2 ms·
I'm still trying to understand if you're saying AC itself has a greater shock risk, or if you're merely commenting on peak vs RMS. For safety terms I personally
by mindslight 1y ago
I'm still trying to understand if you're saying AC itself has a greater shock risk, or if you're merely commenting on peak vs RMS. For safety terms I personally think of AC voltages as their peak voltage, because I consider it a bit ridiculous to model myself as a resistive load being heated - meaning I consider my house wiring here in the US as being 170V. And I would consider (a stiff source of) 170V DC more dangerous in all respects, but perhaps I am wrong?
- sagarm 1y agoIIUC AC current causes your muscles to twitch. This means that can cause you to be unable to let go of e.g. a live wire, fall off a ladder, or disrupt your heartbeat.
- kragen 1y agoDC can do that too.
- kragen 1y agoYou may be right that the higher peaks are the reason sinewave 120Vac RMS is a heftier shock risk. Or it might also be the fact of being AC, in the sense that a square wave inverter output with 120V peak and RMS voltage maybe is more dangerous than 120Vdc. I don't know if it is or not. I could make up reasons that it might be, like maybe it's harder for neurons to adapt to, or maybe electrolyte depletion near the electrodes increases the body's resistance, but I don't have any evidence. There really are some shock risks that result from your body being heated as a resistive load, like internal burns, but those are not at the top of the list, especially at only 120Vac.