Human conduction to fry fish - hoax or not???
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Susan on April 18, 2005, 12:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options Hi, I was having this conversation with my friends the other day, he saw some guy on TV, he was touching some power source with 1 hand, and holding a fish on the other, and his feet were standing on ground (i.e. he's connected to ground). When they start the power source, the fish starts frying and he was OK (now this is not the part we're arguing about). So we started arguing, I was saying, since he's connected to ground through his feet, there should be minimal (if not none) current flow through his other hand that's holding the fish, since it's an open node, there is not return path, so there should be no current flow to that arm (i.e. I'm viewing the human body as a 5 way circuit, 4 limbs, and your head all connected together to a common node, your body, so 1 hand and the 2 legs form the complete path for current flow, and there should only be current flow in this path, as the other branches are not connected to a return path for the electrons to flow, now I know I'm making a lot of assumptions about the human body, and I'm assuming limbs work the same way as a copper wire, in that electrons can only flow 1 direction in it in any 1 time), hence I was arguing the fish should not be fried, there should be a charge build up on the fish, but since the fish is not connected to a return path, there should be no current through it. This made sense to me, but my friend did mention something that got me pondering as well, as we see on TV (urban legend or not, I don't know), when people get electrocuted, their hair is all buffed up, meaning there was current flow into their head (possibly via the veins? bloody is liquid, so it's conductive right?), but then, this would throw my theory off, hence, I'm here to look for an answer. Taking this further, so suppose someone grabs onto a floating power source (say a broken transmission line), as long as his feet (or any body part) are off the ground, he won't be electrocuted (much like the bird on a transmission line...not yet anyway, but as soon as he steps back onto ground, it'll get really interesting...speaking of which, how do the birds discharge themselves without getting electrocuted?), is this correct? Thanks, Keith | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Larry Brasfield on April 18, 2005, 2:39 pm
Please log in for more thread options > Hi,
Hi, Susan or Keith.
> I was having this conversation with my friends the other day, he saw
> some guy on TV, he was touching some power source with 1 hand, and > holding a fish on the other, and his feet were standing on ground > (i.e. he's connected to ground). When they start the power source, > the fish starts frying and he was OK (now this is not the part we're > arguing about). So we started arguing, I was saying, since he's > connected to ground through his feet, there should be minimal (if not > none) current flow through his other hand that's holding the fish, > since it's an open node, there is not return path, so there should be > no current flow to that arm That's right. Such a demonstration would have to be a hoax. > (i.e. I'm viewing the human body as a 5
> way circuit, 4 limbs, and your head all connected together to a common > node, your body, so 1 hand and the 2 legs form the complete path for > current flow, and there should only be current flow in this path, as > the other branches are not connected to a return path for the > electrons to flow, now I know I'm making a lot of assumptions about > the human body, and I'm assuming limbs work the same way as a copper > wire, in that electrons can only flow 1 direction in it in any 1 > time), That model is good enough for the present purpose. > hence I was arguing the fish should not be fried, there should
> be a charge build up on the fish, but since the fish is not connected > to a return path, there should be no current through it. This made > sense to me, but my friend did mention something that got me pondering > as well, as we see on TV (urban legend or not, I don't know), when > people get electrocuted, their hair is all buffed up, That is a requirement of Hollywood physics, not the physics that govern in the real world. Also, any electrical phenomenon must involve visible arcs curling all over the place in Hollywood physics. > meaning there
> was current flow into their head (possibly via the veins? bloody is > liquid, so it's conductive right?), but then, this would throw my > theory off, hence, I'm here to look for an answer. Stick with the physics you learned in school or textbooks and pay no attention to TV or movies. > Taking this further, so suppose someone grabs onto a floating power
> source (say a broken transmission line), as long as his feet (or any > body part) are off the ground, he won't be electrocuted (much like the > bird on a transmission line...not yet anyway, but as soon as he steps > back onto ground, it'll get really interesting...speaking of which, > how do the birds discharge themselves without getting electrocuted?), > is this correct? Roughly true. However, at high enough voltage, (which is lower as frequency increases), enough current can flow capacitively to be dangerous. The best rule is: Stay away from high voltage lines. > Thanks,
> Keith You're welcome. -- --Larry Brasfield email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com Above views may belong only to me. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on April 18, 2005, 3:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Larry Brasfield wrote: > > Hi,
> Hi, Susan or Keith.
