bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) (01/19/91)
This is a serious request... but it does involve the possible death or severe harm to another human being. If said possibility (for a good cause, as will be explained) bothers you, please hit ^n^ now (regardless of your feelings towards a good cause). Okay. Last semester, my bedroom window was broken twice by drunken hooligans (yes, I drink, but I don^t get violent). The cops were completely unhelpful, and my landlord has refused to fix my window. January^s are _cold_ in D.C. (M.D. College Park). [pause for 3 1/2 weeks out of the country on break] Twice in two nights people have found it amusing to piss on my bedroom window (^It^s that fag^s window!^ ^Let^s piss on him!^ [my sexual orientation shouldn^t matter, if it does, ignore this now.]) Resulting tonight on liquid getting sprayed on my face -- teach me to open the window while I suspect vandalism (chemical analysis is NOT pending -- I took a shower). My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is no object, and time is critical. Can you (yes, you), help? If not, go ahead and post. If you can, please send e-mail. Remember, ^Think of it as evolution in action.^ Nick (my quote key is broken) Vargish (bander@cscwam.umd.edu)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/19/91)
In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >no object, and time is critical... I would really recommend the detector and flash camera instead. Having your window pissed on is a damn nuisance, to be sure, but being sued or charged with assault is a much more serious nuisance. Laying physically dangerous traps for trespassers -- which is more or less what you're proposing, with the nature of the trespass being a little unusual -- is highly illegal, regardless of provocation. Use of deadly or potentially deadly force in self-defence is legal only when you have immediate reason to fear death or maiming. We're talking years in prison here. To say nothing of the possibility of more direct and violent retaliation, given the probable reactions of the sort of pinhead who pisses on windows. Small, professional-looking, clearly-visible "Danger: High Voltage" signs might keep your window clean without the grave problems of actually wiring up a voltage source. -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) (01/19/91)
Thanks for all the mail I received... no, it was not a forged message, but in the calmer light of near-dawn, I am reconsidering a fatal plan. Some of the more creative suggestions I received seem like more fitting punishments, and less likely to land me in the slammer. I am still REALLY mad, but my friends and I will probably settle for beating this asshole severely. Once again, thanks for the support (you know who you are), both enthusiastic and cautionary. Assuming this little mess gets resolved, I^ll post the story, if people are interested. Nick Vargi bander@cscwam.umd.edu p.s. As if there aren^t bigger things these shit-heads should be worrying about..
aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page) (01/19/91)
I recognize the quote from Larry Niven's And Jerry Pournells "Oath of Fealty" However, I throw my lot in with the previous posted reply. Your asking for a lawsuit. Asside from electecuting your assailents (illegal) your likely to french fry your house wiring with what you intend. I like the previous idea of just putting up the Chicken wire and the High voltage sign. It will give them pause at least. Overall, invest in a Plexiglass window. The stuff is nearly indestrucatable when thick enough, and find something better to do then wasting your time, energy, and talent on people who do not deserve it. You can further your life much better than confronting jerks who will always be jerks. Mind you if attacked respond, but consider the ramifications of escalation. -- **************************************************************************** Andrew E. Page (Warrior Poet) | Decision and Effort The Archer and Arrow Concepts Engineering | The difference beteween what we are
tylerh@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb) (01/20/91)
bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >This is a serious request... but it does involve the possible death >or severe harm to another human being. If said possibility (for a good >cause, as will be explained) bothers you, please hit ^n^ now (regardless >of your feelings towards a good cause). > >Okay. >Last semester, my bedroom window was broken twice by drunken hooligans >(yes, I drink, but I don^t get violent). The cops were completely >unhelpful, and my landlord has refused to fix my window. January^s are >_cold_ in D.C. (M.D. College Park). >[pause for 3 1/2 weeks out of the country on break] >Twice in two nights people have found it amusing to piss on my bedroom >window (^It^s that fag^s window!^ ^Let^s piss on him!^ [my sexual >orientation shouldn^t matter, if it does, ignore this now.]) Resulting >tonight on liquid getting sprayed on my face -- teach me to open the window >while I suspect vandalism (chemical analysis is NOT pending -- I took a >shower). >My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >no object, and time is critical. Can you (yes, you), help? >If not, go ahead and post. If you can, please send e-mail. Remember, >^Think of it as evolution in action.^ >Nick (my quote key is broken) Vargish >(bander@cscwam.umd.edu) You're in a pickle. However, DO NOT wire the window. This is a mantrap (2nd degree murder in most states, if my recollection is correct). Yes, the perpetrator will probably live through the shock, but jails tend to be even less tolerant than the streets of D.C..... Have you talked to your local ACLU chapter? They have LOTS of experience with this sort of problem and can fully inform you of your options. The police will continue to be unhelpful. What you need to do is to positively identify these people in a manner that would stand up in a court of law (sorry, I may be a techer, but I am a little short on godd ideas at this moment). At that point, I suspect it will be more effective to sue them (violation of civil law) than prosecute them (violation of criminal law) Once again, PLEASE DO NOT WIRE THE WINDOW. Murphy's law is very clear: you will hurt someone innocent (maybe a small child that tripped?) and the sleazebags will be unaffected. -tyler
visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Leo Bicknell) (01/20/91)
In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >>My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >>rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >>no object, and time is critical... > >I would really recommend the detector and flash camera instead. Having >your window pissed on is a damn nuisance, to be sure, but being sued or >charged with assault is a much more serious nuisance. Laying physically >dangerous traps for trespassers -- which is more or less what you're >proposing, with the nature of the trespass being a little unusual -- is >highly illegal, regardless of provocation. Use of deadly or potentially >deadly force in self-defence is legal only when you have immediate reason >to fear death or maiming. We're talking years in prison here. Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill are DC systems. I would thik that a 60 volt, 4 amp system (AC) with a warning sign woould be ok. On a side note today I was useing a metal saw (electric,recripicating(sp)) and cut through an electrical feed. The power company said it was off, but I hit a like 220 volt power feed (where it enters the house, before the breaker) it melted the blade, it melted about 1"x2"x1/16" of high tempered steel. Powerful, lots of sparks, and a shock, but I was copletely unharmed (one hand was on an insulated portion of the saw, the other wasn't). Anyway., I think you can see it's possable to shock the s*it out of someone and not hurt them. I also blew an hand held light 10 minutes later. Not my dad. --- Just another day in the life........
