ECN Forum Forums Safety Discussion and News Occupational Safety Discussion Today I witnessed an Electrocution

Alexander graham bell invented the electric chair using AC to prove how dangerous it was and how much safer DC was (per him)

Quote"Now I go to the building supervisor and tell them I need to perform a shutdown and whats a good time for you. I have had zero problems since I took that approach.

I'm going to use this approach from now on, thanks Drillman.
Was the electrician told it had to be done live? Or did he just feel comfortable doing it live? Personally in the past I've done the same thing, Turning off power is a hastle, I'll be done and on my way to the next job in half hour.
We had an accident in my town recently where a guy was told the power could not be turned off but after he got shocked it was off in minutes!
If it has been off before it can be off again!

tajoch,

You sure about that?.
My understanding of the argument was between Edison and Westinghouse,as per AC and DC and which was safer.
Bell invented the telegraph system.
Or was that Samuel Morse?.
Good lord am I confused.

Alexander Graham Bell worked with Westinghouse on a method of electrocuting someone over the phone. There was no market demand since telemarketers hadn't come along yet. Samuel Morse was an unsuccessful boxer of the period. He hit really hard but tended to telegraph his punches.

Rumor has it that Westinghouse & Fuller Brush came up with an electrofied welcome mat / used encyclopedia business.

I would like to see the Agastat division of Tyco enter into a deal with the former House Majority Whip to market Tom Delay Relays. Doubt it will happen.
Joe

One word: *Groan*

Yep, and some accounts indicate that Edison was so convinced of the extra danger of AC over DC that he issued a challange in the form of an electrical "chicken" game. One man would be subjected to shocks of increasing voltage of DC while the other would receive shocks of similar voltage but AC, until one cried enough. Rather wisely, the challenge was refused.

Having been instrumental in getting the state of New York to adopt the electric chair (using AC) it appears that Edison tried to get the term "Westinghoused" adopted in a further attempt to ingrain the idea in people that the Westinghouse AC system was dangerous.

Whatever his other achievements, it seems as though Edison was very blinkered on the AC vs. DC issue. How much that was caused by his heavy financial stake in DC power systems we can only surmise.




[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 10-09-2006).]

I do not believe that the relative "safety" of one system over another had much effect on which system was eventually adopted.

Rather, I believe the issue was entirely decided by our ability to transform AC. Imagine how meager our transmission network would be, if the wires had to be 4 ft. diameter, and a tower placed every 100 ft.!
Yet, that is what we would have to deal with if it were not for our ability to raise the voltage, transmit the power, then lower the voltage to reasonable levels. You can't do this with DC.

actually nikola tesla was resposible for the A.C. system. he worked for edison who threw him out for even coming up with the idea.him & george westinghouse invented the now modern 3 phase motor also.he also invented the transformer as we know it. as a matter of a fact niagra falls gave him free power from the station to power his experiments until he burnt them out.

I think a lot of you may be missing a point here.


The first rule of rescue is to not become the second victim. As admirable as this guys actions were, it might have ended up with two fatalities.
As an employee of a POCO, I've seen cases where rescuers were almost killed trying to get someone out of a car that had hit a power line. In one case, it sent both of them to the hospital.

WFO, you are absolutely correct. I won't try to explain, justify, or judge the actions of anyone there that day. Indeed, I knew this detail would raise some questions.

In my post, I tried to relate events as accurately as possible, and limited myself to the information available at the time.

The sparky himself did have the same concerns. He made a deliberate choice to take the chance. He tried to justify his chance-taking by claiming time was critical, the lack of other parties nearby, his electric-rated boots, etc ... but, in the end, I think he took the chance because HE REALLY WAS NOT CERTAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

The victim went rigid, and was not responsive. The sparky's main thought, as he kicked out the ladder, was "gee, I'll look pretty foolish if all is well!"

Then, as the victim continued to hang from the pipes, his thought had to be "hey- that's not what was supposed to happen! What do I do now?"

There really wasn't any clear thinking until the victim was down, and clearly not breathing, etc. Then it became a 'simple' matter of reviving him.

I suppose that's the one element of emergency response that is hardest to deal with; not being sure of what is happening.