Tasers are failing, in significant numbers, to pass newly-instituted test procedures.
There's some talk that some of the failures are not significant because they're just outside the specified limits.
Obviously, the next step is to revised the specifications and widen the specified tolerance band. If +/-20% isn't wide enough, then maybe +/-25% would allow more tasers to pass the relaxed tests. Maybe +/-30% would be even 'better'? +/-50%?
[Excuse me. The 'We is High Tech' sign on your building has fallen down and is sticking out of a pile of cow dung.]
But here's the catch.
You have to re-do all the studies, including performing again what is called a 'Monte Carlo' type analysis to matrix all the variations of taser output against all the variations in human conditions to calculate a predicted risk of death rate for X26 taser darts on chest.
Then, after this inherent risk has been calculated, peer-reviewed by skeptical critics (not fan-boys), published... ...then they can subsequently and explicitly adjust for the reduction in risk arising from somewhat random dart placement.
A correct answer can be identified when it matches the real-world results. If they come up with the nonsensical one-in-millions risk of death, then you know they are still playing games.
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.