joeh@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger) (01/20/91)
In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >>In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >>>My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >>>rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >>>no object, and time is critical... >> >>I would really recommend the detector and flash camera instead. Having >>your window pissed on is a damn nuisance, to be sure, but being sued or >>charged with assault is a much more serious nuisance. Laying physically >>dangerous traps for trespassers -- which is more or less what you're >>proposing, with the nature of the trespass being a little unusual -- is >>highly illegal, regardless of provocation. Use of deadly or potentially >>deadly force in self-defence is legal only when you have immediate reason >>to fear death or maiming. We're talking years in prison here. > > Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and >throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill >are DC systems. Deadly force or not ( and I doubt you would have little difficulty finding and expert witness to testify that house current can kill -or- to put it another way, do you bath with your radio? ) a trap of this type could still be an actionable battery. That could wind up costing big bucks in civil liability. I'd really recommend some other solution.
stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) (01/21/91)
In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... ... >>charged with assault is a much more serious nuisance. Laying physically >>dangerous traps for trespassers -- which is more or less what you're >>proposing, with the nature of the trespass being a little unusual -- is >>highly illegal, regardless of provocation. Use of deadly or potentially >>deadly force in self-defence is legal only when you have immediate reason >>to fear death or maiming. We're talking years in prison here. > > Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and >throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill >are DC systems. Guess again. It is current through the body that kills. It makes no difference whether it is AC or DC, just that there is enough voltage to get the current to flow through the body. > I would thik that a 60 volt, 4 amp system (AC) with a warning sign woould >be ok. More than enough to kill him, yes! Actually what will kill depends on a lot of things I don't pretent to know (where it flows through the body and such). If I remember correctly, currents above some level (surprisingly small, ~20mA) can cause heart failure, some intermediate range (which I can't remember, but it is something like 500 mA to 4 Amps) is actually less dangerous (but not safe exactly), and then above that range the current can causes burns. "Can" is not the same as "will" (we are individuals after all). And just because someone was exposed to so much voltage and current, it doesn't necessarily mean that that current went though him. > On a side note today I was useing a metal saw (electric,recripicating(sp)) >and cut through an electrical feed. The power company said it was off, but >I hit a like 220 volt power feed (where it enters the house, before the breaker) >it melted the blade, it melted about 1"x2"x1/16" of high tempered steel. >Powerful, lots of sparks, and a shock, but I was copletely unharmed (one hand >was on an insulated portion of the saw, the other wasn't). Anyway., I think >you can see it's possable to shock the s*it out of someone and not hurt them. Besides luck, the reason you are not dead, is that the saw is grounded, so most of the current went through the cord and not through you. -- uunet!sequent!ether!bug!stevef I am the NRA Steven R. Fordyce
elson@otc.otca.oz (Elson Markwick) (01/22/91)
In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: > Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and >throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill >are DC systems. Bullshit. AC will kill just as dead as DC. The difference is that you feel the voltage changing with ac - i.e. you get a continual shock. With DC, you only feel a shock twice - once as you connect and once as you disconnect. If you must wire the window, (and before you do, think of the pain of that much voltage thru your dong), DO NOT wire it direct to the mains. 1. It is dangerous 2. It could fry the wiring in your house if it's not correctly fused. 3. I'm sure it's illegal. Instead, use an electric fence generator. These are sourced from a 12V car battery, and as such are incapable of deliving dangerous amounts of power. What they do produce is a very short pulse every couple of seconds, of (if memory serves) around 2000V. It should be noted that these are current limited, and aren't dangerous physically (mentally however, shock could be a problem ;^) Reminds of a story of a guy who used to run a cinema type thing way out in the sticks here in Australia. At interval, all the men would go out and piss on the side of his corrugated iron shed. He wired up a trembler coil from and old model T Ford - they learnt the lesson pretty quick. -- Elson Markwick | The only good cat |ACSnet: elson@otc.otca.oz.au OTC R & D Unit |is a stir-fried cat|UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!elson Ph: 02 287 3142| ALF |Internet: elson%otc.otca.oz.au@uunet.uu.net Fax:02 287 3299| |Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australia
hughM@sixhub.UUCP (Hugh M Moore) (01/22/91)
I would strongly advise not doing this at all, but if you must don't use
115v ac. A source of low amp high voltage will produce a powerful
non-lethal charge. A neon sign transformer or (if you can find one)
model T spark coil will do nicely.
I would put a little sign near the window reading something like
"caution: bug zapper in operation" or some such, to give you some hope
of an out. Unfortunately you have contacted the police and 50 thousand
readers, so you may have a hard time pleading that you didn't know
people pissed in your window.
With my luck I'd get a drunk with a bad heart. I can tell you from
leaning over a charged table (asshole practical joker) a shock in that
area will cause a serious case of limpdick for a few days!
