On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:01:28 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9cbu$vdg$1

@dont-email.me:

I'm more concerned that some silent lurker might read all this and



underestimate the dangers of high voltage.

Exactly, Jim. That's why, at least for the cogent and non-insane among

us, I hope our protestations have some effect.

Lloyd, now this is MORE interesting: Precisely what the hell are you "protesting" ??

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:23:30 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9dim$6fh$1

@dont-email.me:

I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self

esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.



Yeah, but he seems 'different'. I've never 'met' (web or face) anyone

whose ONLY endeavor in life is to try -ineffectually- to belittle others.

Jon is unique in that respect. He has NOTHING of any redeeming

qualities.. all bad/evil, incompetent, insane... whatever you'd like to

call them.

You are wrong about that, jon pushes people in here to better their accomplishments.
You know you these other kooks in here, can't deny that.

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:02:22 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:



"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9dim$6fh$1

@dont-email.me:



I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self

esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.



Yeah, but he seems 'different'. I've never 'met' (web or face) anyone

whose ONLY endeavor in life is to try -ineffectually- to belittle others.

Jon is unique in that respect. He has NOTHING of any redeeming

qualities... all bad/evil, incompetent, insane... whatever you'd like to

call them.





Take a look at news:alt.engineering.electrical. One idiot, with over

100 sock puppets destroyed the group. He also infested the

sci.electronics.* family of newsgroups

So. That's happened to dozens of groups AND chat rooms. The people simply go and collect elsewhere.

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:03:10 AM UTC-7, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156

wrote:



On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"



In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything

morongulah posts,



Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT



I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial help

to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb loser. I

mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be exposed

and refuted.



I use my killfile as a time saving feature.



We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone

replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.

Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside

the back of the haid.



--

Aim for success, not perfection. Never give up your right

to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to

learn new things and move forward with your life.

-- Dr. David M. Burns


Think it's long past time for Larry Jackass to plonk himself.

On 7/30/2014 9:32 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:56:22 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an

authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE

service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer

against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage

LINE service similarly connected.

You're probably going to hate the response, but the answer is still the same.
(and I know amdx is now going to run back in wanting to teach about every irrelevancy in the world that he can - outside of solely same-service AC high/low voltage,
so let's now see what he has to babble on and on about)

You example still doesn't work.


I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

I just go by NEC quotes from search engines. My actual paper and print NEC book is too far away from me most of the time.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other

silliness.

But its true. A stun-gun, or even a taser is, in fact, hooked up to its AC battery charging circuitry most of the time, right?
That technically qualifies as the answer to your question right there - much, much higher "safer" AC voltage.
-- http://www.defensemaster.com/Air_Tas...ry_charger.htm
Precisely what you asked for. (whether amdx wants to play "professor" and add or "teach us" irrelevant info to that or not,


notice he hasn't dare tried to deny it)

Deny what?


Did you notice the link shows the charger is a wall wart that contains a
stepdown transformer to lower the voltage to a safe level of around 12
volts to charge the battery in the stun gun.

Could you tell me what irrelevant information I posted.

It is starting to be fun watching you protect your ego by deflecting
everything away from the idea that you posted, which was 277 volts is
safer than 120 volts . These are both line voltages and have plenty of
current.
I think I understand how you concluded that incorrect idea.
For my example I'll us a 120 watt light bulb.
At 12 volts the bulb would draw 10 amps.
At 120 volts the bulb would draw 1 amp.
At 240 volts the bulb would draw 0.5 amps.
At 480 volts the bulb would draw 0.25 amps
As you can see the higher the voltage the less current, so the higher
voltage must be safer, right? WRONG.
But, I think you have probably got the proper information and are able
to process it, to know how current and voltage work.
I hope I have been instrumental in your education.
Thanks, it has been my pleasure,
Mikek






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 7/30/2014 9:35 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:00:27 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/29/2014 3:52 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

amdx fired this volley in news:lr90uf$m35$1@dont-

email.me:



"Ohm's Law (Again)" it actually says,

"It's not voltage that kills, its current!"

