Mr. Max Nerheim, Vice President of Research and Development for TASER International, Inc., stated:
"Mr. Ruggieri's assertions are predicated on published safety guidelines in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 479-1. Unfortunately, the standards published in IEC 479-1 are only applicable to low frequency, continuous duty cycle, AC electrical currents of less than 100 Hz, such as one would experience from an electrical wall outlet and not the output one would receive from a TASER device."
Here is the somewhat-redundant list of criteria mentioned:
1) 'low frequency''
2) 'continuous duty cycle'
3) 'AC electrical currents'
4) 'less than 100 Hz' (as opposed to low frequency?)
The Taser X26 waveform contains significant spectral components (current) at the low frequency (1) of 19 Hz and harmonics of 19 Hz. This component is 100% continuous duty cycle (2) for as long as the trigger is held down. The 19 Hz is created by the pulsating DC and is, by definition: AC, electrical, and a current (3). And the fundamental (19 Hz) through to the 5th harmonic (95 Hz) are all less than 100 Hz (4).
The M26 also has to have some amount of low frequency component in its frequency spectrum, but it isn't clear if the absolute amplitude is greater than or less than the X26. On the one hand the stated peak current is five times higher, but on the other hand a nicely damped sine wave probably minimizes the pulse frequency (at 11-25 Hz*) component somewhat. I suspect that the M26 is 'less than' the X26.
Has anyone checked to see if the Taser X26 is more dangerous than the M26? I mean, assuming that Taser is correct about some of their claims regarding the M26, then everything that is good about the M26 (perhaps a more pure 50 kHz), reflects badly on the X26 (appears to have a higher amplitude low frequency component, at 19 Hz).
I'm sure that the 'Conducted Energy Weapons To-Be-Used-On-The-Public' Regulating Agency (Oh Hello?) will be on-top of this issue.
*PS: Why does the pulse rate of the "Advanced" M26 have such a wide and sloppy tolerance? One thing to watch out for is to determine if they're using a quasi spread-spectrum technique to muddle accurate measurements of the low frequency spectral component. Would engineers actually do such a thing? Hell yes! There are even special clock chips that provide this sort of function. Or it can be implemented in software. But there are ways to put Humpty Dumpty (the data) back together again so that such a ruse would only end-up looking bad on the engineers that tried to get away with such a silly trick. On the other hand, it might just be a cheap, simple, and sloppy RC design. It's just something to watch-out for...
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.