Re: Safe parameters for stupid human Tesla coil stunts

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Hydrogen18" <hydrogen18@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>From what I understand Transtrom died when the corona from his fingers hit a
curtain rod and bam too much current I guess. Since relatively small
currents are deadly, how can I hold a metal rod in my hand and draw arcs off
my SSTC without instant death? I discovered it on accident while playing
with inducing currents into nearby objects.

Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Safe parameters for stupid human Tesla coil stunts


> Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At 12:21 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
> >Original poster: "Owen Lawrence" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > >       I see these pictures of people with thimbles on all fingers,
> > > radiating sparks.  What would you consider to be safe parameters for
> > > performing stunts like this?  Minimum secondary frequency, maximum
primary
> > > transformer current/voltage, stuff like that.  Thanks.
> > >
> > >   - Owen -
>
> Hmmm... "safe" is somewhat of a subjective term.
>
> 1) Big risk: typical tesla coils work at frequencies where your nerves
> don't respond to the shocks, so you don't feel the damage as it
> occurs.  You'll feel it later with the RF burn
>
> 2) Big risk: Skin effect is bogus, as far as tesla coil frequencies go.
The
> "skin depth" is on the order of feet.  Nope, that RF power is going right
> through your body.
>
> 3) Big risk: Startle effects can cause you to fall off and spear yourself
> on some component (or break your leg, etc.), touch something you
shouldn't,
> etc.
>
> 4) Big risk: using a conductive suit/thimbles/ground wires can mitigate
> "some" of the risks, but without a lot of experience, it's hard to know
> just how well it's mitigated.
>
> The risks don't come from exceeding some predetermined set of specs
> (frequency, voltage, etc.), but from a lack of thorough understanding of
> what's going on and what to expect.
>
> Let's compare to rock climbing.  You can fall from 4 feet and be seriously
> injured or killed.  You can climb thousands of feet and not be hurt.  What
> makes rock climbing safe (or not) is a matter of understanding what's
going
> on (training and experience), use of the right equipment, and some good
> luck.  You've got to have both the understanding AND the
> equipment.  Likewise with a tesla coil. You've got to have the equipment
> (chain mail suits, thimbles, etc.) and the understanding to know when it's
> safe(r).
>
> So.. to return to your original questions:
>
> A tiny tesla coil can kill or injure (in surprising ways!). It's not the
> size or operating characteristics of the coil that make it safe, but how
> the stunt is done.  And, like all stunts, there's an element of
probability
> in it.  The real safety is in the backup measures (or a careful
> consideration of what will happen, and mitigation) when something doesn't
> work quite right.
>
> Compare to seat belts in cars.  Wearing a seat belt doesn't directly
affect
> the task of driving the car (or riding in it). People drive every day
> without their seat belt on. Is it unsafe? Sure. But accidents are
> relatively rare, so you can do it for a long time without you personally
> being hurt.  You can't really evaluate the efficacy of seat belt wearing
> based on personal experience, until you've been in a situation where the
> seat belt did some good (or not).
>
> Risk and safety is also a very, very subjective evaluation.  People will
> voluntarily assume remarkable risks, for some perceived benefit that makes
> it "worthwhile".  This analysis cannot really be approached from a
> "risk/benefit analysis" standpoint.  Say you ride horses and jump fences.
> (or, jump out of airplanes at high altitudes) This is a fundamentally
> dangerous activity.  However, you might derive sufficient satisfaction
from
> doing it that you decide it's "safe enough", especially if you are single
> and don't have anybody depending on you.  In fact, the excitement and
> prospect of "cheating death" makes it more attractive.  However, a person
> who is married with small children might evaluate that risk in an entirely
> different way (even though they may actually be a better/safer rider or
> parachutist, by virtue of increased experience).
>
> A professional stunt performer (i.e. Ms. Stampe) makes those tradeoffs
> every day.  They willingly assume some amount of additional hazard in
> exchange for fame and fortune (although precious little of each, when it
> comes right down to it..).  A lot of stunt performers also do it for the
> thrill and not so much for the money and reputation: I'd say that is
> particularly true among the early-20's group.  There are a lot of
> inherently dangerous professions (chemical/oil industry worker is one,
> racehorse jockey is another), but in all cases, it's a PROFESSION...
> there's an implication that you want to continue doing it for a while,
that
> there's some rationality in how the job is done, and that there's some
> aspect of training and knowlege that goes into it.  The professional
> expects to do it and survive to do it again.
>
> This is why you hear that professionals despise the amateur.  Why?
Because
> an incredibly foolish or stupid amateur can always be found to do
something
> incredibly dangerous.  The amateur is going to do it once or twice, and
> even hideously dangerous things might have a reasonably low probability of
> "going wrong".  If the odds of dying are 5%, the amateur can probably get
> away with doing it a few times without dying.  To paraphrase P.T.Barnum,
if
> you're a producer, and you've got something the pros won't touch, you can
> probably find an amateur who will do it for free.
>
>
>
>