On Nov 18, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Keith Dutson wrote:
> Something seems wrong with this picture.
>
> When I think of RF burns I am reminded of that time back in early 60's
> when
> I was on the flight line at George AFB working on an F106 radar
> system. I
> temporarily had brain fade and touched the anode lead of the thyratron
> while
> radar was on. Two things happened: 1) I was thrown about 6 feet away
> from
> the set; 2) There was a small black hole in my fingertip all the way
> to the
> bone.
Congrats on surviving the refresher course, Keith.
>
> 73, Keith NM5G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com]
> On
> Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:53 AM
> To: amps@contesting.com
> Subject: [Amps] Ultimate safety for house wiring
>
> You have all indulged me regarding my quest for the safest way to do
> 120/240
> volt wiring and I appreciate that.
>
> Looking ahead to the distant future, here is something I would like
> everyone, including the NEC, to consider: Shockproof houses.
>
> It is well known that the human nervous system does not sense an
> electric
> shock if the frequency is high enough. Most of us have received "RF
> burns"
> at some time in our ham careers and perhaps most of us have marveled
> at the
> fact that even though it burns the flesh, it does not shock at all. The
> implications for eliminating death by electrocution are obvious.
>
> The technology already exists for houses to be wired with relatively
> high
> frequency electricity. While the national electric grid should remain
> at a
> low for reasons of efficiency, there is no reason, other than cost, why
> houses should use such a dangerous frequency. Given mass production, a
> solid
> state frequency converter could be built into every house to change the
> 50/60 Hz source to a frequency not dangerous to humans. Perhaps
> something
> around 1 kHz would do, or even higher. Research would have to be done
> to
> find the optimum.
>
> In addition to the shockproofing, other advantages exist too. For one,
> transformers in equipment could be made tiny by comparison to 50/60 Hz
> versions, saving money, raw materials and reducing size and weight.
> The need
> for a "safety ground" would be eliminated, although a ground might
> still be
> needed to prevent RF burns, depending on the equipment, but it would no
> longer be a safety issue. Even this could be handled by going back to
> the
> two-wire polarized plug where one conductor is grounded. If that plug
> were
> miswired, it would be only an annoyance, not a hazard, and easily
> corrected.
>
> I realize there would be lots of opposition to this new system, mostly
> on
> cost factors, but think of a house where nobody would ever be
> electrocuted.
> I believe someday it will come to be.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|