2026 peer-reviewed experiment, ITMO University researchers imaged the etched and smooth regions of the same silicon wafer. The etched region emitted infrared radiation more efficiently during heating. See the thermal images.
What happened in people? In a 2026 mobile-phone study with Lifetune ONE, the acute EEG table covered 14 participants. Researchers reported a return toward baseline after brief activation and increased slow-wave coherence in the seven-person follow-up. Read the human results and sample sizes.
For the original sources and reviewer assessments, see which studies underwent peer review.
What did Linus Tech Tips actually test?
In the first demonstration, the handheld RF meter reads about 1.3 to 1.7 volts per metre. As a person wearing the device approaches, the presenter observes a brief spike and a return to the earlier reading. Later, in a shielded chamber, the team generates a 146.4 MHz signal at +3 dBm (about 2 milliwatts). Turning off the generator makes its signal disappear. Removing the wearables leaves the displayed signal visibly unchanged. Watch the handheld test at 5:11 · Chamber settings at 14:08 · Removal at 15:06.
LTT also used a CT scanner to look inside the pendant and questioned how an unwired silicon element could operate. The wafer is passive. The design depends on the interaction of an external field with grooves etched into silicon. An external field can redistribute electrical charge in silicon. The authors’ model predicts that the etched grooves influence where that charge concentrates. Watch the CT discussion at 9:51.
The video also discusses a 32-foot range. That is a separate question. To evaluate a range claim, a test needs to specify what changes at that boundary, use the retail device, and take readings at multiple distances and directions. Watch the range discussion at 5:24.
How did the measured radio field change with distance?
In 2016, Professor Artūras Jukna, identified in the report as head of the physics department at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, reported tests at the Laboratory of Photovoltaic Technology. UAB AIRESLITA commissioned the work. The team placed a prototype directly in front of the transmitter, used sources in the 0.9–2.5 GHz range, and recorded field strength at a series of receiver positions. Read the original Phase I laboratory report.
Figure 5 shows why position matters. The authors report the roughly 27% average decrease in that setup and show how the difference between the two readings narrows with distance. With the 800 W source, it vanishes beyond 1.2 metres. This is a prototype result tied to a frequency range and geometry. The later Vilnius reports vary the number and orientation of the resonators. Figure 5 · Phase II, 2017 · Phase III, 2018.
What did the 2026 infrared study add after the review?
Gennadi Lukyanov and Sergei Makarov of ITMO University used a heating and cooling element under a 20 mm square Lifetune wafer. A Testo 890 infrared camera viewed the etched centre and the smooth surrounding silicon together. The centre appeared warmer during heating. The authors attributed that contrast to greater infrared emissivity in the etched region, meaning it gives off infrared radiation more efficiently at a given temperature. This comparison isolates a physical property a radio-signal meter cannot read. Read the open-access, peer-reviewed ICICT paper · DOI 10.1007/978-3-032-28964-3_5.
Start with Figure 7 to see the actual thermal image. Figure 9 follows the centre, the smooth region and the heating element over time. Figure 10 shows how the authors estimated emissivity. Springer published the paper on June 30, 2026, in the proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, pp. 54–63. View the figures at Springer.
Why measure biology alongside the field?
For someone deciding whether to put a device on a phone, the question is what happens during use. There is a scientific reason to measure that directly. In a double-blind crossover study from the Brain Sciences Institute at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, researchers compared sham, 2G and 3G phone exposure in the same participants. Young adults had higher resting EEG alpha activity during 2G exposure than during sham. The other age groups showed no such effect, and 3G showed none in any group. This was an exposure study. It shows why the phone signal, the comparison condition and the biological measure all matter when testing an Aires device. Croft et al., Bioelectromagnetics · PMID 20564174.
Lifetune ONE during mobile-phone exposure
Vladimir Sysoev and Dzhina Budko of the S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy used a GSM phone near the right ear and recorded electrical activity at the scalp. Their paper describes blinded recording and analysis. With Lifetune ONE, the authors observed brief activation followed by a return toward the participants’ background EEG. They also reported greater slow-wave coherence after seven days. Coherence describes how consistently signals from different recording sites vary together. Original peer-reviewed paper, Psychophysiology News, 2026, pp. 95–104 · DOI 10.34985/g3849-1614-0168-w.
The abstract reports 24 men aged 20–24. The methods and acute EEG table describe 14, with seven in the follow-up. Figures 1–4 show the recordings. Several alpha-band and heart-rate variability comparisons were statistically nonsignificant. Page 104 records approval after peer review on April 13 and acceptance on May 22, 2026. These results concern the phone accessory used in the study. Study guide and links to the earlier reports.
