[PAGE 1]
MEMORANDUM

31 jecember 1970

FROM:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES: A.

Non-Lethal Weapon Brochure

B. Roth, E. M., "Electric Current", in NASA-CR-1205 (1), Washington, D.C., 1968. (UNCL.)

C. Walter, C.W., Electric Hazards in Hospitals, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1970. (UNCL.)

/brochure submitted by Mr. We have been much interested by the The principle of ccntrolied electroshock can offer an cffcctive solution to the personnel incapacitation problem.

It is unfortunate that the brochure is in the form of an advertising pamphlet rather than a scientific presentation. The brochure gives no definite engincering specifications, but we assume that fhas the following conditions in mind: (1) a single net with left and right halves connected to the .. /System by a two conductor insulated cable; (2) projection of the net onto the subject in such a way that the subject would tend to grasp one half of the net with each hand and take the current in an arm-to-arm direction (rather than upper body to fcct\*); (3) five shocks per second to be delivered (about 0.5 joule each, duration of each pulsc about 500 microseconds); and (4) the subject is healthy. The somewhat confusing numbers presented with Figure A of the brochure apparently make the key assurption that the circuit resistance is 10, 000 ohms, prcsumably including the two serics contacts between the net and the subject.

耳

A single conductor system using the ground loop would require that the shockbox itself be thoroughly grounded or the person holding the shockbox would be shocked just as severely as the subject.

Approved for Release Date27 EES 1973

141

[PAGE 2]
is correct that currents above 20 milliamperes will cause painful tetauy of the muscles through which the current passes and that individual shocks of about 0.5 joule are not likely to kill healthy people. (Rcf. B) Mr. istates that he has verified thc effectiveness and safcty of the repcated short pulses mentioned above by appropriate tests..Such a result secms reasonable, but it would be nice to sec the report of his experimental procedure.

We question the reliability of the net-shockbox combination in incapacitation of a. high perccntage of subjects under field conditions. In order to be effective, tetanizing amounts of current must pass through muscles that will incapacitate the subject. In order to get to the muscles, the current must get through the skin somehow. A large area of firm contact with sweaty skin can have a resistance of a few hundred ohms; a small area of dry contact with light pressure can range up into millions of ohms. (Ref. B) If the net provided two contacts with the subject's body, amounting to' a sezies resistance of one megohm or more, the shockbox would have to deliver a voltage of 20, 000 volts or higher in order to force the required current through the skin. We doubt that a shockbox of the small dimensions specified by could provide such voltages and energics. What if the subject is wearing a leather jacket, motorcycle hclmet and dry leather gloves? What if part of the net happens to get into the subject's mouth? What keeps the net from shorting itself out? Why wouldn't a subject with painfully paralyzed arms start to run, thereby breaking contact?

Engincering details and extensive field test results of the system are necessary for evaluation of this approach.

Thc primary medical hazard of the system is the possibility of inducing. ventricular fibrillation of the heart. Ventricular fibrillation is almost in-

—

[PAGE 3]
variably fatal under ficld conditions. If jdevice included current limiting circuitry so that the energy in cach brief pulsc was limited to abeut 0.5 joule applied hand-to-hand, the risk of ventricular fibrillation in a healthy subjeet should be negligible. (Rcf. B) If the subject happened to be "electrically sensitive" (duc to coronary artery disease with irritable myocardium, pacemaker device, etc.) a much smaller shock could lead to unconsciousness within seconds and death within a few minutes. (Ref.C) lacknowledges such a possibility by noting that his device should be used on "healthy crooks" only. Most young people, aside from invalids, do rot fall in the "electrically sensitive" category.

In surmary, we fecl that such a device is not likely to cause permanent injury to an active young adult subject, but we question its reliability as an incapacitation system under field conditions. Our engineering staff has roughed out a circuit diagram for a unit that would deliver 0.5 joule under the low resistance conditions assumed by We will be happy to provide a copy of this diagram or comments on any other points that you may request.