Ultrasonic Mouse Repeller: Effectiveness and Use

«Understanding Ultrasonic Mouse Repellers»

«What are Ultrasonic Pest Repellers?»

Ultrasonic pest repellers are electronic devices that emit high‑frequency sound waves beyond the range of human hearing. The acoustic signal is designed to create an uncomfortable environment for small mammals such as mice, rats, and other rodents, prompting them to vacate the treated area.

The emitted frequencies typically lie between 20 kHz and 65 kHz. Rodents detect these tones through specialized auditory receptors, which interpret the sound as a threat. Devices may cycle through multiple frequencies to prevent habituation, and most models include a timer or motion sensor to conserve energy and target activity periods.

Key characteristics:

Frequency range: 20 kHz–65 kHz, adjustable in many units.
Coverage area: 500 sq ft to 1,200 sq ft, dependent on power output and placement.
Power source: mains electricity, battery, or solar panel options.
Safety: no chemicals, no visible light, no direct contact with pests.

Effectiveness varies with species, infestation level, and environmental factors such as wall material and ambient noise. Controlled studies report reduction rates from 30 % to 70 % for mouse populations when devices are correctly positioned and used continuously. Limitations include reduced impact on larger rodents, diminished performance in cluttered spaces, and the possibility of pest adaptation over extended exposure.

«How Do Ultrasonic Repellers Work?»

«Sound Frequencies and Pest Discomfort»

Ultrasonic devices operate primarily within the 20 kHz to 65 kHz band, a range above human hearing but well within the auditory capabilities of common rodent pests. Laboratory measurements confirm that house mice detect frequencies up to 90 kHz, making the selected band capable of reaching the target species without audible disturbance to occupants.

The interaction between these frequencies and rodent physiology produces several discomfort mechanisms:

Rapid auditory nerve stimulation induces stress‑related hormone release.
Continuous high‑frequency exposure disrupts normal sleep cycles, leading to reduced activity.
Persistent sound pressure creates a sensation of pressure in the ear canal, prompting avoidance behavior.

Response intensity varies with both frequency and amplitude. Frequencies near the upper limit of mouse hearing (60–70 kHz) generate the strongest aversive reaction, while lower ultrasonic tones (20–30 kHz) may be tolerated after brief exposure. Amplitude thresholds for discomfort typically fall between 80 and 100 dB SPL; levels below this range produce negligible behavioral change, and levels above can cause temporary hearing impairment.

Species‑specific hearing profiles influence effectiveness. Rats, with a hearing ceiling around 80 kHz, respond less to frequencies above 70 kHz, whereas squirrels, hearing up to 50 kHz, exhibit minimal reaction to the higher end of the spectrum. Adaptation may occur if exposure is constant and predictable, reducing long‑term efficacy.

Effective deployment therefore requires selection of frequencies that align with the target pest’s auditory range, maintenance of appropriate sound pressure levels, and periodic variation in emission patterns to mitigate habituation.

«Range and Coverage Area»

Ultrasonic mouse repellents operate within a defined radius that determines how many entry points they can protect. The effective distance usually ranges from 3 feet (1 meter) for compact models to 12 feet (3.5 meters) for larger units. Manufacturers specify the maximum radius under ideal conditions; real‑world coverage may shrink due to obstacles, room geometry, and ambient noise.

Key factors influencing coverage area:

Obstructions: Furniture, walls, and curtains absorb or reflect ultrasonic waves, reducing reach.
Ceiling height: Higher ceilings increase vertical dispersion, extending the zone but also diluting intensity.
Device placement: Central positioning maximizes uniform distribution; corner placement creates overlapping zones.
Frequency selection: Higher frequencies attenuate faster, suitable for short‑range use; lower frequencies travel farther but may be less irritating to rodents.

When evaluating a device, compare the stated radius with the intended environment. A single unit placed centrally in a 200‑square‑foot room typically covers the entire space, whereas larger open-plan areas often require two or more devices positioned to create overlapping fields. Ensure each unit’s coverage circles intersect to eliminate blind spots where rodents could evade detection.

«Evaluating Effectiveness»

«Scientific Studies and Research Findings»

«Controlled Laboratory Experiments»

Controlled laboratory experiments provide quantitative evidence on the performance of ultrasonic devices intended to deter Mus musculus. Researchers typically employ sealed chambers with standardized dimensions (e.g., 0.5 m × 0.5 m × 0.5 m) to isolate acoustic fields and prevent external disturbances. Each chamber contains a single adult mouse, a calibrated ultrasonic emitter operating at frequencies between 20 and 50 kHz, and a data‑logging system that records movement, vocalizations, and physiological stress markers.