> I'm using my girlfriend's account, so this is Keith, not Susuan. > > I was having this conversation with my friends the other day, he
saw
> > some guy on TV, he was touching some power source with 1 hand, and
we're
> > holding a fish on the other, and his feet were standing on ground > > (i.e. he's connected to ground). When they start the power source, > > the fish starts frying and he was OK (now this is not the part > > arguing about). So we started arguing, I was saying, since he's
not
> > connected to ground through his feet, there should be minimal (if > > none) current flow through his other hand that's holding the fish,
be
> > since it's an open node, there is not return path, so there should > > no current flow to that arm
>
> That's right. Such a demonstration would > have to be a hoax. > > > (i.e. I'm viewing the human body as a 5
common
> > way circuit, 4 limbs, and your head all connected together to a > > node, your body, so 1 hand and the 2 legs form the complete path
for
> > current flow, and there should only be current flow in this path,
as
> > the other branches are not connected to a return path for the
copper
> > electrons to flow, now I know I'm making a lot of assumptions about > > the human body, and I'm assuming limbs work the same way as a > > wire, in that electrons can only flow 1 direction in it in any 1
> > time), >
> That model is good enough for the present purpose. > So does this mean that under normal (real) circumstances, the person will get electrocuted and the fish will remain untouched? If so, does that mean whenever a person gets electrocuted, whichever body parts are not connected to the ground or not part of the path to ground, they will remain unelectrocuted? > > hence I was arguing the fish should not be fried, there should
connected
> > be a charge build up on the fish, but since the fish is not > > to a return path, there should be no current through it. This made
pondering
> > sense to me, but my friend did mention something that got me > > as well, as we see on TV (urban legend or not, I don't know), when
> > people get electrocuted, their hair is all buffed up, >
> That is a requirement of Hollywood physics, not > the physics that govern in the real world. Also, > any electrical phenomenon must involve visible arcs > curling all over the place in Hollywood physics. > > > meaning there
> > was current flow into their head (possibly via the veins? bloody is > > liquid, so it's conductive right?), but then, this would throw my > > theory off, hence, I'm here to look for an answer. >
> Stick with the physics you learned in school or > textbooks and pay no attention to TV or movies. > > > Taking this further, so suppose someone grabs onto a floating power
any
> > source (say a broken transmission line), as long as his feet (or > > body part) are off the ground, he won't be electrocuted (much like
the
> > bird on a transmission line...not yet anyway, but as soon as he
steps
> > back onto ground, it'll get really interesting...speaking of which,
electrocuted?),
> > how do the birds discharge themselves without getting > > is this correct?
>
> Roughly true. However, at high enough voltage, > (which is lower as frequency increases), enough > current can flow capacitively to be dangerous. > The best rule is: Stay away from high voltage lines. > So how does the bird discharge themselves after leaving the transmission to avoid getting electrocuted? Or do they? > > Thanks,
> > Keith >
> You're welcome. > Thanks again, I'm gladly my knowledge acquired through my electronics classes are not failing me. > --
> --Larry Brasfield > email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com > Above views may belong only to me. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Larry Brasfield on April 18, 2005, 3:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Larry Brasfield wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> Hi, Susan or Keith.