You can read it and use the information to make an argument against me.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html



Mikek





But, but, but.... Mike! Then lower voltage MUST be more dangerous

because it "has more current".



I mean... your household 120VAC service only 'has' 200 amps, but a 12V

auto battery 'has' 600 amps!



So, by inference, high voltage must 'have' less current -- right?



G

LLoyd






Now Lloyd, I think you should go read that section of chapter 3

titled, "Ohm's Law (Again)" G

amdx, you just don't get it. Lloyd never said he was a licensed electrician, so why "should" he read that? Just ask an electrician.

Come on mogulah, I posted that for you, I was being sarcastic when I
suggested he read it. He doesn't need to read it, he already
understands. Have you read it yet, it even gives some skin resistances,
please read it, it's interesting.
Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:53:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:23:30 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr9dim$6fh$1



@dont-email.me:



I'm not convinced of that. They all play the toxic zero-sum self



esteem game but otherwise differ in M.O. and focus.







Yeah, but he seems 'different'. I've never 'met' (web or face) anyone



whose ONLY endeavor in life is to try -ineffectually- to belittle others.



Jon is unique in that respect. He has NOTHING of any redeeming



qualities.. all bad/evil, incompetent, insane... whatever you'd like to



call them.



You are wrong about that, jon pushes people in here to better their accomplishments.

You know you these other kooks in here, can't deny that.


I push people to think for themselves and to be independent thinkers. This is what I was taught and what I know is expected in better CNC machining job shops. In good machining job shops, no one is going to hold your hand and babysit you. This applies to other trades as well.

You do realize that people like Loud are deniers, right?

Loud, Terry Coombs, etc. are so dumb that they think you and I are the same person.

Too funny. :)

wrote:

You are wrong about that, jon pushes people in here to better their accomplishments.
You know you these other kooks in here, can't deny that.


All he does is push people to refine their kill filters.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:01:01 AM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
wrote:



You are wrong about that, jon pushes people in here to better their accomplishments.

You know you these other kooks in here, can't deny that.





All he does is push people to refine their kill filters.





--

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

It's truly amazing how I just keep popping out of Coombs, Loud, and other Mark Wieber clique of idiot members kill files. The excuses they make for why just keep getting better all the time. :)

On 2014-07-30, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156

I use my killfile as a time saving feature.

We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone
replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.
Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside
the back of the haid.

Larry, back in 2010, I wrote a perl script. It is given a list of
posters. For every poster on the list, it marks their posts as read,
as well as followups to them, ad infinitum.I do not use it for every
person I killfile, only for the most prolific individuals. It works
great.

i
################################################## ##############################
#!/usr/bin/perl

#
# Script to killfile trolls and all followups to their posts
#
# Copyright (C) Igor Chudov, 2010
# Released under GNU Public License v3
#

my $usage = "USAGE: $0 --server news.server.com --user username --password pAssWorD [--style (slrn|ids)]";

use strict;
use warnings;

use Getopt::Long;
use News::NNTPClient;

my $server = undef;
my $username = undef;
my $password = undef;
my $trollfile = "$ENV{HOME}/configs/general/usenet-trolls.txt";
my $style = 'slrn';
my $newsgroups = 'rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.machines.cnc';
my $max = 1_000;

GetOptions(
"server=s" = \$server,
"username=s" = \$username,
"password=s" = \$password,
"trollfile=s" = \$trollfile,
"style=s" = \$style,
"max=i" = \$max,
"newsgroups=s" = \$newsgroups,
);

die $usage unless $server && $username && $password;
die $usage unless { slrn = 1, ids = 1 }-{$style};
die "Cannot find file $trollfile" unless -f $trollfile;

my $nntp = new News::NNTPClient( $server )
|| die "Cannot connect to server";
$nntp-authinfo( $username, $password ) || die "Cannot logon to $server";

my $trolls = [];

open( TROLLS, $trollfile ) || die "Cannot open $trollfile: $!.\n";
while( TROLLS ) {
next if /^\s*\#/;
next if /^\s*$/;
chomp;
s/\s*\#.*$//;
push @$trolls, $_;
}
close( TROLLS );