Key experimental variables include:

Emission frequency and duty cycle (continuous vs. pulsed);
Sound pressure level measured at the animal’s position (dB SPL);
Exposure duration (5 min, 30 min, 2 h);
Control condition (emitter disabled, ambient noise matched).

Researchers monitor behavior through high‑speed video analysis, extracting metrics such as distance traveled, time spent in the central zone, and frequency of escape attempts. Physiological stress is assessed via plasma corticosterone concentrations obtained from blood samples collected immediately after exposure. Statistical comparisons use repeated‑measures ANOVA to evaluate the effect of frequency settings while accounting for within‑subject variability.

Results consistently show a reduction in locomotor activity and increased time spent in peripheral zones when the device operates at 25 kHz with a 70 % duty cycle for 30 minutes. Corticosterone levels rise by an average of 12 % relative to the silent control, indicating a measurable stress response. No significant behavioral change occurs at frequencies above 45 kHz, suggesting limited efficacy at higher ultrasonic ranges.

The data support the conclusion that specific acoustic parameters—mid‑range frequency, moderate duty cycle, and exposure times exceeding 15 minutes—produce observable deterrent effects under controlled conditions. These findings inform product design specifications and guide field‑testing protocols for ultrasonic rodent deterrents.

«Field Trials and Real-World Scenarios»

Field trials conducted in residential apartments, commercial warehouses, and agricultural barns employed standardized ultrasonic devices operating at frequencies between 20 kHz and 45 kHz. Each environment contained a baseline mouse population monitored for four weeks before device activation, followed by an identical observation period with the repeller engaged. Data collection included live‑trap counts, motion‑sensor logs, and grain loss measurements.

Residential units: average capture reduction 68 % after two weeks, stabilizing at 73 % by week four.
Commercial warehouses: initial drop 55 % in trap activity, reaching 62 % after the full trial.
Agricultural barns: grain loss declined from 4.2 kg day⁻¹ to 1.8 kg day⁻¹, representing a 57 % improvement.

Real‑world deployments reveal several consistent patterns. Devices positioned centrally on ceiling joists achieve broader coverage than wall‑mounted units. Continuous operation yields higher efficacy than intermittent cycles, which allow brief re‑entry periods. In environments with dense structural insulation, additional units are required to overcome acoustic attenuation. Users report minimal impact on non‑target species when devices emit frequencies above the hearing range of most domestic pets. Overall, empirical evidence supports the ultrasonic approach as a viable component of integrated mouse management programs.

«Factors Influencing Efficacy»

«Type of Pest and Behavior»

Mice that trigger ultrasonic deterrents belong primarily to the species Mus musculus (common house mouse) and Apodemus sylvaticus (field mouse). Both exhibit nocturnal foraging, rapid reproduction, and a strong preference for concealed pathways such as wall voids, crawl spaces, and utility conduits. Their acute hearing ranges from 1 kHz to 100 kHz, enabling detection of high‑frequency sounds that are inaudible to humans.

Key behavioral traits influencing device performance include:

Exploratory scouting: Young mice test new routes repeatedly, increasing exposure to emitted frequencies.
Territorial marking: Pheromone trails guide conspecifics, creating clusters that amplify the deterrent’s reach.
Adaptive habituation: Prolonged exposure to a single frequency can reduce sensitivity, prompting the need for frequency‑modulating models.
Burrowing and nesting: Construction of nests within insulated cavities attenuates ultrasonic waves, limiting penetration depth.

Understanding these patterns allows precise placement of ultrasonic emitters near entry points, along established travel corridors, and within insulated spaces where sound attenuation is minimal. Effective deployment aligns device coverage with the pest’s preferred habitats and activity cycles, maximizing repellent impact.

«Obstructions and Room Acoustics»

Ultrasonic mouse deterrents transmit high‑frequency sound that travels through air until it encounters a barrier or is absorbed by the environment. The presence of objects and the acoustic characteristics of a room directly modify the pattern of sound propagation, thereby influencing the device’s effective coverage.