--
Hugh Moore ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!hughM [ PhD in '93 ]
AIDS means guys with vasectomies have to wear condoms toohauser@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (michael robert hauser) (01/22/91)
In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >>In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >>>My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >>>rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >>>no object, and time is critical... >> > > Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and >throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill >are DC systems. > I would thik that a 60 volt, 4 amp system (AC) with a warning sign woould >be ok. > On a side note today I was useing a metal saw (electric,recripicating(sp)) >and cut through an electrical feed. The power company said it was off, but >I hit a like 220 volt power feed (where it enters the house, before the breaker) >it melted the blade, it melted about 1"x2"x1/16" of high tempered steel. >Powerful, lots of sparks, and a shock, but I was copletely unharmed (one hand >was on an insulated portion of the saw, the other wasn't). Anyway., I think >you can see it's possable to shock the s*it out of someone and not hurt them. > I also blew an hand held light 10 minutes later. Not my dad. > You were lucky. If you would have completed the circuit across your heart, you might be dead right now. It takes less than 1 amp through the body to kill someone. The frequency of the electricity coming out of the houshold outlet is 60hz. This low frequency travels easily through the body. As a testament to this, think about how many times people are electrocuted in electrical accidents each year. Low frequency AC is just as dangerous as DC. I worked for a power company and have seen pictures of electrical accidents. NOT PRETTY! It would be very difficult to design this so called deterent. There are too many variables. Skin resistance varies from person to person, the resistance of urine is going to be much less than that for skin do to the electrolytic content of it, etc. Unless you're ready to go to prison, don't wire your screen! Mike -- "Just when I thought I knew all the answers in life, I found out that I was taking the wrong test." mrh 1990 email: hauser@cis.ohio-st.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------
gaijin@ale.uucp (John Little - Nihon Sun Repair Depot) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: % In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: % >My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts.... % % Small, professional-looking, clearly-visible "Danger: High Voltage" signs % might keep your window clean without the grave problems of actually wiring % up a voltage source. % -- ...or you might consider trying to get hold of an electric-fence actuator unit. Battery operated (no danger of lethal shocks), but -extremely- effective when urinated upon (as generations of country-bumkins [like me] can attest to!). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | John Little - gaijin@Japan.Sun.COM | Sun Microsystems. Atsugi, Japan | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - A fool must now and then be right by chance -
dam@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) (01/22/91)
In article <87498@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> michael robert hauser <hauser@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: [Lots of extremely dangerous and irresposible suggestions deleted] ]> ]You were lucky. If you would have completed the circuit across your heart, ]you might be dead right now. ] ]It takes less than 1 amp through the body to kill someone. ^^^^^ It takes 50mA to kill someone. The voltage is irrelavent as the current flow will be decided by your body resistance which fluctuates wildly. Whether it is 240v UK or 110v US or whatever if your body resistance is low enough to allow 50mA to pass you'll be dead AC or DC. This thread is extremely irresponsible. Under no circumstances should you wire mains to metal windows or for that matter any exposed metal parts irrespective of your supply voltage as it will almost certainly KILL someone. If you really must electrocute people, the suggestion above is probably the sanest however bear in mind that if someone has a pacemaker fitted, even the "cattle fence" type arrangement could KILL. As they say a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and in this case its DOWNRIGHT LETHAL. Dave ]
zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) (01/23/91)
Personally I have doubts about the seriousness of the original posting, especially since the poster is a male. When I read the posting (before seeing the signiture), I thought it was about sexual assault (in alt.sex after all). Of course, if somebody would really break his window and conduct sexual assault, I suggest that he keep the window open --- might be an exotic experience.
hleaves@ruby.vcu.edu (EAVES,HUGH) (01/23/91)
In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Leo Bicknell) writes... > Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and >throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill >are DC systems. > I would thik that a 60 volt, 4 amp system (AC) with a warning sign woould >be ok. Just think what 240 watts of power would do to your weiner! ouch!!!! ******************************************************************************* ** Hugh L. Eaves ** Internet: hleaves@ruby.vcu.edu ** ** Medical College of Virginia ** Bitnet: hleaves@vcuruby ** ** Department of Human Genetics ** Voice: (804) 371-8754 ** ***************** All non-incendiary communication welcome! *******************
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (01/23/91)
<<< < Instead, use an electric fence generator. ---------- And what will happen if he actually zaps his tormentors with this? #1 Ow, that hurt. Boy that was a dumb thing to do. I guess I better leave and never do this again. From now on I will behave like a socially responsible citizen. #2 God damm son_of_a_bitch. I gonna bust down his door and punch his lights out. The type of person he is dealing with suggests that he should be prepaerd for scenerio #2. John Eaton !hpvcfs1!johne
visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Leo Bicknell) (01/23/91)
>Just think what 240 watts of power would do to your weiner! ouch!!!!
I would rather not, or, I would not (have one!).
Why not just run an Arc welder across 'em?
---
Just another day in the life........chesler@netrix.nac.dec.com (David Chesler) (01/23/91)
(Someone has trouble because someone is urinating through his window, and he wants to put an electrified screen in the window. He has since abandoned the idea, but the thread it liveth on.) In article <62195@brunix.UUCP> hleaves@ruby.vcu.edu writes: >In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Leo Bicknell) writes... >> I would thik that a 60 volt, 4 amp system (AC) with a warning sign woould >>be ok. > >Just think what 240 watts of power would do to your weiner! ouch!!!! Didn't this just get discussed in rec.motorcycles? Then, as now, When I was young and had no sense, I stuck my dick, on an electric fence. It made me jump, and tickled my balls, And made me pee in my overalls. (By the way, the proper way to make an electric fence is to buy the charging unit from Sears Roebuck. I think it makes the fence/screen/ automobile one plate in a highly charged capacitor, relative to earth ground, so it quickly lets loose a small amount of painful, but safe, high voltage current.) David Chesler (chesler@netrix.enet.dec.com) After Feb. 1: ???? Earning my living at Digital in Littleton, Mass for a few more weeks, still speaking only for myself. "Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor."
juggle@athena.mit.edu (01/23/91)
In article <11705@j.cc.purdue.edu> zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) writes: >Personally I have doubts about the seriousness of the original posting, >especially since the poster is a male. When I read the posting (before seeing >the signiture), I thought it was about sexual assault (in alt.sex after all). >Of course, if somebody would really break his window and conduct sexual >assault, I suggest that he keep the window open --- might be an exotic >experience. I think you missed the point entirely. The original poster is a gay male who is being harassed by having people urinate through his window. He does not think this is an "exotic experience". I believe this matter was resolved already, as well.
gbell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Last First) (01/23/91)
Where's the creative problem approach? Instead of electricity, as the original poster suggested, why not use some other "deterrent"? I suggest a moisture sensor (paper towel strip w/ connections on each end) and a LOUD siren or two, and maybe a flood or strobe light. Now can we get back to sci.electronics? (BTW, where's that FAQ a poster was putting together? We need to include a "what kills? amps or volts?" section).
grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) (01/23/91)
In article <230@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes: }In article <55124@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> visjames@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: }>In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... }... }>>charged with assault is a much more serious nuisance. Laying physically }>>dangerous traps for trespassers -- which is more or less what you're }>>proposing, with the nature of the trespass being a little unusual -- is }>>highly illegal, regardless of provocation. Use of deadly or potentially }>>deadly force in self-defence is legal only when you have immediate reason }>>to fear death or maiming. We're talking years in prison here. }> }> Wrong-o. If it's wired properly it should severly shock the person and }>throw them back from the window. These are AC systems. The onces that kill }>are DC systems. } }Guess again. It is current through the body that kills. It makes no }difference whether it is AC or DC, just that there is enough voltage to get }the current to flow through the body. } The first electric chair was used in New York state. At the time there were competeing electric distribution systems AC (George Westinghouse) and DC (Thomas Edison). Neither company wanted to discredit their system by supplying the equipment for the executon device. Edison lobbied hard for the use of the AC system and not his DC system. Westinghouse refused to supply the AC system even though New York had selected it. Eventually New York was able to obtained used Westinghouse AC equipment and performed the execution. AC kills. The only person who showed any dignity in the whole affair was the executee. The loobying to show up the opponents equipment as dangerous was to say the least disingenuous. By the way, the executee was an axe murderer.
mauser@wam.umd.edu (Rich Chandler) (01/24/91)
re: shocking pissers on your window. I understand that Ben Franklin did a similar thing to keep drunks from pissing on his wall. It involved a Copper and a Zinc sheet, one on the side- walk and the other on the wall. The Urine provided the electrolyte. In your case. I don't know. Does your window have a screen? Also, 110 house current would not penetrate their sneakers to the ground. You could use some sort of switching power supply to go up to 40,000 volts. Remember, it's not the voltage that is dangerous, but the current. A high voltage will bridge the insulating force of the shoes. perhaps if you have a junk photo flash, you could rig something with that. Of course, instead of opening the window, you could burst from the door with a Louisville Slugger. It's safer (a florida businessman was convicted when a burglar electrocuted himself breaking into a booby-trapped store). -- "It takes three to limbo, and one of them has to go down." "That which does not kill me had better be able to run damn fast." "He who dies with the most toys, is, nonetheless, still dead." "That sounds about as appealing as french-kissing a Lamprey."
myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) (01/25/91)
>The first electric chair was used in New York state. At the time there were >competeing electric distribution systems AC (George Westinghouse) and >DC (Thomas Edison). Neither company wanted to discredit their system >by supplying the equipment for the executon device. Edison lobbied hard >for the use of the AC system and not his DC system. Westinghouse >refused to supply the AC system even though New York had selected it. >Eventually New York was able to obtained used Westinghouse AC >equipment and performed the execution. > >AC kills. That's not quite the whole story, Tom. Yes, Edison "lobbied hard" to discredit Westinghouse's AC system, and even went so far as to set up travelling "road shows" in which small animals were killed by applying AC, thereby "proving" that is was AC that was lethal, while his DC system was "perfectly safe." At the time that New York was making its chosen form of execution electrocution, Edison's efforts resulted in the new law being worded so as to require execution by means of "alternating electrical currents applied to the body" (quoted from memory, and probably not exact). Unfortunately, no details were provided beyond that, and when the "electric chair" system was built, the designers did NOT guarantee a sufficiently high current through the body to cause instantaneous death. They had made sure that the "alternating currents" were applied, but through the use of a big DPDT switch! When it came time to dispose of said axe murderer, the flaw in the system was apparent: rather than simply zapping the criminal to the Great Beyond, he was slowly fried; execution took several minutes, as the horrified witnesses looked on. It is NOT simply the fact that the current is "alternating" that makes it lethal; as has been mentioned, it is the level of *current* - esp. that current which passes directly through the heart - which determines whether the subject will live or die. Voltage comes into the picture only via Ohm's Law, depending on the path in question. Contact via dry skin is actually pretty poor, and so a higher voltage is required to kill. The critical level, as I recall, is something on the order of 20 uA (yes, that's MICROamps) directly through the heart - anything over this can possibly cause fibrillation. Note that achieving this level *through the heart* can require orders of magnitude more current through, say, the limbs making contact. But also note that contact made directly to wet tissue - as in direct defibrillation of the heart, with the "little paddles" you may have seen in films of open-heart surgery - requires very little voltage/current. AC does have one factor which may make it more dangerous in some situations than an equivalent level of DC - the tendency of AC (over a certain range) to cause the subject to "freeze" in contact with the source, where DC would be more likely to cause an involuntary "kick away." But EITHER can kill if sufficient current can be made to pass through the body. Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other myers@fc.hp.com | sentient life-form on this planet.
bender@oobleck.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (01/25/91)
speaking of electric chairs... I thought that they used voltages in the hundreds (i.e. 400->600 volts), which didn't seem to make as much sense to me as using a higher voltage (i.e. in the 1000's or 10,000's of volts). of course, I've never had the opportunity to actually electrocute someone, so I don't have first-hand experience. anyone know what voltage they actually use? is it at line frequency? mike -- Won't look like rain, Won't look like snow, | DOD #000007 Won't look like fog, That's all we know! | AMA #511250 We just can't tell you anymore, We've never made oobleck before! | MSC #298726
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (01/26/91)
In article <17660144@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: >>The first electric chair was used in New York state. At the time there were >>competeing electric distribution systems AC (George Westinghouse) and >>DC (Thomas Edison). Neither company wanted to discredit their system >and probably not exact). Unfortunately, no details were provided beyond >that, and when the "electric chair" system was built, the designers did NOT >guarantee a sufficiently high current through the body to cause instantaneous >death. They had made sure that the "alternating currents" were applied, but >through the use of a big DPDT switch! >When it came time to dispose of said axe murderer, the flaw in the system >was apparent: rather than simply zapping the criminal to the Great Beyond, >he was slowly fried; execution took several minutes, as the horrified witness Historically, this was pretty good, but it went a little farther. Edison and others also had a great argument about HOW electricy would kill. The learned scientists were sure that the electricity would kill the brain and wanted/lobbied/... for making the head one of the 2 contacts. Edison and a few others lobbied for either arm to arm or arms to legs (they were divided and probably why they lost). The brain guys were sure that if the brain were killed, that the brain would just start up the heart again, possibly after burial and they raised the fear of zombies... The heart guys were sure this wasn't true but couldn't agree which was better arm to arm or arm to leg. Anyway, the first guy, as I recall had just a steel skupp cap which burned his hair up mighty bad. The second guy (and a few others in several states) then had they heads shaved with the same steel skull cap. Either way, the brain guys were finally proved wrong with field tests (8-}). and the rest is history .... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (01/26/91)
"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" But voltage is the force that causes current! That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, it's hitting the ground."
