Re: [HoE] A Burning Question

["Frank Janik" <FJ@onaustralia.com.au>]

>>An electrical attack should do less damage if your wearing metallic armor
>>because the current (the stuff that fries your insides) would mostly flow
>>through the less resistive path, which would be the armor. One visual
>>example of this is that if you are in a car and a power line falls on it,
>>you should be safe inside, unless of course the sparks ignite your petrol.


Allan wrote:
>However - the energy is still the same, and once it's distributed
>throughout the armor, it will then have to go somewhere - and unless the
>armor is designed to disperse electrons, it's going into the body.


What I was actually trying to say is that wearing metal armor should not
increase any electrical damage and in some situations may provide good
protection depending on if there is an altenate path for the current to flow
besides your body.

If you are wearing a long metal jacket and electricity hits you in the
chest, instead of the current flowing through your vital organs (roasting
them as it goes), most of it will take the less resistive path which would
probably be down the jacket into your knees and into the earth through your
boots. Your legs might be toast but your hearts still beating.

A practical example is if you stick one of those 9 volt batteries on your
tongue it gives your tongue a zap. But if you get some aluminium foil, say 4
layers thick, and stick that on your tongue and then stick the battery on
the foil, your tongue should not get zapped but it will feel the heat build
up in the foil. In this example even though you are in contact with the foil
you tongue doesn't get zapped. This is because the foil has less resistance
than your tongue and thus is the preferred route for the current (energy if
you like).


Frank Janik
FJ@onaustralia.com.au