>> >
> I'm using my girlfriend's account, so this is Keith, not Susuan. Hi, Keith. >> > I was having this conversation with my friends the other day, he saw
>> > some guy on TV, he was touching some power source with 1 hand, and >> > holding a fish on the other, and his feet were standing on ground >> > (i.e. he's connected to ground). When they start the power source, >> > the fish starts frying and he was OK (now this is not the part we're >> > arguing about). So we started arguing, I was saying, since he's >> > connected to ground through his feet, there should be minimal (if not >> > none) current flow through his other hand that's holding the fish, >> > since it's an open node, there is not return path, so there should be >> > no current flow to that arm >>
>> That's right. Such a demonstration would >> have to be a hoax. >> >> > (i.e. I'm viewing the human body as a 5
>> > way circuit, 4 limbs, and your head all connected together to a common >> > node, your body, so 1 hand and the 2 legs form the complete path for >> > current flow, and there should only be current flow in this path, as >> > the other branches are not connected to a return path for the >> > electrons to flow, now I know I'm making a lot of assumptions about >> > the human body, and I'm assuming limbs work the same way as a copper >> > wire, in that electrons can only flow 1 direction in it in any 1 >> > time), >>
>> That model is good enough for the present purpose. >> >
> So does this mean that under normal (real) circumstances, the person > will get electrocuted and the fish will remain untouched? If the power source had enough voltage relative to earth, and the victim had conductive enough shoes and stood on conductive earth, then I would expect the victim to get a very bad electrical shock. And if it killed him, he could be said to have been electrocuted. > If so, does
> that mean whenever a person gets electrocuted, whichever body parts are > not connected to the ground or not part of the path to ground, they > will remain unelectrocuted? Electrocution applies to the whole organism. (It either lives or dies.) But current sufficient to cook flesh or disrupt heart or nervous system activity, at line frequencies, pretty much has to flow through ohmically connected circuits. So the person in the hoax was not prone to having his fish-holding arm shocked. >> > hence I was arguing the fish should not be fried, there should
>> > be a charge build up on the fish, but since the fish is not connected >> > to a return path, there should be no current through it. This made >> > sense to me, but my friend did mention something that got me pondering >> > as well, as we see on TV (urban legend or not, I don't know), when >> > people get electrocuted, their hair is all buffed up, >>
>> That is a requirement of Hollywood physics, not >> the physics that govern in the real world. Also, >> any electrical phenomenon must involve visible arcs >> curling all over the place in Hollywood physics. >> >> > meaning there
>> > was current flow into their head (possibly via the veins? bloody is >> > liquid, so it's conductive right?), but then, this would throw my >> > theory off, hence, I'm here to look for an answer. >>
>> Stick with the physics you learned in school or >> textbooks and pay no attention to TV or movies. >> >> > Taking this further, so suppose someone grabs onto a floating power
>> > source (say a broken transmission line), as long as his feet (or any >> > body part) are off the ground, he won't be electrocuted (much like the >> > bird on a transmission line...not yet anyway, but as soon as he steps >> > back onto ground, it'll get really interesting...speaking of which, >> > how do the birds discharge themselves without getting electrocuted?), >> > is this correct? >>
>> Roughly true. However, at high enough voltage, >> (which is lower as frequency increases), enough >> current can flow capacitively to be dangerous. >> The best rule is: Stay away from high voltage lines. >> >
> So how does the bird discharge themselves after leaving the > transmission to avoid getting electrocuted? Or do they? Birds that live when landing on power lines do not complete a circuit. Their feet are shunted by a fat piece of copper so little voltage appears between their feet. And little current flows through their legs. What little capacitively conducted charge they may have, if they depart the line not at a voltage zero crossing, is small compared to the what you have likely experienced when you shuffle across a nylon carpet in your rubber shoes and touch a grounded object. I've seen the remnants of a crow that landed in the wrong place on a power pole transformer. That bird did not avoid getting electrocuted. ... > Thanks again, I'm gladly my knowledge acquired through my electronics
> classes are not failing me. There is not a lot of foolishness in the hard sciences. -- --Larry Brasfield email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com Above views may belong only to me. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on April 18, 2005, 4:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Larry Brasfield wrote: > > Larry Brasfield wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> Hi, Susan or Keith. > >> > >
> > I'm using my girlfriend's account, so this is Keith, not Susuan. >
> Hi, Keith. > > >> > I was having this conversation with my friends the other day, he
saw
> >> > some guy on TV, he was touching some power source with 1 hand,
and
> >> > holding a fish on the other, and his feet were standing on
ground
> >> > (i.e. he's connected to ground). When they start the power
source,
> >> > the fish starts frying and he was OK (now this is not the part
we're
> >> > arguing about). So we started arguing, I was saying, since he's
(if not
> >> > connected to ground through his feet, there should be minimal > >> > none) current flow through his other hand that's holding the
fish,
> >> > since it's an open node, there is not return path, so there
should be
> >> > no current flow to that arm
common
> >> > >> That's right. Such a demonstration would > >> have to be a hoax. > >> > >> > (i.e. I'm viewing the human body as a 5 > >> > way circuit, 4 limbs, and your head all connected together to a > >> > node, your body, so 1 hand and the 2 legs form the complete path
for
> >> > current flow, and there should only be current flow in this
path, as
> >> > the other branches are not connected to a return path for the
about
> >> > electrons to flow, now I know I'm making a lot of assumptions > >> > the human body, and I'm assuming limbs work the same way as a
copper
> >> > wire, in that electrons can only flow 1 direction in it in any 1
> >> > time), > >> > >> That model is good enough for the present purpose. > >> > >
person
> > So does this mean that under normal (real) circumstances, the > > will get electrocuted and the fish will remain untouched?