tlynch@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) (01/26/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" >But voltage is the force that causes current! Yes, but there's more to it than that. What the original poster (whose name I don't recall, since you didn't quote him/her) said is correct. As an example, you've probably seen a van de Graaf (sp?) generator--one of those neat poles with a silver sphere on top that always gets used in demos to make people's hair stand on end. Well, the voltage on that thing is typically 10 to 20 THOUSAND volts...far more than most everyday household situations merit. Yet the current is miniscule, so you're not hurt. On the other hand, typical home voltages are small (sorry, don't recall exact figures), but the currents are large enough to cause damage. Just clearing that up. Tim Lynch, rampaging one-time physics major "The only place where different social types can genuinely get along together is in Heaven!" --"Heathers"
wli@fornax.UUCP (William Li) (01/26/91)
In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > "It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" > > But voltage is the force that causes current! > That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, > it's hitting the ground." But it *is* hitting the ground that's dangerous. To get real silly, I could say that falling onto a large airbag from a tall building is not at all dangerous, but falling from a lesser height onto concrete will likely do some grievous bodily harm. Granted, voltage makes the current go. In the case of the human body, though, it makes more sense to say that I = V/R than to say that V = IR We know that a given amount of current (say, 100 A) through a given body part (say, your heart) will do a given amount of damage (say, turn your heart into black char). You can't say the same thing for voltage, because resistance conditions in the body are so variable. Thus, putting your dry hand on a metal ball at 10,000 V with your feet up on a plastic milk carton will make your hair stand on end and nothing else. Stand in a puddle of water connected by a conducting path to the ground of the same 10,000 V metal ball, and *then* see if "there'll be a hot time in the ol' time tonight." Current kills. (so do a lot of other things, too, come to think of it. Like, for example, standing idly in the middle of a flame.)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (01/27/91)
My point was that "Voltage doesn't kill, only current kills" is a dangerous half-truth. Of *course* high voltage isn't dangerous if supplied through a very high resistance, as in a Van de Graaff generator. But I've heard of people who believed that "voltage isn't dangerous -- only current is dangerous" and concluded that, e.g., sticking one's finger into a 120-V outlet isn't dangerous because that's a source of volts, not amps.
i1neal@exnet.iastate.edu (Neal Rauhauser -- ELT Computer Applications Group) (01/27/91)
In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >>My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >>rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >>no object, and time is critical... You could do what I did to keep people in my apartment complex from stealing the sunday morning paper. Take the following: two (2) car batteries one (1) car horn - availible at any junk yard one (1) switching mechanism The paper was slid out from under my door each sunday by one of my friendly neighbors. I ran a string through the fold and connected it to a switch which drove a mighty PDP-11 power supply connected to a few car horns - haven't lost a paper in months :-) although they did make noises about evicting me for being noisy :-( the switch for your project is the only tricky part - good luck! -- "A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking (meant) for others!" - Donatien-Alphonse-Francois de Sade All flames returned via email, one byte at a time. - the management
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (01/27/91)
In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" > >But voltage is the force that causes current! > >That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, >it's hitting the ground." No, it is not the voltage that kills, it's the amps. It is very possible to have extremely high voltage levels and few amps. If not I would be dead now. (I have fooled around with electricity.) Also, those 'stun guns' produce roughly 50,000 volts from a 9V battery. Yet the amp level is very low and it only stuns a person, it doesn't kill. And why is this on alt.sex. Oh yes, the man with the window problems. ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
geoff l. <LEBOLDUG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (01/27/91)
Path: sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes >To clear up: > 1) Voltage is analogous to pressure. > 2) Amperage is analogous to flow rate. > 3) WATTAGE is analogous to force. > >In this case, amperage is the killer. The human body is a fairly good >resistor, so a tremendous amperage must be used in order to have any >great effect. Not quite. Amperage is the killer, but as little as 50Vdc @ 50mA can kill. AC is roughly the same. The value I have is 23 Vrms @ 50mA. I'm told that AC shock survival is lower because 60 Hz interferes with the natural beating of the heart ( roughly 60 Hz ). My numbers come from a safety course I took last year. WHMIS++ for Canadians who want to know. I don't have a concrete source at hand, but if flamed sufficiently will look one up. These numbers seem small to me, but I suspect a bathtub is involved. |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Geoff LeBoldus | Queen's University | | BITNET: LEBOLDUG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA | Kingston, Ontario | | "requisite generic quote" | Canada | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bleck@mobot.ai.mit.edu (Olaf Bleck) (01/27/91)
Seems to me it's the old P=IV that really does the killing... It also seems to me that the point is to fry the nerves that keep that sucker pumping, not unlike putting an 1/8 watt resistor across an unregulated 10w power supply... (something stinks in here--did someone blow up their nerd kit?) -Olaf
terryb@cs.fau.edu (terry bohning) (01/27/91)
bender@oobleck.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) writes: > don't have first-hand experience. anyone know what voltage they actually > use? is it at line frequency? > I am fairly certain that "Old Sparky", the electric chair at Starke, Florida, uses 2 KV. I am positive it's 60 Hz.
mauser@wam.umd.edu (Rich Chandler) (01/28/91)
In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" > >But voltage is the force that causes current! Right, but it depends on how much energy is behind it. (watts, joules, I forget my units.) You can take a AAA battery, rig it to a coil that jumps the voltage up to 40,000 and give someone quite a shock, but a perfectly harmless one (My boss has a gag lighter that does just that). You could also hook someone up to the primary coil of you car ignition, also at 40,000 volts and give them quite a serious shock. Or you could drop a high tension line on them (yet again, 40,000 volts) and really fry them. Through the right part of the body, between .1 and .2 amps can cause heart failure, and over .2 can kill. (This from a chart in the lab in high school. It suprised me too. But think, nerve impulses are in microvolts...) Also remember that there is more involved than just ohm's law. Particularly with a battery involved. The effective voltage of a battery drops the more current you draw from it. Your average 1.5 volt battery puts out 1.2 when you use it, and even less under a high drain. Anyway, skin resistance is very high, unless wet. That's why 9-volts shock your tongue and not your fingers. > >That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, >it's hitting the ground." Very true. It works for parachutists all the time. It's not hitting the ground, it's how HARD you hit the ground. The ENERGY behind it. obSEX: I've also read some interesting stuff about the use of electricity to induce orgasm.... -- "It takes three to limbo, and one of them has to go down." "That which does not kill me had better be able to run damn fast." "He who dies with the most toys, is, nonetheless, still dead." "That sounds about as appealing as french-kissing a Lamprey."