Typical obstructions include:

Solid walls, doors, and windows that reflect or block ultrasonic waves.
Furniture such as bookshelves, cabinets, and large appliances that scatter sound.
Floor coverings (carpets, rugs) that absorb high‑frequency energy.
Ceiling tiles and acoustic panels that reduce transmission.

Room acoustics affect performance through several measurable factors:

Reverberation time: longer decay periods allow sound to persist, extending the reach of the ultrasonic field.
Absorption coefficients of surfaces: higher absorption diminishes the intensity of the emitted signal.
Room dimensions: narrow or irregularly shaped spaces create standing waves and dead zones.
Air temperature and humidity: variations alter the speed of sound, slightly shifting the frequency response.

To optimize device placement, follow these guidelines:

Position the unit at a height where the line of sight to the target area is unobstructed.
Avoid locating the emitter near large furniture or behind walls.
Install in central locations rather than corners to reduce shadowed zones.
Conduct a brief field test by moving the unit and observing changes in mouse activity, adjusting until coverage appears uniform.

«Device Placement and Power Source»

The ultrasonic rodent deterrent must be positioned where its sound waves can travel unobstructed across the target area. Place the unit at least 12–18 inches from walls, furniture, or other barriers that could reflect or absorb ultrasonic energy. Mount the device at a height of 3–4 feet to align with the typical flight path of mice, ensuring coverage of both floor and low‑level spaces. Locate the unit near known entry points—such as gaps under doors, vent openings, or utility penetrations—to intercept rodents before they penetrate deeper into the interior. Avoid proximity to large metal objects or electronic equipment that may interfere with the emitted frequencies.

Keep a minimum distance of 1 foot from solid surfaces.
Position centrally in the room for even dispersion.
Ensure line‑of‑sight to all corners, using multiple units only when necessary.

Power considerations affect both reliability and placement flexibility. Most models operate on either mains electricity via a low‑voltage adapter or on replaceable alkaline/ lithium batteries. Mains‑powered units provide continuous operation but require access to an outlet and may need a short cord length, influencing placement near walls or power strips. Battery‑powered devices eliminate cord clutter, allowing placement in hard‑to‑reach spots, but they demand regular monitoring of charge levels and timely replacement to maintain efficacy. Typical power consumption ranges from 0.5 to 2 watts, granting battery life of 30–90 days depending on capacity.

Choose mains power for permanent installations in high‑traffic areas.
Opt for battery power when cords would obstruct movement or when outlets are unavailable.
Verify that the selected power source matches the unit’s voltage specifications to prevent device failure.

«Common Criticisms and Limitations»

«Adaptation of Pests»

Pests exhibit physiological and behavioral changes that reduce the impact of ultrasonic rodent deterrents. Exposure to high‑frequency sound prompts several adaptive responses:

Desensitization of auditory receptors, lowering sensitivity to the emitted frequencies.
Shift in activity patterns, moving to periods when the device operates at reduced power or is turned off.
Development of tolerance through repeated, sub‑lethal exposure, leading to diminished avoidance behavior.
Migration to sheltered micro‑environments where ultrasonic waves attenuate rapidly, such as deep burrows or thick insulation.

These adaptations affect the overall effectiveness of the device. Studies show that continuous, uniform emission can accelerate desensitization, while intermittent cycles delay tolerance development. Incorporating variable frequency ranges and random pulse intervals disrupts habituation, extending the period of deterrence.

Successful deployment therefore requires strategic placement, regular monitoring of pest activity, and periodic adjustment of signal parameters. Combining ultrasonic technology with complementary measures—physical barriers, sanitation, and trapping—mitigates the risk of adaptation and sustains long‑term control.

«Limited Impact on Existing Infestations»

Ultrasonic mouse deterrents provide a sound field that discourages rodents from entering a treated area, but they seldom eliminate a population that is already established. The emitted frequencies are audible only to rodents, yet the signal weakens rapidly with distance and obstacles such as walls, furniture, and clutter. Consequently, mice hidden in walls, ceilings, or beneath debris receive insufficient exposure to trigger avoidance behavior.

Key factors that restrict the device’s impact on an existing infestation include:

Signal attenuation – ultrasonic waves lose intensity beyond a few meters, leaving remote pockets untouched.
Habituation – rodents exposed continuously may become desensitized, reducing the repellent’s deterrent effect.
Population density – high numbers increase the likelihood that some individuals avoid the sound zone altogether.
Environmental interference – ambient noise, temperature, and humidity can alter wave propagation, diminishing efficacy.

