My physiological answer to "Why do 0.02A fuses not protect a person? Why no protection from shocks?" is raising new questions. So is there any method to protect developer from lethal frequencies?


closed as not a real question by Chris Stratton, Leon Heller, Andy aka, user17592, placeholder Apr 22 '13 at 21:23

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've done a bunch of electrical safety lectures from the biomedical point of view, and have never heard of lethal frequencies. Yes, there are periods in the cardiac cycle that are more susceptible to problems from electric shock, but this has little to do w/ frequency. There is a pain/frequency graph that shows 50-60 Hz is the most painful, most damaging frequency, but it's not magically super-lethal. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Apr 22 '13 at 20:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What is your question; is it anything to do with lethal frequencies being in the frequency range of 2.45GHz? Why is this question linked with a question about 20mA fuses? Why then do also draw-in "shocks". This question is not a real question and I vote to close it. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Apr 22 '13 at 20:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ScottSeidman well it is odd. This point was raised in a nationawide medical examination audited by many medical professionals: AC of specific frequency -- not being super high voltage and not being super high current -- can kill (do physical damage) if it able to go well against the HR (move in a way that is not normal to hearth). Then again a very high frequency that just stops hearth may be much less lethal. I am very skeptical whether there is any way to protect for this because it depends on so many factors, anyway moved here because asked. \$\endgroup\$ – hhh Apr 22 '13 at 20:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka stop trolling like here, particularly if you don't understand the topic. It is fine if appropriate arguments but you haven't clearly read my writing in the other question or understood the physiological aspect here. \$\endgroup\$ – hhh Apr 22 '13 at 20:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Happy to look into it if you can provide a citation. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Apr 22 '13 at 20:25

A specific way to do this would be to capacitively couple the circuit, so that only high frequencies could pass. As far as I understand it, the concern is about accidentally building an "anti-defibrilator" which interferes with heart operation?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A defibrillator MAXIMALLY interferes with normal heart rhythms by attempting to contract the whole heart at one time. The physiology is a bit complex. After a muscle fiber contracts, it is unable to contract again for a little while. In a normal heart, the way the heartbeat passes through the heart, it should stop at heart fibers that have already contracted. If the wave slows or goes in a curvy path, this doesn't work, the hearbeat passes on in an efficient pattern, no longer generating pumping, but quivering. Defib makes the heart unable to contract for a while, hopefully fixing things. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Apr 22 '13 at 20:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.