Re: Getting electrocuted in bathtub

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I never said they were not. I said they were wrong on this.

Do you ever actually read what people post before typing? I didn't comment on what you thought about the credibility of Myth Busters. I commented on you not providing anything about what you think they did that was wrong, incorrect, etc. with their bathtub electrocution analysis. And that question obviously remains.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You already stated that you have not seen the piece.

You do not even warrant a response.

Just like the California overnor's response to Trump on 'forest fires' and climate change.

It's precisely because I haven't seen that episode of Myth Busters that I asked. I'll wager that no one else here saw it either. And the fact that you can't tell us what you claim was wrong with what they did, speaks for itself. Are you as sure about that as you were about defibrillators using 30ma? You were only off by three orders of magnitude on that one.

Wrong, always wrong. And unable to support what you claim.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:4b10aa91-dfb3-4789- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are an idiot. A for "wagering" and B because anyone here that watched the series would have seen it, and YOU have ZERO clue as to 'the mix' present here. You have not been in the group long enough. It is a stupid assertion on your part. Nice try though. Real simple. Go watch it, dipshit.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are the dumbfuck who said "can't".

You and your retarded statement speaks for nothing other than the fact that you are full of s*it.

The amount that makes it through the heart, idiot.

Much of the current pathway is through the body mass, and getting the amount needed across the heart itself requires a huge amount be passed through the entire body.

You are out of your class, child.

No, I was not.

I made no claim. They made a claim, and all I did was state that it was not a correct experiment.

Then you started your little bitching barking chihuahua routine, as usual. You are as predictable as Trump is.

You cannot make any debate whatsoever UNLESS you view the piece. Otherwise, f*ck off.

Well, so far you can't. I just asked a simple question, as to what you claim you saw on Myth Busters that was wrong. And here you are all hot and bothered as usual. Normal people would just answer the question.

ROFL.

Sure, try to change what you said and we all saw.

Yes you were. Defibrillators don't use 30MA, they use three orders of magnitude more current.

You're unable to support why what MB did was wrong, stupid. You claimed it was wrong. I simply asked why. Geez, you really do need help.

I did see the Myth Busters piece. What do you think was wrong about it and why?

On 2019-11-08 19:27, Whoey Louie wrote: [Snip!]

Seriously, 30 PA? Wow!

Jeroen Belleman

last time i was shocked for fibrillation was 150 Joules. When I woke up, I had on front and back a 4 inch by 4 inch electrode rash on my torso. That was certainly more than 34 milliamp.......

Don;t hold your breath for an answer. I asked that and got the usual angry, vile response and no answer. No surprise there.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

They modeled it wrong, and did not (propeperly) capture the way the current distribution weighs in.

I don't recall the details. Did they use Buster? Or a more appropriate mannequin?

they used a form made of ballistic jelly with added electrolytes. not haing any gross structure (like lungs or blood vessels) there was likely less current concentration than there would be IRL.

e mannequin?

Uhh, I wouldn't bet my life on that by trying...Pure water is a lousy conductor, but, most people's water has minerals in it; which makes a pretty good conductor. Doesn't matter if your house is using plastic pipes, at some point, that water supply is going back to a metal line which is going to provide a nice path to ground. If you're in the tub, you're in the way, part of the circuit, not good to be you.

It's not just voltage, it's amperage. It's got kick behind it too.

That's not necessarily true...

Diesel wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@t77x7AkL7.FbFosET2wF3v4w9z7iKzgi4G03HI9mL2a hBdF99av:

Uhh... You a basic electronics guy, eh?

We do not need a primer on water conductivity in an electronics newsgroup. Pretty much common sense around here. The question was about a tub. We ALL already know that it is assumed that the water conducts. There is very little pure water around to fill bathtubs with.

The tub of water is NOT connected to "the water supply" once the tub is filled. You have logic flaws in your argument.

OK, so I thought you were a basic electronics guy, but you even fail on that.

You have to get the current path logic right, before you can start arguing about folks being part of a circuit. Your argument is flawed.

Diesel wrote in news:XnsAB021D591D922HT1 @t77x7AkL7.Fb1FosET2wF3v4w9z7iKzgi4G03HI9mL2ahBdF99av:

You ain't real bright. If it builds enough to reach the ground due to having the voltage to breach the gap, the ensuing connection will have high current for the moment of the event. Current does not flow at all until the event, so it is voltage that is required to do the job. The current is just the result of the job being done.

So, it is JUST THE VOLTAGE.

Bullshit. A bread bag has the strength to withstand household voltages. Period. PVC has even greater withstand capacity. So you also do not know much about polymers, films, or dielectric strength either.