Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Physiology and pathology of taser electronic control devices

By Mark W. Kroll, the man that keeps forgetting his Fourier (EE101).

Tasers "...are small, battery powered, handheld devices. They deliver short duration, low energy pulses to stimulate motor neurons, causing transient paralysis." [LINK]

Mark, Mark, Mark... tsk tsk tsk...

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

The X26 taser, as distinct from the older M26 taser, has a waveform with a distinct DC pulse after the arc phase. Although appearing to be small in peak height, it changes everything. This pulse is DC offset and *is* 19 Hz (and harmonics) low frequency.

It is THUS not a short duration.

The X26 waveform has significant low frequency spectral components that are continuous 100% duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 100 MICROSECONDS OF 19 Hz!!

This is a cold hard fact.

It also explains why even Taser International allows that the safety margin is larger with the older M26 taser, in spite of the self-evident ratio of peak output.

If your analysis is demonstrably incorrect in the 2nd sentence of the Abstract, then what other flaws exist in your 'logic' that you apply to "prove" that tasers are cardiac-safe?

It would be a funny error except that your assurances of safety lead directly to overuse, and probably misuse, of tasers (abuse may be a separate issue, but you're not helping there either). These false assurances of safety are therefore increasing the risk of death of ordinary citizens.

Bad.

No comments: