larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (06/06/88)
In article <21500051@uiucdcsm>, kenny@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> I would like to know if there is anyone who has any information on the >> use of very low voltage and current to induce sleep. > > It's not *just* fiction; I knew a guy who was experimenting with it > and built a testbed device roughly twelve years ago. Unfortunately, > I wasn't that interested in it at the time, and never got any > references from him. Anyone else heard of this idea? Hewlett-Packard actually marketed such a device for a couple of years, starting in 1966; it was the H-P 3380B Electroanesthesia Instrument. As the name implies, it was intended for the induction of anesthesia (more correctly, analgesia and narcosis) by electrical means. The device was intended for experimental use on animals ONLY, and was NEVER intended for use on humans. Human use, however, was to be a logical extension of animal research. The device put out a dual sinewave, with a fixed low frequency component of 100 Hz, and a variable high frequency component of 700 to 10,000 Hz. The output was an adjustable, constant current supply with a maximum of 100 mA RMS. Connection to the subject was through needle electrodes, inserted subcutaneously, or intramuscularly. I actually worked with this device around 1967 when I was a research associate in a university biomedical research lab. Since, at the time, I was the only EE/biochemist at the facility, I was "elected" to evaluate the device on dogs and write a paper about it. The results were very unreliable, unpredictable and discouraging. This is probably why nothing became of the technology for veterinary use - let alone eventual use on humans. I still have my research notes, data from H-P, and bibliography, in case anyone is really interested. I don't recommend any "home experiments" on this topic. I would be curious to see any comments from someone at H-P, if they are able to find out what H-P's conclusion was concerning the instrument. I left the academic community in 1970, so I have been out of touch as to whether any further development effort occurred in this area. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (06/08/88)
In article <2548@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > The output was an adjustable, constant current supply with >a maximum of 100 mA RMS. Connection to the subject was [...] >[...] I don't recommend any "home experiments" on this topic. Uhhh.. do you mean, perhaps, 100 uA? Seeing as how fatal 60hz currents are normally somewhere in the range of 5-20 mA, 100 mA sounds kinda high. Or is there something I've missed? -- .signature
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (06/09/88)
In article <1687@sigma.UUCP>, bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > > The output was an adjustable, constant current supply with > >a maximum of 100 mA RMS. Connection to the subject was [...] > >[...] I don't recommend any "home experiments" on this topic. > > Uhhh.. do you mean, perhaps, 100 uA? Seeing as how fatal 60hz currents > are normally somewhere in the range of 5-20 mA, 100 mA sounds kinda high. > Or is there something I've missed? I meant what I said - the maximum output was 100 MILLIamperes; since there was a constant-current regulator, the open-circuit output voltage was something like 60 or 70 volts. Bear in mind, this device was intended for experimental use on animals only, and carried a warning on the front panel which stated: "Not for use on human beings". Incidently, according to the H-P data (ca. 1966), this device was produced the H-P Loveland, CO Division; did that division later become H-P Fort Collins? <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|utzoo|uunet}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
johnmill@mmintl.UUCP (John Miller) (06/10/88)
In article <1687@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >Uhhh.. do you mean, perhaps, 100 uA? Seeing as how fatal 60hz currents >are normally somewhere in the range of 5-20 mA, 100 mA sounds kinda high. I assume you mean 120v 60Hz currents ... Then I am dead many times over. A very rough rule of thumb is that it takes 500 watts through the thorax to kill a normal healthy adult human. Under ideal conditions -- say, your hands are wet with salt water and you have a tight grip on appropriate terminals with each of them -- 50 volts can drive 10 amps through you, and by this criteria can kill you. Conversly, I've been charged to over a million volts, every hair on my body standing straight out and blue corona around my finger- tips, and hardly felt a tingle; the current through my body being some small fraction of a microamp. High frequency current flow tends to migrate to the surface of the conducting body, so under proper conditions you can conduct many times 500 watts without much direct electrical effect -- but you may get burned at entry and exit points. Burns also are the real cause of death in many cases reported by the press as "electrocution." Sorry, I can't give you any references for the above. It has been many years since I experimented with such things. Back then it was "cycles per second" instead of "hertz," and I suppose I should talked in terms of "volt-amps" instead of watts. I have abnormally dry skin and it takes more voltage to drive a given current through me than for most people. In my wasted youth I sometimes accepted challenges as to who could take the most "juice" and nearly always won. I have taken dosages not far below the 500 watt level mentioned above and I want you to know that it didn't affect me didn't affect me didn't affect me didn't affect me didn't affect me didn't affect me
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (06/13/88)
500 Watts seems a bit low to kill you outright, but since you mention the Thorax, I presume you mean that it can cause fatal cardiac arrythmia. 500 Watts is about right there. Actually the correct unit is probably Joules (Watts x Seconds). The average energy for Cardiac Defibrillation is 200-400 Watt-Seconds. -Ron
warschel@castor.usc.edu (Arieh Warschel) (06/15/88)
In article <Jun.13.12.51.45.1988.14206@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >500 Watts seems a bit low to kill you outright, but since you mention >the Thorax, I presume you mean that it can cause fatal cardiac arrythmia. >500 Watts is about right there. Actually the correct unit is probably >Joules (Watts x Seconds). The average energy for Cardiac Defibrillation >is 200-400 Watt-Seconds. > >-Ron I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that one could easily absorb 400 Joules or more of electrical energy, provided that the energy is delivered sufficiently slowly (i.e. under low power). Perhaps 500 Watts is the threshhold power that is dangerous to humans, and exposures of 0.4 to 0.8 seconds (your 200-400 Joules) is what kills people. Greg King
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (06/16/88)
This may be a quibble, but I think that the "kill" quantity, whatever its magnitude, should be in units of current, not power. For instance, if you are hit with a high voltage but through a point of high contact resistance, then most of the power will be dissipated in the contact, giving a nasty heat burn but little electrical damage. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,mcnc,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."