my @newsgroups = split( /,/, $newsgroups );

foreach my $ng (@newsgroups) {
my ($start, $end) = $nntp-group( $ng );
$start = $end-$max if $end-$max $start;

next unless $end $start;

print STDERR "Analyzing $ng: $start=$end...\n";

my @fields = qw(numb subj from date mesg refr char line xref);
foreach my $xover ( $nntp-xover( $start, $end ) ) {
my %fields = ();
@fields{@fields} = split /\t/, $xover;
#print "From = $fields{from}, mesg = $fields{mesg}.\n";
my $from = $fields{from};
my $mesg = $fields{mesg};
my $matches = undef;
foreach my $troll (@$trolls) {
my $m = quotemeta( $troll );
if ( $from =~ /$m/ ) {
print STDERR "Message from troll $troll ($from) = $mesg\n";
$matches = 1;
last;
}
}
if ( $matches ) {
$mesg =~ s/^//;
$mesg =~ s/$//;
if ( $style eq 'slrn' ) {
print "[*]
Sco -666
References: $mesg

";
}
}
}

}

exit 0;

On 7/29/2014 2:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, July 28,
2014 8:32:56 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/28/2014 2:09 PM, wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:20:35 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 7/27/2014 3:50 PM, wrote:

wrote:

... authority that says high voltage is safer than ...

Senile lloyd wants to know how high voltage is safer than low.
Anyway, you apparently you never took the hospital electrician's
I think if you could just get a good understanding

Don't you think you'd do good then by IMMEDIATELY telling us what's
incorrect instead of windbagging it?



I responded when I saw the post.



And you started to include concepts that wouldn't have addressed an
answer to Lloyd's question which concerned only high voltage.
Not impedance, not capacitance,

When you brought up the safety of stun guns, the concept of impedance
became important. I can give you simple model of a voltage source with
impedance if you are interested.

I don't think I ever mentioned capacitance.
(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?



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.

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. The common analogy uses a water system, water pressure
equals voltage, the amount of water flowing is the current and
restricting the flow is the resistance.
If you have a low pressure (voltage) trying to push water flow
(current) through a restriction (skin resistance) you won't get much
current to flow. So, no heart damage.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:26:32 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156
wrote:

On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything
morongulah posts,

Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT

I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial
help
to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb
loser. I
mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be
exposed
and refuted.

I use my killfile as a time saving feature.

We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone
replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.
Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside
the back of the haid.

Makes me want to stop reading and click on the next posting. Is that
too much for you?

Um, yes. Y'see, I hate seeing trolls being fed the crap they so
justly want. How many replies have you made to these jerks in the
last month, 60? 100? They love that. Just ignore them and they might
go away, please?

--
Aim for success, not perfection. Never give up your right
to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to
learn new things and move forward with your life.
-- Dr. David M. Burns

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:36:21 AM UTC-7, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:26:32 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

wrote:



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:11:43 -0500, Ignoramus7156

wrote:



On 2014-07-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in

message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:20:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"



In case someone out there is naive enough to believe anything

morongulah posts,



Most of us have him -=plonked=- already. BIG HINT



I'm a fast reader with a good memory and I don't need artificial

help

to remember who is a sociopathic hate agitator or just a dumb

loser. I

mostly ignore them unless their pernicious lies demand to be

exposed

and refuted.



I use my killfile as a time saving feature.



We call it "plonking". But it's totally ineffective when someone

replies to the troll's post, since we haven't plonked the replier.

Makes me want to reach out across the Web and Gibbs-slap 'em upside

the back of the haid.



Makes me want to stop reading and click on the next posting. Is that

too much for you?



Um, yes. Y'see, I hate seeing trolls being fed the crap they so

justly want. How many replies have you made to these jerks in the

last month, 60? 100? They love that. Just ignore them and they might

go away, please?



--

Aim for success, not perfection. Never give up your right

to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to

learn new things and move forward with your life.

-- Dr. David M. Burns


Larry Jackass once again shows he can't comprehend that real adults don't need a nanny so he's now on his knees begging.

