DIYbanter - View Single Post

Peter[_14_]

On 4/8/2010 6:54 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:52:55 -0500, "
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:53:57 -0400, wrote:

On 4/8/2010 1:43 PM, keith wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:49 am, wrote:
On 4/7/2010 10:44 AM, keith wrote:

The damage from a shock is related to the energy (watts) delivered which is the
product of the voltage and the current. The lower the resistance, the higher
the current (given a constant voltage).

nonsense.

Keith, please explain how and why Ohm's law is "nonsense"?

I said nothing about Ohm's law being nonsense.

Or, were you saying that the damage from a shock is not related to the energy
delivered?

Partially. It doesn't take much energy to kill and more isn't going
to make you any deader. Skin has a very non-linear resistance so
Ohm's law doesn't hold, at least as stated.

To expand on my original statement, electrical shock damage is directly related
to the extent and magnitude of tissue heating. I'm not talking about
neuro-muscular depolarazation - which can produce cardiac dysrhythmias or
orthopedic damage from violent muscular contraction. I'm talking about dead
tissue (skin, muscle, fat, tendons, nerves, internal organs, internally
coagulated blood, even bones, severe swelling from compartment syndromes etc.

So you don't consider death by fibrillation to be "damage"? How far
you have to move the goal posts to justify your nonsense isn't
important. You've stated a falshood that could get someone in
trouble.

I want to hear more about the nonsense.

Keep talking, then read what you've written.
I have read what I wrote. And, what you wrote. Your "nonsense" comment could
have referred to either issue.

In any case, I believe you are still wrong to discount (by saying "nonsense")
the fact that damage is related to energy delivered even if, for the purposes of
this discussion, I accept your definition of damage to include death by
fibrillation (not defibrillation as you wrote). You seem to be confusing or at
least conflating the specific issue of pathway through the body with the
conceptual issue of sufficient energy to produce a specifically defined
"damage". Surely you have to acknowledge that if the shock delivers
insufficient energy, it won't cause any damage, much less death.

That is *NOT* the same thing as saying that the amount of damage is
proportional to the energy. It is most certainly *not*.

Again, what exactly did I say that you consider to be "nonsense" Inquiring
minds want to know.

Shock damage ~= energy

Oh, and Ohms law has any meaning, here.
It is impossible to have a meaning discussion with someone who rebuts fully
explained positions with negative declarative one-liners that are totally devoid
of explanation. I'm moving on.