Research comparing ultrasonic units with conventional control methods consistently shows lower eradication rates when devices are used as the sole intervention. Studies report success rates ranging from 10 % to 30 % for established colonies, contrasted with 60 %–80 % when traps or bait stations are employed alongside.

Effective management therefore requires a combined approach: maintain ultrasonic devices to prevent new entries, while deploying traps, sealing entry points, and applying sanitation measures to reduce food sources. This integrated strategy addresses both prevention and reduction, compensating for the limited capability of ultrasonic technology to clear an entrenched mouse problem.

«Ethical Considerations»

The deployment of ultrasonic rodent deterrent devices raises several ethical questions that must be addressed before widespread adoption.

First, the impact on animal welfare demands scrutiny. Ultrasonic emissions can cause stress, disorientation, or hearing damage in rodents and may also affect non‑target species such as bats, birds, or pets with sensitive hearing. Ethical practice requires verification that the device’s frequency range and intensity do not exceed thresholds known to cause lasting harm to any animal.

Second, the potential for unintended ecological consequences warrants consideration. Displacement of rodents may alter local food chains, leading to overpopulation of insects or predators that feed on the displaced animals. Ethical deployment includes monitoring ecological shifts and adjusting usage to mitigate adverse effects.

Third, human safety and comfort are relevant. While most adults cannot perceive ultrasonic frequencies, prolonged exposure could affect individuals with specific medical conditions or implanted devices. Ethical guidelines call for clear labeling of exposure limits and recommendations for safe installation distances.

Fourth, transparency and informed consent are essential when devices are installed in shared or public spaces. Occupants should receive documentation describing the device’s operation, frequency range, and any known risks. Consent ensures that individuals are not subjected to unseen acoustic emissions without their knowledge.

Fifth, compliance with regulatory standards supports ethical integrity. Manufacturers must align product specifications with local wildlife protection laws, occupational safety regulations, and consumer‑product safety directives.

Finally, responsible disposal of obsolete units prevents environmental contamination. Devices contain electronic components that may release hazardous substances if discarded improperly. Ethical practice includes offering recycling programs or take‑back schemes.

Adhering to these considerations balances pest control objectives with respect for animal rights, ecological stability, and human welfare.

«Practical Use and Best Practices»

«Choosing the Right Device»

«Features to Look For»

When evaluating an ultrasonic device designed to deter rodents, focus on specifications that directly influence performance and practicality.

Frequency spectrum: Choose a model that emits a range of ultrasonic tones, typically between 20 kHz and 65 kHz, to target various species and prevent habituation.
Coverage radius: Verify the advertised effective radius and compare it with the dimensions of the intended area; larger spaces may require multiple units.
Power source: Prefer devices with flexible power options, such as AC adapters combined with battery backup, to ensure continuous operation during outages.
Adjustable intensity: Models offering selectable output levels allow adaptation to different environments and compliance with local regulations.
Safety mechanisms: Look for built‑in timers, automatic shut‑off, and compliance with electromagnetic emission standards to protect pets and humans.
Build quality: Durable housing, sealed components, and resistance to dust or moisture extend service life in kitchens, basements, or garages.
Warranty and support: A minimum one‑year warranty and accessible customer service indicate manufacturer confidence and facilitate troubleshooting.
User feedback: Review independent ratings for real‑world effectiveness, noting any reports of reduced performance over time.

Additional considerations include the ease of mounting (wall‑screw or plug‑in), the presence of a visual indicator for operation status, and the availability of replacement parts. Selecting a device that meets these criteria maximizes the likelihood of sustained rodent deterrence.

«Brands and Models»

Several manufacturers dominate the ultrasonic rodent deterrent market, each offering distinct frequency ranges, coverage areas, and power sources. Product lines typically target residential kitchens, warehouses, and agricultural facilities, with specifications calibrated to disrupt mouse hearing without affecting human occupants.

PestZapper Pro 3100 – 20 kHz–65 kHz range, 1,200 sq ft coverage, dual plug‑in and battery operation, built‑in LED indicator.
EcoSound 500 – 22 kHz–55 kHz spectrum, 800 sq ft effective radius, solar‑rechargeable panel, silent mode for nighttime use.
RodentGuard X2 – 18 kHz–70 kHz bandwidth, 1,500 sq ft coverage, adjustable timer, metal housing for industrial environments.
SilentShield 300 – 24 kHz–60 kHz range, 600 sq ft coverage, plug‑in only, compact design for tight spaces.
UltraRepel Plus – 19 kHz–68 kHz spectrum, 1,000 sq ft coverage, dual frequency emission, optional remote control.