What a ****bag like Larry Jackass is too stupid to comprehend is that I post the kind of content he doesn't/can't. Others who actually want to learn often tell me they find what I post helpful.

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. Otherwise, you are dragging in new arguments before addressing the older one... which was ONLY *is the safer voltage the higher or not*.

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.

I don't think I ever mentioned capacitance.

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

(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)

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.

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

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).

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, 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. Otherwise, you are dragging in new arguments before addressing the older one... which was ONLY *is the safer voltage the higher or not*.



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.



I don't think I ever mentioned capacitance.



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



(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)



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.



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



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).

I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They are all directly related and inseparable in this context.

rangerssuck fired this volley in
:

I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also
including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They are all
directly related and inseparable in this context.

In addition, impedance was implicit in my use of the term "Line" to
describe the supply. A line supply has a low enough impedance to deliver
what - for safety purposes - might as well be considered infinite
current.

They've evaded the actual question over and over, and cannot cite any
authority to uphold their ragged refusals.

There was an instructor at DBCC in 'basic electronics' (a very old
Edisonian guy, back in the 1960s) who disliked AC, and stated that "DC is
just the sum of all possible frequencies of AC", and went on to explain
that it was safer because of that. This happened to be a common belief
among followers of Edison's theories.

The question got _someone_ kicked out of class that day, but upon
returning, he never referred to the subject. The question? "If it's the
sum of all possible frequencies, what is the fundamental?"

G
LLoyd

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? I'm not sure how you get high
amperages through the human body, unless you use high voltage.
What is your number for high?
You can certainly get burns when high amperages are available.

Thanks, Mikek

amdx fired this volley in news:lre1r3$bnc$1@dont-
email.me:

loyd, How do you feel about mogulah's question,
"Just respond to safety issues of certain alternating current high vs
low voltage circuitry.

BFG
I _feel_ that he is (again) evading the direct question. And he cannot
provide citations, so now he's just 'winging it'.

Inane and insane diversions from the subject at hand are par-for-the-
course with ignorant people. We'll probably have to live with the fact
that he will eventually die with the fact.

LLoyd

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:54:05 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
amdx fired this volley in news:lre1r3$bnc$1@dont-
b.

email.me:

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

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

low voltage circuitry.

I _feel_ that he is (again) evading the direct question. And he cannot

provide citations, so now he's just 'winging it'.

Citations? Of all people, who the heck are *you* requiring anything?

Inane and insane diversions from the subject at hand are par-for-the-


course with ignorant people. We'll probably have to live with the fact

that he will eventually die with the fact.

Like what? Like your EE degree died? How the hell does anyone's college degree go away?

Do you have any idea how much it would cost a college or a university to revoke anybody's bachelor's degree?

I bet in reality you don't have ANY college degree and probably not even a High School Diploma.

(jon got it right on the money)

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.

fired this volley in
:

Like what? Like your EE degree died? How the hell does anyone's
college degree go away?

Like most fools, you understand only what you care about what people say,
not what they actually say.

Did I ever say I had a degree in Electrical Engineering? No. Did I say
I was an EE? Oh, yes. I was, for 30 years. And I can prove it.

There actually was a time in this country where skills and experience
mattered more than a piece of paper from a college. I studied electrical
engineering from the time I was a freshman in high school until two years
before I graduated college. I then switched to a Business Management
degree course, because - at the time - that's where the money was. And
then, I got a job as an EE WITH a management degree! And the money came!
G

But more importantly, if you had a single twitch of intelligence, you
could prove it, also. My name is out there on your magic 'web' attached
to a substantial career as an EE, and at least one popular electronic
invention, as well.

But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any
reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your
demons.

Lloyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in
. 3.70:

But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any
reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your
demons.

BTW... have you ever noticed that this "mogooolaaa" has the same stupid
newsreader software as your friend and mine, Jonnie Boi?

Have you ever noticed that they use the same vernacular, the same
phrases, and the same idiotic responses to everything?

If they're not the same person, then they're sleeping together.