>
> If the power source had enough voltage relative to earth, > and the victim had conductive enough shoes and stood on > conductive earth, then I would expect the victim to get a > very bad electrical shock. And if it killed him, he could > be said to have been electrocuted. > > > If so, does
are
> > that mean whenever a person gets electrocuted, whichever body parts > > not connected to the ground or not part of the path to ground, they
> > will remain unelectrocuted? >
> Electrocution applies to the whole organism. (It > either lives or dies.) But current sufficient to cook > flesh or disrupt heart or nervous system activity, at > line frequencies, pretty much has to flow through > ohmically connected circuits. So the person in the > hoax was not prone to having his fish-holding arm > shocked. > > >> > hence I was arguing the fish should not be fried, there should
connected
> >> > be a charge build up on the fish, but since the fish is not > >> > to a return path, there should be no current through it. This
made
> >> > sense to me, but my friend did mention something that got me
pondering
> >> > as well, as we see on TV (urban legend or not, I don't know),
when
> >> > people get electrocuted, their hair is all buffed up,
is
> >> > >> That is a requirement of Hollywood physics, not > >> the physics that govern in the real world. Also, > >> any electrical phenomenon must involve visible arcs > >> curling all over the place in Hollywood physics. > >> > >> > meaning there > >> > was current flow into their head (possibly via the veins? bloody > >> > liquid, so it's conductive right?), but then, this would throw
my
> >> > theory off, hence, I'm here to look for an answer.
power
> >> > >> Stick with the physics you learned in school or > >> textbooks and pay no attention to TV or movies. > >> > >> > Taking this further, so suppose someone grabs onto a floating > >> > source (say a broken transmission line), as long as his feet (or
any
> >> > body part) are off the ground, he won't be electrocuted (much
like the
> >> > bird on a transmission line...not yet anyway, but as soon as he
steps
> >> > back onto ground, it'll get really interesting...speaking of
which,
> >> > how do the birds discharge themselves without getting
electrocuted?),
> >> > is this correct?
> >> > >> Roughly true. However, at high enough voltage, > >> (which is lower as frequency increases), enough > >> current can flow capacitively to be dangerous. > >> The best rule is: Stay away from high voltage lines. > >> > >
> > So how does the bird discharge themselves after leaving the > > transmission to avoid getting electrocuted? Or do they? >
> Birds that live when landing on power lines do not > complete a circuit. Their feet are shunted by a fat > piece of copper so little voltage appears between > their feet. And little current flows through their legs. > What little capacitively conducted charge they may > have, if they depart the line not at a voltage zero > crossing, is small compared to the what you have > likely experienced when you shuffle across a nylon > carpet in your rubber shoes and touch a grounded > object. > Finaly question, I heard of this exploding squirrel story, about a squirrel running on a transmission line, accumulating charges along the way and when it stepped off the transmission line (to something that was grounded, ie, a wall or something), it exploded because of electrical shock and it brought down an the transmissione line. Now I don't know if that was just another urban legend, but if it was indeed true, how could the squirrel avoid such an explosion? > I've seen the remnants of a crow that landed in the
> wrong place on a power pole transformer. That > bird did not avoid getting electrocuted. > > ... > > Thanks again, I'm gladly my knowledge acquired through my
electronics
> > classes are not failing me.
>
> There is not a lot of foolishness in the hard sciences. > > -- > --Larry Brasfield > email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@hotmail.com > Above views may belong only to me. | ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Human conduction to fry fish - hoax or not??? | April 18, 2005, 12:38 pm |
| Conduction Angle | June 20, 2006, 4:35 pm |
| Fish Caps | January 2, 2005, 4:10 pm |
| Re: Uses of The 4th Dimension (New Discovery by The Human Race!) | February 3, 2006, 11:16 am |
| How to Express yourself to Video Cameras an not the Human Eye. | February 25, 2008, 6:26 pm |
| Human Electrocution: How is the resistance not ridiculously high? | April 3, 2008, 12:05 pm |
| Antena that can sense thermal Radiation from human body | March 17, 2007, 11:34 pm |
| Human body providing a through circuit for elctrical current flow. | April 2, 2008, 4:47 am |
| 60th Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Time to Deliver | December 9, 2008, 12:56 pm |
| Re: Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite MIDI synth. F--k Sample-playback synths. Sample-playback MIDI stinks like human kakaa. | January 22, 2007, 6:11 am |