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (01/28/91)
/ LEBOLDUG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (geoff l.) / 10:26 am Jan 27, 1991 / writes:
$ Not quite. Amperage is the killer, but as little as 50Vdc @ 50mA
$ can kill. AC is roughly the same. The value I have is 23 Vrms @ 50mA.
$ I'm told that AC shock survival is lower because 60 Hz interferes with
$ the natural beating of the heart ( roughly 60 Hz ).
$
Wait a minute, I thought the human heart beat at around 60 per minute.
nor per second. ;-). That would be roughly 1 Hz.
Yeap ! A very small current going through the heart is enough to fry
you. I believe it is in the order of mA's. Due to human body's substantial
resistance, you need some respectable voltage to induce that current.
Making thing wet reduces the resistance and hence you need less voltage.
Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------,
########################################### :
E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, :
Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) |
Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__
Singapore 0410. SPLAT !
#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>cor@wpi.WPI.EDU (Corydon T Shimer) (01/28/91)
In article <2011@fornax.UUCP> wli@fornax.UUCP (William Li) writes: >In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >> "It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" >> >> But voltage is the force that causes current! >> That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, >> it's hitting the ground." > >But it *is* hitting the ground that's dangerous. To get real >silly, I could say that falling onto a large airbag from a tall >building is not at all dangerous, but falling from a lesser >height onto concrete will likely do some grievous bodily harm. This is a poor analogy. > >Granted, voltage makes the current go. In the case of the >human body, though, it makes more sense to say that > > I = V/R > >than to say that > > V = IR > >We know that a given amount of current (say, 100 A) through a >given body part (say, your heart) will do a given amount of >damage (say, turn your heart into black char). You can't >say the same thing for voltage, because resistance conditions >in the body are so variable. Thus, putting your dry hand on >a metal ball at 10,000 V with your feet up on a plastic milk >carton will make your hair stand on end and nothing else. >Stand in a puddle of water connected by a conducting path >to the ground of the same 10,000 V metal ball, and *then* >see if "there'll be a hot time in the ol' time tonight." But why do you think that you have to stand on the plastic milk carton?! This is to make the Resistance very great... I = V/R ... which makes the current very small... Standing in a puddle would indeed make the current great... I once saw a girl in my physics class get hurt because she stood on a rubber stool and held onto a 10k Volt "ball".... for about a minute, and the electricity arcced (sp?) through the air to the floor with a loud snap! ... probably like charging up a capacitor and having it release all it's stored energy... > >Current kills. True, it is the current that kills, but high voltage can cause high current, given the right situation. I would not suggest plugging in a vibrator into a 220 Volt outlet (when it's made for 120) because "It's the current that matters"... :) > >(so do a lot of other things, too, come to think of it. > Like, for example, standing idly in the middle of a > flame.)
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan26.162913.1905@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >My point was that "Voltage doesn't kill, only current kills" is a >dangerous half-truth. > >Of *course* high voltage isn't dangerous if supplied through a very >high resistance, as in a Van de Graaff generator. > >But I've heard of people who believed that "voltage isn't dangerous >-- only current is dangerous" and concluded that, e.g., sticking one's >finger into a 120-V outlet isn't dangerous because that's a source >of volts, not amps. A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is far less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges.
kingdom@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mike Kingdom) (01/29/91)
>"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" > >But voltage is the force that causes current! > >That's like saying, "It's not falling that's dangerous, >it's hitting the ground." Not really. You get zapped by static electricity all the time which is on the order of 10kV. You're still alive to tell about it because there ARE NOT enough electrons to maintain any serious current beyond the little zap you hear. -- Mike
kingdom@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Mike Kingdom) (01/29/91)
>Seems to me it's the old P=IV that really does the killing... > >It also seems to me that the point is to fry the nerves that keep that >sucker pumping, not unlike putting an 1/8 watt resistor across an >unregulated 10w power supply... Boy, talk about drift! Anyway, I'll drift a little too :-) "Frying nerves" isn't generally the way someone dies when electrocuted. About 70ma through the nerves of the heart causes them to discharge and go into refractory period at the wrong (often somewhat random) time. With all the nerves out of sync like that, the muscle tissues contract at different times causing fribrilation. -- Mike
sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >In article <1991Jan26.162913.1905@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >>My point was that "Voltage doesn't kill, only current kills" is a >>dangerous half-truth. >> >>Of *course* high voltage isn't dangerous if supplied through a very >>high resistance, as in a Van de Graaff generator. >> >>But I've heard of people who believed that "voltage isn't dangerous >>-- only current is dangerous" and concluded that, e.g., sticking one's >>finger into a 120-V outlet isn't dangerous because that's a source >>of volts, not amps. > > >A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is >far less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low >currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity >tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. Static electricity <> "conventional" electricity ????? Does this mean that still water & running water are different substances as well? Unrelated: Read (& heed) the Followup-To: line. OBSex: Onward he plunged, twisting with greater & greater force. 5 times he did this. When it was over, she thanked him politely for changing her flat tire, & drove off. B-) B-) B-) -- Steven S. Brack sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (soon)
dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) (01/29/91)
lots of people write: > [... Freshman physics e-mag lecture deleted ...] > Look, I know this thread started on an alt.sex note, but could we maybe move the rest of it to sci.wonders.of.electricity or something? -- :==========================================================================: : Dirk Valk |"So I'll drink -- to the wonder, as I wander, : : Rice Univeristy | If there are Gods they must be drunk, : : dirk@spacsun.rice.edu | Rev'ling in the madness, you and I.... : : Houston, TX | -- Naked Raygun "Wonder Beer" : :==========================================================================:
hauser@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (michael robert hauser) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: > > Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is far >less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low >currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity >tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. Also remember that the amount of charge that can be supplied by the source is important. In a Van de Graff generator the amount of charge is fixed. Thus the energy that can be delivered is limited by the amount of charge present on the ball. Your house on the other hand is connected to a distribution circuit. In power engineering this distribution circuit is refered to as an infinite bus. This is because this circuit will continue to deliver energy to your body at a rate related to the current until the fuse blows. Therefore it is really the amount of energy that flows through your body that does the most damage. since this is alt.sex OBsex: woman: What do you call your penis? man: That's my High Voltage Probe. woman: Energize me! Mike -- "Just when I thought I knew all the answers in life, I found out that I was taking the wrong test." mrh 1990 email: hauser@cis.ohio-st.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------
depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.230849.29818@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: >>A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is >>far less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low >>currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity >>tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. > >Static electricity <> "conventional" electricity ????? > >Does this mean that still water & running water are different substances >as well? Maybe a better way to laymanize it is to say that static electricity is just that - STATIC electricity. That is, electricity that isn't moving, which is just an electric charge. When you touch something, it moves, i.e. the charge is moving, and becomes a current. --- Jeff -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
hughM@sixhub.UUCP (Hugh M Moore) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
:"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current"
:
:But voltage is the force that causes current!