LLoyd

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also
including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They
are all directly related and inseparable in this context.

How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?

(and the Rangers are only second after the LA Kings this past season - so they don't *suck*, either - so get it right bucko)

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:22:53 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in

. 3.70:



But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any

reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your

demons.



BTW... have you ever noticed that this "mogooolaaa" has the same stupid

newsreader software as your friend and mine, Jonnie Boi?




Have you ever noticed that they use the same vernacular, the same

phrases, and the same idiotic responses to everything?



If they're not the same person, then they're sleeping together.

Is that a closet invitation by YOU for me to join your clique that sleeps together, Lloyd?

(sorry, I have a girlfriend)

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

fired this volley in
:

Like what? Like your EE degree died? How the hell does anyone's
college degree go away?

Like most fools, you understand only what you care about what people say,
not what they actually say.

Did I ever say I had a degree in Electrical Engineering? No. Did I say
I was an EE? Oh, yes. I was, for 30 years. And I can prove it.

There actually was a time in this country where skills and experience
mattered more than a piece of paper from a college. I studied electrical
engineering from the time I was a freshman in high school until two years
before I graduated college. I then switched to a Business Management
degree course, because - at the time - that's where the money was. And
then, I got a job as an EE WITH a management degree! And the money came!
G

But more importantly, if you had a single twitch of intelligence, you
could prove it, also. My name is out there on your magic 'web' attached
to a substantial career as an EE, and at least one popular electronic
invention, as well.

But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any
reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your
demons.


Lloyd, These idiot's ship has sailed. It was the RMS Titanic. Some
of the best EEs I've worked with were self taught, because it was their
passion. More than one had a copy of the ARRL handbook on their office
shelves to remind them of their start. These idiots don't know that EE
is divided into power and electronics fields. They don't wire homes for
a living. That's what minimum wage 'Wire monkeys' are for. I read
everything I could get my hands on as a kid, and asked a lot of
questions. Many went unanswered, for years but I kept at it. They are
just upset that they are so clueless. The MIT EE courseware is
available on their website, but these knuckle draggers won't even look
at it.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:22:53 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in

. 3.70:



But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any

reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your

demons.



BTW... have you ever noticed that this "mogooolaaa" has the same stupid

newsreader software as your friend and mine, Jonnie Boi?




Have you ever noticed that they use the same vernacular, the same

phrases, and the same idiotic responses to everything?



If they're not the same person, then they're sleeping together.

Is that a closet invitation by YOU for me to join your clique that sleeps together, Lloyd?

(sorry, I have a girlfriend)


Sorry for her, and that you keep her chained in your basement.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:46:15 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
wrote:



On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:22:53 PM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in



. 3.70:







But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any



reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your



demons.







BTW... have you ever noticed that this "mogooolaaa" has the same stupid



newsreader software as your friend and mine, Jonnie Boi?









Have you ever noticed that they use the same vernacular, the same



phrases, and the same idiotic responses to everything?







If they're not the same person, then they're sleeping together.



Is that a closet invitation by YOU for me to join your clique that sleeps together, Lloyd?



(sorry, I have a girlfriend)





Sorry for her, and that you keep her chained in your basement.



--

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Terrells idea of a hot date is to try and convince someone to come over when it rains to show her his leaking roofs. For some reason he hasn't had a date in decades using this technique.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:22:53 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in

. 3.70:



But you're probably too wrapped up in yourself to ever bother to do any

reasearch outside the in-your-head conversations you have with your

demons.



BTW... have you ever noticed that this "mogooolaaa" has the same stupid

newsreader software as your friend and mine, Jonnie Boi?



Have you ever noticed that they use the same vernacular, the same

phrases, and the same idiotic responses to everything?



If they're not the same person, then they're sleeping together.



LLoyd

What I've noticed is how much Loud lies. Loud's lies are now starting to blow up in his face just like Mark Wieber's many, many lies have.

On 7/31/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also
including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They
are all directly related and inseparable in this context.




How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?


Very good question! The answer should lead to understanding.

A power supply or voltage source is modeled as a voltage source with
ZERO internal resistance (impedance) in series with some resistance.

