Hacker News Reader

Comment by tablespoon | Hacker News Reader

This is potential Darwin award material: I watched a YouTube video and know about Ohm's law, time to zap my brain!

This guy has the right idea:

> Dennis Eckmeier

> Academic Writing, Science Communication, Neuroscience Consulting, and Advocacy

> As a neuroscientist, I want to strongly advice everybody against experimenting with electrical brain stimulation. If you really need to, please follow these steps: 1. get a medical engineering degree or at least help from an expert 2. use professional equipment, don't build electrodes etc yourself 3. don't be alone when you are about to try it 4. When you are about to hit the switch: don't. :P

View on HN

Yeah... reading it in further detail, he applies current across his head between the mastoid processes. I thought it was local stimulation between two surface electrodes under the ear. A quick look at the literature shows that the targeted structures are too deep for an approach like that, so they have to go across the head.

Style points for bravery, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't want to pump over a milliamp of direct current right underneath the squishy mass of goo that contains my conscious self. Especially not with an uncontrolled source like a battery - any sort of stimulator really ought to be current limited.

A milliamp is an awful lot, IEC 60601 specifies a 0.1 mA patient leakage current and I'm pretty sure they weren't expecting even that small leakage current to be applied to the head.

It's still cool, but yeah, nobody try this at home.

> Style points for bravery

It's only bravery if you know the risks. :)

Can someone explain to this non-EE how current alone, as specified in milliamps in the absence of a specified voltage, can be used to specify a lethal condition? In other words, from here and other sources I'm inferring that 100mA can stop the heart, but does it not matter if it's from a (at?) 9V battery vs 1.5V AA battery?

Well, the resistance is a fixed variable here, so voltage and current are tied together. Can't increase the amps without increasing the volts.

The guy was standing while his experiment, right? That is for me the potential Darwin award material here.

Actually loosing balance due to this could lead to a potentially lethal head injury.

What makes you think no precautions were taken?

Incredible that this guy is building is own electrodes and sending electricity to his body, but what you are noticing is that he might, potentially, get a head injury because he was standing!

I'm sure some injuries were to be counted on in this case.

It's a 9V battery. Relax.

> It's a 9V battery. Relax.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to stuff like this:

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer...

> Jennifer Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three, was among 18 people who entered the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" competition. They tried to drink as much water as they could without urinating in a bid to win a Nintendo Wii gaming console....

"It's just water. Relax."

> "Can you get water poisoning and, like, die?" asked the female disc jockey.

> "Not with water," a male disc jockey replied. "Your body is 98 percent water. Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"

> "Maybe we should have researched this before," the female disc jockey added....

> Strange drank nearly two gallons of water in over three hours on Jan. 12, 2007. During the contest, she could be heard complaining about pain to disc jockeys at 107.9 "The End."

> "Oh, it hurts," Strange said, while one male disc jockey remarked that she looked pregnant and another, a woman, said "That is so funny."...

> Strange left after taking second place, winning a pair of concert tickets. She then called in sick at work and died in her bathroom just hours after the contest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia

>> It's a 9V battery. Relax.

>That's the kind of thinking that leads to stuff like this

It's also the kind of thinking that leads to getting killed by 9V batteries. https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html

Your example doesn't show why a 9v battery used in this way is dangerous.

> Your example doesn't show why a 9v battery used in this way is dangerous.

So? It's part of a more general argument against assuming household items are safe when you're using them in highly unusual ways or far outside of normal parameters.

But if you need a specific example of someone killing themselves with a 9V battery to get the message, a sibling comment actually linked to a Darwin award where someone did just that.

No one is advocating intentionally sticking electrical probes into your body. So, again, it doesn't show that a 9 volt battery used in the way described by the article is dangerous.

> No one is advocating intentionally sticking electrical probes into your body. So, again, it doesn't show that a 9 volt battery used in the way described by the article is dangerous.

You're asking the wrong question. If you don't want to be a dumbass, the question that should be asked isn't "has this been shown (to me) to be dangerous?" Answering no then proceeding is a good way to harm yourself out of ignorance.

The right questions are along the lines of "has this been shown to be safe?", "if not, do I have actually have a full enough understanding to find out?", and "if I die doing this, am I in the running for a Darwin award?"

I'm not asking a question.

>it doesn't show that a 9 volt battery used in the way described by the article is dangerous.

Then again, it doesn't have to show that - since the person in the article didn't come to use it in "that way" after serious study, research and precautions, but by assuming its harmeless in general and using it in an ad-hoc manner.

They could quite easily, with the same assumption, which is what the parent warns against, use it in a dangerous way.

A 9V battery is enough to deliver a lethal current under the right conditions. Don't play with electricity unless you know what you are doing.

What are those conditions?

The point is that because something seems innocuous under normal use doesn't mean it is under other conditions.

Since you want a specific example, from further down the comments: https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html

That's the question that the author of TFA should have researched very well before using it: in order to avoid those conditions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com