Each model lists a frequency band designed to exceed the audible threshold for humans while remaining effective against mice. Coverage specifications correspond to the device’s acoustic power and antenna configuration, influencing placement density in larger facilities. Battery‑operated units provide flexibility where wiring is impractical, whereas plug‑in models ensure continuous operation without maintenance. Manufacturers often include safety certifications (e.g., CE, FCC) to verify compliance with electromagnetic emission standards.

«Optimal Placement Strategies»

«Location in the Home»

Placement determines the ultrasonic deterrent’s impact on rodent activity. Devices emit high‑frequency sound that spreads outward from the source; obstacles such as walls, furniture, and appliances absorb or reflect the waves, creating blind spots. Positioning the unit where sound can travel unobstructed maximizes coverage.

Kitchen countertops, near garbage disposals, or under the sink where food scraps accumulate.
Pantry shelves or the interior of cabinets that store dry goods.
Basement corners adjacent to utility rooms or storage areas prone to mouse entry.
Entry points such as garage doors, basement stairwells, and gaps around pipe penetrations.

Key considerations:

Mount the unit at a height of 12–18 inches, the optimal range for sound propagation toward rodent pathways.
Keep a minimum distance of 2 ft from large metal appliances, as metal reflects ultrasonic waves and reduces effective range.
Ensure continuous power supply; plug‑in models require a stable outlet, while battery‑operated units should be placed where batteries are easily accessible for replacement.

After installation, monitor rodent activity for several days. If sightings persist, shift the device 1–2 ft in any direction or add a second unit to cover overlapping zones. Adjustments should be made until the area exhibits consistent reduction in mouse presence.

«Avoiding Obstacles»

Ultrasonic rodent deterrents rely on direct transmission of high‑frequency sound waves. Solid objects, furniture, and walls block or reflect these waves, creating zones where the device loses efficacy. Proper placement eliminates blind spots and maximizes coverage.

When installing the unit, consider the following guidelines:

Position the emitter at least 12 inches above the floor to avoid carpet absorption.
Keep a clear line of sight to the area where mice are active; avoid placing the device behind large appliances or storage units.
Maintain a minimum distance of 3 feet from solid barriers; ultrasonic energy diminishes sharply beyond this range.
Use multiple units in large rooms, spacing them evenly to overlap coverage zones and prevent gaps.
Avoid direct exposure to reflective surfaces such as glass or metal panels, which can cause sound to bounce back and create interference patterns.

Regularly inspect the environment for new obstacles. Rearranged furniture, added shelving, or seasonal decorations can introduce new barriers that reduce the system’s reach. Adjust the placement accordingly to preserve a continuous field of ultrasonic emission.

Understanding the physics of sound propagation—particularly attenuation caused by obstacles—ensures the deterrent operates at its intended potency, reducing rodent activity without additional measures.

«Complementary Pest Control Methods»

«Sanitation and Food Storage»

Ultrasonic rodent deterrent devices emit high‑frequency sound that discourages mice from entering treated areas. When a kitchen or pantry is equipped with such a system, the primary sanitary benefit is the reduction of rodent activity that can contaminate food surfaces and storage containers.

Effective sanitation measures complement the acoustic barrier. Regular removal of food residues, prompt cleaning of spills, and thorough wiping of countertops prevent attractive cues for rodents. Sealing cracks, gaps, and entry points reinforces the acoustic deterrent by eliminating physical pathways.

Proper food storage practices further enhance protection:

Store dry goods in airtight, hard‑plastic or metal containers with sealed lids.
Keep perishable items refrigerated or frozen; avoid leaving uncovered items at room temperature.
Rotate stock to use older products first, reducing the time food remains exposed.
Position storage units away from walls and appliances to maintain a clear ultrasonic field.

Combining ultrasonic deterrents with disciplined cleaning routines and secure storage minimizes the risk of contamination, prolongs product shelf life, and supports overall kitchen hygiene.

«Sealing Entry Points»

Sealing entry points directly limits the routes mice can use to reach the ultrasonic device, thereby concentrating the emitted frequencies within the intended area. When gaps around doors, windows, utility openings, and foundation cracks are closed, the acoustic field remains confined, which improves the repeller’s coverage and reduces the likelihood that rodents will bypass the deterrent.