I will pick numbers that I saw for Tasers to use in an example.
My example is not perfect, I hope I can explain why.
50,000 volts and 2 milliamps. In order for a 50,000 volt source to
only deliver 2 milliamps the internal resistance (impedance) has to be
2.5 million ohms.

What that means is, if you short the output pins, 2 milliamps will
flow from one to the other. But with a short on the output the voltage
between the pins will be 0 volts.

Now if we assumed the combined resistance happened to be 1,000 ohms
the voltage would rise to 1.9999 volts and 0.001999 milliamps would flow.
*the 1,000 ohms consists of the combination pin to skin resistance, the
resistance of the skin between the pins, and the another skin to pin
resistance.

If we assume 100,000* ohms between the two pins then the voltage
will increase to 199.2 volts with 0.001992 milliamps flowing.

If the combined resistance happened to be 1 million ohms
the voltage would rise to 1923 volts and 0.001923 milliamps would flow.

Where my example may fall short, I don't know how the measure to get
their specifications. I assumed 50,000 volts open circuit and 2
milliamps short circuit current.

As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when
the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to
2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.
Mikek

On 7/31/2014 2:15 PM, wrote:
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,



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.


I'm sorry if I hurt your feeling when I tried to correct your thinking.
Mikek

PS. I hope you understand.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:44:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also

including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They

are all directly related and inseparable in this context.









How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?





Very good question! The answer should lead to understanding.

No, Two or three people discussing impedance won't affect devices half way across the country.

(all I said was 'discuss' - you are so busy taking up for clique idiots, you can't even FOCUS on what's occurred with voltage related questions)

A power supply or voltage source is modeled as a voltage source with

ZERO internal resistance (impedance) in series with some resistance.



I will pick numbers that I saw for Tasers to use in an example.

My example is not perfect, I hope I can explain why.

50,000 volts and 2 milliamps. In order for a 50,000 volt source to

only deliver 2 milliamps the internal resistance (impedance) has to be

2.5 million ohms.



What that means is, if you short the output pins, 2 milliamps will

flow from one to the other. But with a short on the output the voltage

between the pins will be 0 volts.



Now if we assumed the combined resistance happened to be 1,000 ohms

the voltage would rise to 1.9999 volts and 0.001999 milliamps would flow.

*the 1,000 ohms consists of the combination pin to skin resistance, the

resistance of the skin between the pins, and the another skin to pin

resistance.



If we assume 100,000* ohms between the two pins then the voltage

will increase to 199.2 volts with 0.001992 milliamps flowing.



If the combined resistance happened to be 1 million ohms

the voltage would rise to 1923 volts and 0.001923 milliamps would flow.



Where my example may fall short, I don't know how the measure to get

their specifications. I assumed 50,000 volts open circuit and 2

milliamps short circuit current.



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:44:14 PM UTC, amdx wrote:



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

A good explanation ,but do not expect the idiots to agree. They are just having a good time arguing. They are not interested in facts.

Dan

On 7/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:44:14 PM UTC, amdx wrote:



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

A good explanation, but do not expect the idiots to agree. They are just having a good time arguing. They are not interested in facts.

Dan


Thanks.

I don't think he is an idiot, and I wondered many posts back if he was
just stringing me along as a joke. But in the end I think
there is a thought process that puts a block on his being able to
understand. He could just lack the basic understanding, but he has had
3 years of study as an apprentice and has some notice of ohms law.
I hope he isn't just cruising through his apprenticeship and not
gaining any knowledge.
Almost everyone will be glad to hear I'm done* making my argument.
It's been fun, now back to normal programming.

Mikek

* unless another egregious statement is made. :-)

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:44:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also

including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They

are all directly related and inseparable in this context.









How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?





Very good question! The answer should lead to understanding.



A power supply or voltage source is modeled as a voltage source with

ZERO internal resistance (impedance) in series with some resistance.



I will pick numbers that I saw for Tasers to use in an example.

My example is not perfect, I hope I can explain why.

