On Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:27:44 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2014 12:33 PM, wrote:

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:10:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 7/29/2014 2:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, July 28,



When you brought up the safety of stun guns, the concept of impedance



became important.



That would have been true if impedance had been a previous part of the discussion.





Do you understand that the high voltage is current limited by the

impedance of the source?

That's why impedance is relevant to the argument.





Otherwise, you are dragging in new arguments before addressing the older one...

which was ONLY *is the safer voltage the higher or not*.



Higher is not safer.

Do you think it is?





I can give you simple model of a voltage source with

impedance if you are interested.



No. To be pertainent, that would have had to have been a part of Lloyd's question.



Answered.





I don't think I ever mentioned capacitance.



Yes, just like impedance was never mentioned in the original question.



Already answered.





(here's your chance to find me wrong)





Just respond to safety issues of certain alternating current high vs

low voltage circuitry.



Would you like to rewrite that?



Better, yet, how does Lloyd feel about it.

(the person who actually *asked* the question)





Lloyd, How do you feel about mogulah's question,

"Just respond to safety issues of certain alternating current high vs

low voltage circuitry.







What's worse is perhaps the terms you list above actually are



addressed in an NEC edition, but by different terminology.



Why is that worse?



Because I consider claims that a topic isn't in a reference manual



when they could actually be worse. Is that bad?



No that's fine. Output impedance may not be in the NEC because line



current is low impedance and if it goes high impedance you have a



problem. But there could be some reference to it regarding ground rods,



although they may just call it resistance.



Here is a page that suggests stun guns are limited to 3 ma or 4 ma and



most are limited to 1 ma to 2 milliamps.



Amperage wasn't in Lloyd's question. That's just the problem with



his question. You have to pay attention, amdx.



Amperage is implicit in his question, without current there is no safety







issue. Your lack of understanding of electricity makes it very difficult



to have any type of conversation.







My lack of understanding compared to who's? Your's? What does that



tell you?



I tells me I have a better understanding of this than you, so you



could learn from me.



Though anything you could have added to mogulah's answer to Lloyd's question would still not have shown mogulah's answer to have been wrong.



At this point I'm not sure what question is been argued, If we are still

on high voltage being safer than low voltage, then let me ask,

Do you think a line voltage a 277 volts is safer than one at 120v?





If mogulah wants to learn, then there are always *more accredited* continuing education courses. Curious you fail to mention that, but do you agree?



Sure, but I think he is already in a training program to be an

electrician, I seem to recall he has about 2 years left. I hope the

housing market takes off and he makes $60K a year.



If the voltage is not high enough it won't push enough current to damage



the heart.



That's your opinion.



No, that's fact.



Not always, because there are always a few incidents with high amperages that miraculously turn out not to be fatal (thank goodness).



Ok, could you describe one of those?

Well no, because I don't feel like talking to you. You are like a Clown. Why? Because you claimed that you somehow "knew" that Lloyd understood something he most likely doesn't.

You don't even mind people claiming that they once had EE degrees and that they somehow *don't* anymore. Its like it doesn't even occur to you to question that.

Now, give me a half-way good reason why I'm even talking to *YOU* or Lloyd about high and low voltage, because I can't.