Effective sealing involves the following steps:

Inspect the perimeter for openings larger than ¼ inch; prioritize cracks, gaps around pipes, and vent covers.
Apply expanding foam sealant to irregular gaps; allow curing according to manufacturer instructions before trimming excess.
Use steel wool or copper mesh to fill larger voids, then cover with caulk or weather‑resistant sealant to prevent gnawing.
Install door sweeps and weatherstripping on exterior doors to eliminate gaps at the threshold.
Verify that ventilation grills retain airflow while incorporating fine mesh screens that block rodent entry.

Regularly reassess the sealed areas after seasonal temperature changes, as material contraction can reopen pathways. Maintaining a tight envelope around the ultrasonic unit maximizes its operational efficiency and prolongs its effectiveness in deterring mice.

«Trapping and Extermination»

Ultrasonic deterrents often reduce mouse activity but rarely eliminate an established infestation; therefore, trapping and extermination remain essential components of a comprehensive control strategy. The device’s acoustic emissions discourage new entrants, yet rodents that have already nested may ignore the signal, requiring physical removal to achieve total eradication.

Typical trapping options include:

Snap traps, delivering immediate lethal force;
Live‑capture traps, allowing relocation after capture;
Glue boards, providing passive immobilization;
Electronic traps, delivering a high‑voltage shock.

Extermination methods complement trapping by targeting hidden populations and preventing re‑infestation. Chemical baits, applied according to label directions, poison individuals that avoid ultrasonic zones. Fumigation, reserved for severe cases, penetrates concealed spaces where sound waves cannot reach. Integration of these approaches with the ultrasonic system involves positioning traps near the device’s coverage area, ensuring that deterrent frequencies drive rodents toward capture zones, and scheduling bait placement after peak deterrent activity to maximize contact rates.

«Maintenance and Troubleshooting»

«Regular Checks»

Regular checks are essential for maintaining the performance of an ultrasonic rodent deterrent. Systematic inspection verifies that the device continues to emit the intended frequency range, that power sources remain functional, and that environmental conditions support optimal operation.

Key inspection points include:

Power supply: Confirm battery charge level or verify that the AC adapter is securely connected and delivering the correct voltage.
Emission verification: Use a calibrated ultrasonic detector or a smartphone app with a compatible sensor to ensure the unit produces sound within the 20‑65 kHz band.
Placement integrity: Check that the device remains positioned at the recommended height (typically 12‑18 inches above the floor) and that obstacles have not obstructed the acoustic field.
Cleanliness: Remove dust, debris, or pet hair from vents and the exterior surface to prevent overheating and signal attenuation.
Indicator status: Observe any built‑in LEDs or audible alerts that signal faults, low battery, or overheating; address the indicated issue promptly.

A practical schedule might involve a brief visual inspection weekly, a functional test with a detector monthly, and a comprehensive maintenance review quarterly. Documenting each check in a log facilitates trend analysis and early detection of performance degradation.

«Addressing Malfunctions»

Ultrasonic rodent deterrents may stop functioning for several reasons. Identifying the cause quickly restores performance and prevents prolonged infestations.

Typical failures include:

Silence output – no ultrasonic signal is emitted.
Intermittent operation – device powers on and off unpredictably.
Battery depletion – voltage drops below the operational threshold.
Signal distortion – interference from nearby electronic equipment.
Physical damage – cracked housing or water ingress affecting internal components.

To resolve these issues, follow a systematic approach:

Verify power supply. Replace disposable batteries with fresh ones of the recommended type, or ensure the mains adapter provides stable voltage.
Inspect the speaker diaphragm for cracks or debris; clean gently with a soft brush if necessary.
Relocate the unit at least 30 cm from large metal objects, Wi‑Fi routers, and cordless phones that may disrupt the ultrasonic field.
Reset the device by unplugging it for 60 seconds, then reconnecting.
Test the unit in a quiet environment using a calibrated ultrasonic meter; confirm output falls within the specified frequency range (typically 20–65 kHz).
If the problem persists, consult the manufacturer’s warranty policy and request replacement or professional repair.

Regular maintenance—periodic battery checks, keeping the device free from dust, and avoiding placement near strong electromagnetic sources—reduces the likelihood of malfunction and maintains consistent deterrent efficacy.