4 ms·
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or burn expert of any sort. I am an extra class ham. An RF burn will penetrate more deeply than a "conventional" burn of similar
by topspin 11y ago
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or burn expert of any sort. I am an extra class ham. An RF burn will penetrate more deeply than a "conventional" burn of similar degree, possibly burning nerve cells, circulatory and other structures that an external burn would not. RF burns typically heal very slowly.
I can't compare RF burns to burns caused by electrical current, except to say that electrical current will follow some path of least resistance while RF energy will heat flesh in a pattern corresponding to the field of the radiator and the impedance of the whatever matter absorbs it, so these types of burns will have different patterns.
- tyingq 11y agoAlso, RF energy is more damaging to tissues that lack blood flow to control heat. Like eyeballs, and testicles.
- Florin_Andrei 11y agoRight, but for that to happen you'd have to stick your... uh... various balls directly into the path of the RF field. Like at the business end of a big RF horn antenna.
- cocoablazing 11y agoThe skin effect should result in a high-frequency AC current propagating at lower tissue depths than a lower-frequency AC current. Why would RF AC propagating in flesh not follow this general rule?
- topspin 11y agoWe're getting beyond my depth here, but a few things occur to me. First, I know microwaves `work'; the optimal frequency at which water exhibits the skin effect is about 10GHz, so at 2.45GHz the energy from a microwave oven penetrates meat effectively instead of only frying the surface, as one would expect if the skin effect dominated. Also, I suspect the skin effect could actually cause internal burns; an internal organ that exhibits a strong skin effect at some frequency will cause localized heating on its surface, burning tissue internally.