What about a wearable?
A 2020 report by L. Rybina, a doctor of biological sciences, studied a previous-generation Aires wearable placed against the upper abdomen. Eighteen adults aged 40–60 participated. In the selected group of 11 included in the alpha analysis, the author reported increased frontal alpha power during use. The comparison was with each participant’s baseline. A blinded comparison of the retail model shown by LTT against an identical-looking inactive device would answer the wearable-specific question more directly. Original wearable EEG report, methods and Tables 1–4.
What happened under controlled Wi-Fi exposure?
In a peer-reviewed 2019 Ecological Genetics paper, Natalya Dyuzhikova and colleagues, including researchers at the Pavlov Institute of Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, counted chromosome abnormalities in dividing rat bone-marrow cells. After four days of 2.4 GHz router exposure, six hours a day, the frequency was 9.8% with the router alone and 2.7% with the router plus six Aires resonators in the more excitable rat line. In the other line the figures were 6.7% and 3.6%. These percentages describe the cellular measurement in each group. The paper identifies coauthor Igor Serov’s affiliation with the Aires Human Genome Foundation. Dyuzhikova et al., 17(2), 83–92 · DOI 10.17816/ecogen17283-92 · Original paper, Figure 2.
A separate 2025 Pavlov Institute laboratory report by Shalaginova and Pavlova tested six Lifetune Zone Max devices around a cage during four nights of Wi-Fi 6 router exposure. In the low-excitability rat line, increased movement seen with the router alone moved back toward control levels with the devices. Elevated-plus-maze results showed no significant differences. This experiment extended the research to another generation of Aires technology and another biological outcome. Read the 2025 report and behavioral plots.
What did the close-up antenna test tell us?
After discussing field plots on Aires’ site, LTT sets up its own chamber demonstration. At 16:02 the team notices that a graph on Aires’ site refers to a height of 0.02 mm above the silicon. At about 17:19 they bring the exposed component up to the antenna to see whether the received signal changes. The spectrum analyzer shows signal strength at its receiver. The graph describes how the field varies from point to point above the wafer. Watch the discussion of the graph · Watch the antenna test.
A 2007 paper by Igor Serov, Gennadi Lukyanov and Alexander Kopyltsov gives an explicit example at exactly that height. The authors calculated how the electric field would vary above a patterned wafer when they applied pulses at three points in the model. The lower curve is at the surface. The upper curve is 0.02 mm, or 20 micrometres, above it. These are computer-generated curves. To test that prediction directly, a lab would map the field across the sample at defined heights under matching excitation. Bringing the component close to an antenna gives a different measurement. Read the 2007 paper, printed pp. 208–209, Figs. 10–11.
The authors returned to this question in a Springer proceedings paper published online in 2022. Its simulation produced a stable field pattern containing multiple frequencies on the modeled surface. The 2026 thermal experiment then examined a property of a physical wafer. Springer modeling paper · DOI 10.1007/978-981-19-1607-6_7.
Which findings underwent peer review?
The Springer infrared proceedings paper, the Ecological Genetics rat paper and the Psychophysiology News human paper each have a publisher record above. The Vilnius measurements are commissioned laboratory reports. There is also a separate record of expert peer review by the Planetary Association for Clean Energy (PACE).
Andrew Michrowski reviewed Rybina and Alexandrov’s EEG research for PACE. He interpreted the reported changes as a shift toward the background pattern and recommended longer follow-up. He separately reviewed the team’s 2.4 GHz C32S resonator calculation. Original EEG report · PACE EEG peer review · PACE physics peer review · All seven PACE reviews.
Where the evidence leads
LTT showed what its receiver registered. The Vilnius team mapped a radio field. The ITMO team photographed a difference in infrared emission from the wafer. The Kirov team recorded a person’s brain activity during phone use. Aires’ thesis is that the electromagnetic environment can be tuned in ways that support biological function while people use connected technology. The clearest next test would measure the local field and a prespecified biological outcome together, using the same retail device, a matched inactive comparison and blinded analysis.
- For the studies behind a particular product, start with Does Aires work? For the distinction between environmental tuning and shielding, read Do EMF blockers work?
- For the wider program, explore the original research archive, the heart-rate variability research and the research timeline.
- For the history of the invention, see US patent 12,239,835 B2 and the international invention awards.