Re: TC discharge... safe or not

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "Jolyon Vater Cox by way of Terry Fritz 
><twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jolyon-at-vatercox.freeserve.co.uk>

>Does it matter whether or not the TC output is a PURE RF or not?

         In my limited, low power experience:
                 Yes.
         Recommend not taking discharges anyway.

>What about a CW TC running off a well-smoothed DC supply?
         DC can kill, nicely.

         8)>>


>Is it possible that some of the sensation of electric shock

         The point is that IN ADDITION to the 'sensation of
         electric shock', there are, apparently, other biodamage
         effects.  Note that 'lightning survivors' at least
         in some cases report long term odd effects, many
         unpleasant.

>is due to corona rectification of an RF signal that is

>-in effect- amplitude-modulated by the mains supply; when the

>RF is rectified the audio signal is "de-modulated"
>and causes perceived shock -similar in a way to production
>of audible sound in the earpiece of a crystal radio?
         cf above: the risk is stray biological effects,

         rather than shock, as such.


>Is it possible that too much emphasis has been placed on the

>idea as an AC/RF device this has obscured the possibility

>that there is also a DC charge on the terminal -from corona

>rectification above- and this contributes to the sensation of

>shock from the TC discharge?
         cf above.


>What about diathermy?

         What about it?
         As usually used, this involves fields, rather than
         currents.

>I understand this uses solid connection to the patient

         My understanding differs.  Perhaps both are uses.
         Usual diathermy freqs are higher yet. (ca 13 and
         36 MHz?)


>(with no arcing) yet heavy current is used

         ...at lower voltage.  And some effects depend on
         voltage.... and. generally the currents go to
         coils, applied to the patient, external to the
         machine.

>far in excess of that needed to give fatal electric shock

>were it at mains frequencies- but it is at RF and the

>nerves do not respond to AC at high frequencies in the same

>way as they do to audio frequencies

         There are other deleterious effects than shock, effects
         the nerves ignore.

>-therefore perhaps we should discard the theory of "skin-effect"

>to explain lack of electrocution at elevated frequencies?

         Shock is but one effect.

         My understanding is that diathermy involves _fields_,
         from an external coil (or coils) applied to create
         localized rf heating.  (Some times the word 'electrode'
         is used in non obvious ways...)

         I note the following definition:


>>  Diathermy
>>Diathermy is another deep heat treatment.  An electrode drum is

>>used to apply heat to an affected area.  It consists of a wire

>>coil surrounded by dead space and other insulators such as a

>< plastic housing.

         [note:
                 "_coil_"
                         "_insulators_"]

>>Plenty of toweling must be layered between the unit and the patient.

         [dwp sez: Insulators again....]

>>This device is unique in that it utilizes the basis of

>>a magnetic field on connective tissues.  One advantage

>>of diathermy over various other heat treatments is that

>>fat does resist an electrical field, which is not the

>>case with a magnetic field.  It is found to be helpful

>>with those experiencing chronic low back pain and muscle

>>spasms.  Prior to ultrasound technology, diathermy was

>>a popular heat therapy of the 1940s-1960s.

         Another reference lists 400KHz as a lower limit for
         diathermy....

         best
         dwp

...the net of a million lies...
         Vernor Vinge
There are Many Web Sites which Say Many Things.
         -me