50,000 volts and 2 milliamps. In order for a 50,000 volt source to

only deliver 2 milliamps the internal resistance (impedance) has to be

2.5 million ohms.



What that means is, if you short the output pins, 2 milliamps will

flow from one to the other. But with a short on the output the voltage

between the pins will be 0 volts.



Now if we assumed the combined resistance happened to be 1,000 ohms

the voltage would rise to 1.9999 volts and 0.001999 milliamps would flow.

*the 1,000 ohms consists of the combination pin to skin resistance, the

resistance of the skin between the pins, and the another skin to pin

resistance.



If we assume 100,000* ohms between the two pins then the voltage

will increase to 199.2 volts with 0.001992 milliamps flowing.



If the combined resistance happened to be 1 million ohms

the voltage would rise to 1923 volts and 0.001923 milliamps would flow.



Where my example may fall short, I don't know how the measure to get

their specifications. I assumed 50,000 volts open circuit and 2

milliamps short circuit current.



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

Oh CRAP. 50E3/2E-3 = 25E6 NOT 2.5E6. While the reasoning in your explanation is fine, a decimal place has been dropped. I didn't check the rest of it (left as an exercise for the reader).

But the point is the same: The stun gun CAN'T put out more than 2mA because of the generated voltage and the internal resistance (impedance if you prefer, but I'll bet most of it is resistance). If it was a lower voltage with the same resistance, the max current would be lower.

Anyone who wants to argue with that is simply not worth arguing.

On 7/31/2014 4:17 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:44:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also

including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They

are all directly related and inseparable in this context.









How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?





Very good question! The answer should lead to understanding.



A power supply or voltage source is modeled as a voltage source with

ZERO internal resistance (impedance) in series with some resistance.



I will pick numbers that I saw for Tasers to use in an example.

My example is not perfect, I hope I can explain why.

50,000 volts and 2 milliamps. In order for a 50,000 volt source to

only deliver 2 milliamps the internal resistance (impedance) has to be

2.5 million ohms.



What that means is, if you short the output pins, 2 milliamps will

flow from one to the other. But with a short on the output the voltage

between the pins will be 0 volts.



Now if we assumed the combined resistance happened to be 1,000 ohms

the voltage would rise to 1.9999 volts and 0.001999 milliamps would flow.

*the 1,000 ohms consists of the combination pin to skin resistance, the

resistance of the skin between the pins, and the another skin to pin

resistance.



If we assume 100,000* ohms between the two pins then the voltage

will increase to 199.2 volts with 0.001992 milliamps flowing.



If the combined resistance happened to be 1 million ohms

the voltage would rise to 1923 volts and 0.001923 milliamps would flow.



Where my example may fall short, I don't know how the measure to get

their specifications. I assumed 50,000 volts open circuit and 2

milliamps short circuit current.



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

Oh CRAP. 50E3/2E-3 = 25E6 NOT 2.5E6. While the reasoning in your explanation is fine, a decimal place has been dropped. I didn't check the rest of it (left as an exercise for the reader).

But the point is the same: The stun gun CAN'T put out more than 2mA because of the generated voltage and the internal resistance (impedance if you prefer, but I'll bet most of it is resistance). If it was a lower voltage with the same resistance, the max current would be lower.

Anyone who wants to argue with that is simply not worth arguing.

You are right, all my other numbers are correct, I used 25 million for
the calculations, just typed 2.5 million instead off 25 million.
Good catch.
Mikek

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:15:01 PM UTC, amdx wrote:



I don't think he is an idiot, and I wondered many posts back if he was

just stringing me along as a joke. But in the end I think

there is a thought process that puts a block on his being able to

understand. He could just lack the basic understanding, but he has had

3 years of study as an apprentice and has some notice of ohms law.


He is an idiot. He either knows about electricity and is trying to string you along, or he does not know about electricity and is an idiot for trying to argue about something that he does not understand.