You're partly right. Actually what you say is all right, but you're
missing the point. I have a power supply here which is a five volt
supply and will deliver 30 amps. I have another which is 10000 volts,
but will only deliver about five miliamps. It will deliver those ma into
a 20k ohm resistor, or into a dead short, but it won't deliver more than
five ma. If you load it down the voltage drops, because there's an
internal resistor inside in series with the output terminals.
A normal human being will not be killed by five ma, or even 20. I've
seen the figure 30 ma through the body cavity to do the job. You have to
insert needles into the skin to do this with five volts (if you can do
it at all).
Go it? A high voltage transformer like a neon sign is intended to not
deliger a fatal shock.
--
Hugh Moore ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!hughM [ PhD in '93 ]
AIDS means guys with vasectomies have to wear condoms toojuggle@athena.mit.edu (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >In article <1991Jan26.162913.1905@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >>My point was that "Voltage doesn't kill, only current kills" is a >>dangerous half-truth. >> >>Of *course* high voltage isn't dangerous if supplied through a very >>high resistance, as in a Van de Graaff generator. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, balh, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, balh, blah. . . . . . Will you guys stop posting this drivel to alt.sex? Keep in sci.electronics where it belongs. Some people. . . . juggle
raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com>, poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: > A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is far > less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low > currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity > tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. Does anyone else find the above statement as silly as I do? Look, charge builds up on things because of capacitive effects and materials differences. (Look up how a Van de Graff [sic?] generator works.) The reason static charges cause so little grief is that although the voltages involved may be high, the total energy/charge/current*time available from a rotten capacitor like your body is too small to cause real damage (except to ESD chips....) But if you do something stupid with a powerful source, like stand in a puddle while licking a highly charged Van de Graff, there is enough energy there to hurt you. There is nothing magically safer about it, it's like comparing matches to firewood. The difference is one of scale, not type. There are a couple of different ways current can kill you. One is to cook you until you are well done, the most difficult. Another is to burn critical nerves or tissues, such as your spinal cord or brain. The most common by far, I think, is to disrupt your cardiac rhythm. If you jolt the nerves of the heart out of normal rhythm, you make it difficult if not impossible for them to follow the rhythms of the heart's nodes. Each muscle starts twitching independently, and they don't all recover from their last pulse in time to pulse together, so things stay confused. This is called cardiac fibrillation, and this will definitely kill you. It only takes a few mA in the right place and fashion to do it. Followups in email, please: I think we've seen enough of this on the list. -- Nico Garcia Designs by Geniuses for use by Idiots eplunix!cirl!raoul@eddie.mit.edu
cnl@cel.co.uk (christopher larmour) (01/30/91)
In article 2513 jgb@prism.gatech.EDU (James G. Baker) writes: > Indeed, AC is dangerous stuff. Actually, GFI (Ground fault Interrupt) > receptacles trip at 5mA! That may seem small but there is growing concern > over "micro-shocks" - just enough to send the heart into ventricular > fibrilation and have delayed effects. (Excuse any spelling- I am not an M.D.) The UK regs regarding working with electricity state that ANY source of electricity that can be touched by the 'standard finger' should be regarded as 'live work', and treated as such ie., insulated tools, circuit breakers, "DO NOT TOUCH" notices, plug locks, etc. Notice that ANY source also includes the various low denomination batteries........ ############################################################################### Chris Larmour "...cluck..cluck..clucckk..." A. Hen ###############################################################################
rayr@ncuug.UUCP (Ray Randolph) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan19.075940.26652@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991Jan19.052458.7449@wam.umd.edu> bander@wam.umd.edu (Nicholas Andrew Vargish) writes: >>My Project is: wire my bedroom window^s screen for 110 volts. I could >>rig a detector and flash camera for less, but at this point, money is >>no object, and time is critical... > > We're talking years in prison here. > That depends. I spose he could probably convince a jury that he was trying to develop his own bug-zapper, and he had no idea that anyone would try and piss into it (silly fools). :) However I must agree, a deterrant such as a camera and flash would probably be more appropriate, if for no other reason than to NOT provoke some sort of retaliation. -Ray -- ..!uunet!ccncsu!ncuug!rayr (or something like that). Data: (303)225-1413 HST (or something like that) "Changing guns for brooms the guards change to cleanup crews...." -Skinny Puppy
swahn@solan.unit.no (Isak Swahn) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan28.230849.29818@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: |> > |> >A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is |> >far less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low |> >currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity |> >tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. |> |> Static electricity <> "conventional" electricity ????? |> |> Does this mean that still water & running water are different substances |> as well? |> Still water, say a bucket of water is like static electricity that gives you a short shock of water, but it is not dangerous. An electric shock due to static electricity is very short. Running water, e.g. a hose of water does not give water at the same speed, but used during a long time (which is the case if you connect yourself to "conventional electricity" like piss on a 110V-window.), you can peal the skin of a person. The same is valid with electricity. In fact comparisons with water are used in some classes of Junior High School, in order to make electricity less abstract. You can explain batteries, resistance and condensators, just by comparing with water phenomenoms. Isak Swahn Department of Physics and Mathematics The Norwegian Institute of Technology Internet: swahn@solan.unit.no P.S. I'm sorry that I didn't have anything to say about sex...
