Diffuse Electron Donation by Heliopatch versus Directed Electrical Flow
Diffuse Electron: People often find electricity frightening, and there's a good reason for it. We tend to remember dramatic, lethal outcomes related to technology. In chemistry and physics teaching, instructors often highlight examples with grim consequences to grab attention.
Discussing safety thresholds and figuring out when a phenomenon becomes lethal is less common. Defining these thresholds is challenging, given variations among individuals due to factors like physical condition, existing health issues, and genetic susceptibilities. While animal tests are commonly used to evaluate harm and lethality, extrapolating these findings to humans, especially in electricity-related cases, is tricky. Larger bodies diffuse the current, making safety thresholds less clear-cut.
People often avoid discussing safety thresholds, as these examples are meant to discourage experimentation. Such 'Tales of Safety' serve a similar purpose as Grimm fairy tales, discouraging unauthorized exploration.
Recognizing electrical hazards involves specific indicators. Technicians use grounding straps on their dominant hand to create a direct path for electricity to exit the body. Adopting a 'chopstick' style with multiple tools in the dominant hand reduces potential risks. This is crucial in preventing the flow of electricity through the heart when both hands are in use, especially when distinguishing electrical flow from an electrical service to the ground. For instance, during cardiac arrest, defibrillator paddles are positioned on each side of the chest to ensure the current flows through the heart. In open chest surgery, paddles applied to either side of the heart provide defibrillation, offering minimal or no benefit when placed ipsilaterally without the heart in the middle.
Many negative effects of electricity stem from alternating current (AC) versus direct current (DC). AC has a tendency to constrict muscles and paralyze the person in contact, whereas DC has more predictable effects, causing the person to recoil and release the power source. DC is considered safer.
The quote, 'It isn’t the volts that kill you, it’s the amps,' holds true, especially in examples like the static discharge when touching a finger to a grounded object. A video illustrating this point can be found here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xONZcBJh5A
Voltage, as per the equation V/R=I, correlates with the potential for harm. Typical values causing an annoying tingle range from 30V to 50V, where the shock becomes painful. Above this, there's real danger, especially for those with pre-existing heart conditions. Establishing cause and effect for electrical flow stimulating the heart and causing a heart attack is challenging. Coincidence, pre-existing conditions, and misinterpretation of symptoms complicate the scenario. An electric shock may prompt individuals to seek medical attention, leading to proper diagnosis and treatment, uncovering underlying heart issues.
When comparing diffuse electron donation to the impact of electricity, static charge serves as a useful example. Despite reaching high amps and several thousand volts, static charge doesn't follow a directed flow. Electrons are stored capacitatively throughout the body, diffusely spread and concentrated only when flowing through the finger touching a grounded object. While this makes the effect painful, it's not lethal. Additionally, the amps drop dramatically upon discharge, providing a one-time, non-continuous event until the charge builds up again.
The electron flow in a Heliopatch is diffuse, opposite to the spark's direction—into the body instead of out. This diffuse flow avoids channeling through the heart. If placed on an open wound or exposed nerve ending, the electron flow is concentrated, causing localized pain due to direct stimulation of the neuron. While painful, this stimulation is unlikely to be lethal or cause lasting harm. Diffuse electron flow is inherently safer than a directed flow from point A to point B with the heart in between.
The maximum voltage from a Heliopatch is calculated to be 4.75V when magnesium donates an electron to the hydroxyl radical. This voltage falls below the typical perceptible range when applied to the skin. For comparison, a nine-volt battery is barely perceptible unless placed on the tongue, and touching the terminals of a 12V car battery with bare skin is also imperceptible. When using a voltmeter on magnesium and a human, the highest measured voltage is an initial 4V spike with a 1.9V steady-state voltage.
The amperage in a Heliopatch is limited by body resistance and the concentration of free radicals. Typically reaching a maximum of 50 microamps, it remains well below the considered dangerous range, making it safe for use. This level of amperage has been employed in electrical stimulation for wound healing, even in patients who were quite ill. Studies at these current levels have demonstrated their safety without incident, aligning with the natural endogenous current in a wound (70-90 microamps). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440595/
Note that microcurrent wound dressings involve directed current with positive and negative terminals in contact with the skin, causing no damage to the tissues between the two electrodes.
Iontophoresis, a technology utilizing higher amperage and voltage than Heliopatch, drives ions into the body. Despite the safety and success of these devices, available over the counter, prolonged usage against instructions may cause skin erosion. A recent FDA panel review deemed these devices safe enough to lower their classification, allowing broader use.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/OrthopaedicandRehabilitationDevicesPanel/UCM386449.pdf
One iontophoresis application involves placing hands on the electrodes, directing current through the heart area. Despite the potential for higher voltage and amperage than Heliopatch, there are no reported incidents of issues with heart conditions. Comparatively, other electrically active technologies pose a greater potential for harm based on heart physics. While controlled studies with heart patients are pending, arguments for Heliopatch safety can be drawn from the experience with various devices, suggesting potential positive effects on heart function due to reduced oxidative stress.