Dan

amdx wrote:

You are right, all my other numbers are correct, I used 25 million for
the calculations, just typed 2.5 million instead off 25 million.
Good catch.
Mikek


Here is a short video on the construction of a Macintosh tube amplifier.
They show how they wind their transformers, and insert the laminations
at around the three minute point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2HgS6gvokEI#t=179


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:59:39 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
amdx wrote:



You are right, all my other numbers are correct, I used 25 million for

the calculations, just typed 2.5 million instead off 25 million.

Good catch.

Mikek





Here is a short video on the construction of a Macintosh tube amplifier.

They show how they wind their transformers, and insert the laminations

at around the three minute point.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2HgS6gvokEI#t=179





--

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Tube amps color the music and give it a warm sound. Sorry but I don't think the place of an amplifier is to color the music. An amplifier should be completely transparent.

On 7/31/2014 4:17 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:44:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/31/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:57:33 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



I don't know how you can discuss voltage and current without also

including impedance (resistance) in the same discussion. They

are all directly related and inseparable in this context.









How would discussing impedance in any way alter the specific high voltages advertised for the taser and stun-gun that I told Lloyd about as an example?





Very good question! The answer should lead to understanding.



A power supply or voltage source is modeled as a voltage source with

ZERO internal resistance (impedance) in series with some resistance.



I will pick numbers that I saw for Tasers to use in an example.

My example is not perfect, I hope I can explain why.

50,000 volts and 2 milliamps. In order for a 50,000 volt source to

only deliver 2 milliamps the internal resistance (impedance) has to be

2.5 million ohms.



What that means is, if you short the output pins, 2 milliamps will

flow from one to the other. But with a short on the output the voltage

between the pins will be 0 volts.



Now if we assumed the combined resistance happened to be 1,000 ohms

the voltage would rise to 1.9999 volts and 0.001999 milliamps would flow.

*the 1,000 ohms consists of the combination pin to skin resistance, the

resistance of the skin between the pins, and the another skin to pin

resistance.



If we assume 100,000* ohms between the two pins then the voltage

will increase to 199.2 volts with 0.001992 milliamps flowing.



If the combined resistance happened to be 1 million ohms

the voltage would rise to 1923 volts and 0.001923 milliamps would flow.



Where my example may fall short, I don't know how the measure to get

their specifications. I assumed 50,000 volts open circuit and 2

milliamps short circuit current.



As you may see from that, The output voltage is not 50,000 when

the pins are put against the skin. Also the current is limited to

2 milliamps or less because of the internal impedance of the stun gun.

Mikek

Oh CRAP. 50E3/2E-3 = 25E6 NOT 2.5E6. While the reasoning in your explanation is fine, a decimal place has been dropped. I didn't check the rest of it (left as an exercise for the reader).

But the point is the same: The stun gun CAN'T put out more than 2mA because of the generated voltage and the internal resistance (impedance if you prefer, but I'll bet most of it is resistance). If it was a lower voltage with the same resistance, the max current would be lower.

Anyone who wants to argue with that is simply not worth arguing.

Would you care to comment on the lethality of this DIY stun gun in
this video. When he connects it to the light bulb it lights, it is
possible the filament is open, but if you watch closely, it looks like
the filament is slow to warm and cool (relatively) not like an arc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM4oiJNGJs
I think it might be deadly. I don't think 4 ma will light that bulb.

Mike


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Friday, August 1, 2014 3:47:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

Would you care to comment on the lethality of this DIY stun gun in
this video. When he connects it to the light bulb it lights, it is
possible the filament is open, but if you watch closely, it looks like
the filament is slow to warm and cool (relatively) not like an arc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM4oiJNGJs
I think it might be deadly. I don't think 4 ma will light that bulb.

Mike
I also doubt 4mA would light that bulb. a 60W 120V bulb draws half an amp when fully lit, and a lot more than that when cold.

I imagine the deadliness would depend very much on where you made contact. You wouldn't for instance, want to hold one electrode in each hand.

For me, I'd just as soon not mess with it at all. At best, you'd get a nasty burn. I don't even care for the TENS machine at the physical therapist's office.

I'm reminded of a line (perhaps the only good one) from "War Games." The general said, "Hell, I'd **** on a spark plug if I thought it would help." OUCH!