ghot@s.ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) (01/30/91)
Throughout this discussion, everyone seems to be assuming that the proposed scheme would work. I am not convinced of this although I would not want to be the one to try the experiment. But here is my objection, if someone can address it. How do you know that the liquid does not separate into discrete drops as it falls ? If that were the case, then there would not be a connection between the source of the liquid and the source of electricity. The reason I raise this possibility is that I remember once visiting the aquarium in Boston and seeing a display of water pouring out of a source and falling in a parabolic curve. The water was illuminated by a strobe light which showed quite clearly that despite the appearance that it was continuous, it actually consisted separate drops. Allan Adler ghot@ms.uky.edu
swahn@solan.unit.no (Isak Swahn) (01/30/91)
In article <87757@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, hauser@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (michael robert hauser) writes: |> In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: |> Thus the energy that can be delivered is limited by the amount of charge |> present on the ball. What balls??? Hehehe! Can only tell that my balls are full of energy!
jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) (01/30/91)
In article <91026.212601LEBOLDUG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> LEBOLDUG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (geoff l.) writes: >Not quite. Amperage is the killer, but as little as 50Vdc @ 50mA >can kill. AC is roughly the same. The value I have is 23 Vrms @ 50mA. >I'm told that AC shock survival is lower because 60 Hz interferes with >the natural beating of the heart ( roughly 60 Hz ). In article <4400003@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) writes: >Wait a minute, I thought the human heart beat at around 60 per minute. >nor per second. ;-). That would be roughly 1 Hz. That's true, but 60 Hz is roughly the worst frequency for interfering with the nervous system. You're actually a bit better off with DC, and something like 400 Hz is considerably less likely to get you killed.
bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) (01/30/91)
Why alt.sex? In article <1991Jan28.190057.1874@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes: >In article <1991Jan26.162913.1905@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >>My point was that "Voltage doesn't kill, only current kills" is a >>dangerous half-truth. > >A Van de Graff generator produces STATIC electricity. STATIC electricity is far >less dangerous than conventional electricity, partly due to the very low >currents that are present. The other is the fact that STATIC electricity >tends to remain on the surface of an object as stored charges. "Current" and "static" are antonymical. You can withstand being at a high potential, as when you stand on an insulator and hold a Van de Graaf hood, but only because all of you is at that high potential. If any current at all passes through you (over the right path you can be killed by nanoamps) you will be toasted. If the nearest conductor decides to arc to the generator, you will likely have provided several feet of the path of least resistance, and you will be fried. In humid weather, current will pass through you and through the air and into any local grounded conductors; if you're lucky, the current won't concentrate around any nerves in your body (including muscle cells, which are mostly a special form of nerve). If you want to get really picky about it, current doesn't kill, voltage does, when it's produced by the uneven buildup of charge on the crucial structures of the nerves that regulate your heartbeat (again, including myocardial cells themselves). --Blair "Just defibrillating the newsgroup."
szarekw@lonexc.radc.af.mil (William J. Szarek) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan29.202923.11185@ms.uky.edu> ghot@s.ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes: > >How do you know that the liquid does not separate into discrete >drops as it falls ? If that were the case, then there would not >be a connection between the source of the liquid and the source of >electricity. The reason I raise this possibility is that I remember >Allan Adler >ghot@ms.uky.edu I *know* that the stream is steady enough. I live on a farm and was clearing the brush from the fence line when time came to 'relieve' my self. *My* stream made contact with the electric fence line. *TRUST ME* it will work. Fence electrifiers (if that is what they are called) can be picked up at any Agaway or True Value Hardware /home and garden stores. It should solve your problem. I don't remove brush from the fence line anymore! (I leave it to the hired man. . . but I watch ;-}) -buzz
young@helix.nih.gov (Jeff Young) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan28.055428.11686@wam.umd.edu>, mauser@wam.umd.edu (Rich Chandler) writes: |> In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: |> >"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" |> > |> >But voltage is the force that causes current! |> |> Right, but it depends on how much energy is behind it. (watts, joules, I |> forget my units.) You can take a AAA battery, rig it to a coil that jumps |> the voltage up to 40,000 and give someone quite a shock, but a perfectly |> harmless one (My boss has a gag lighter that does just that). You could also |> hook someone up to the primary coil of you car ignition, also at 40,000 volts |> and give them quite a serious shock. Or you could drop a high tension line |> on them (yet again, 40,000 volts) and really fry them. |> Through the right part of the body, between .1 and .2 amps can cause heart |> failure, and over .2 can kill. (This from a chart in the lab in high school. |> It suprised me too. But think, nerve impulses are in microvolts...) The chart should have gone a lot lower than that, I seem to remember a few biomed courses which cited 10 microamps as enough current to send someones heart into (check me if I'm wrong) fibrulation. That was current originating in the body (ie. a catheter). 10 milliamps from the outside. That's why everything in a hospital room is equipped to deal with small leakage currents - ground fault interrupters. I haven't looked at that stuff in a while but I'm pretty sure about the 10 uamps. |> |> Also remember that there is more involved than just ohm's law. Particularly |> with a battery involved. The effective voltage of a battery drops the more |> current you draw from it. Your average 1.5 volt battery puts out 1.2 when you |> use it, and even less under a high drain. -- jy young@alw.nih.gov
jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (02/07/91)
1) Lightning is static electricity, writ large. It kills. Nuff said. 2) Microamps can indeed kill if they have just the right frequency and hit just the wrong nerve in the heart at just the wrong time. Scientific American had a nice article on chaos and the heart within the last couple of years that went into this in some detail.
szarekw@lonexc.radc.af.mil (William J. Szarek) (02/07/91)
In article <jls.665875773@yoda> jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >1) Lightning is static electricity, writ large. It kills. Nuff said. > Lightning is *not* static electricity. Lightning is *caused* by static electricity. When you see lightning it is the *conduction* of an electrical current from the ground to the sky. The light you see is the ionization of the air. The electrical current present in lightning is VERY LARGE. -buzz
c60b-1ef@e260-1a.berkeley.edu (Johnny A S) (02/23/91)
In article <1991Jan26.041208.25354@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >"It's not voltage that's dangerous, it's current" Sorry, it's the product of both that's dangerous. (Power = Voltage * Current). And next time you're with that electifying BABE don't deceive yourself, she's mine.