Electrical Weapon Charge Delivery with Arcing
Bryan D. Chiles, ASE; Max H. Nerheim, MSEE; Michael A. Brave, MS, JD, Sr. Member IEEE
Dorin Panescu, PhD, Fellow IEEE; Mark W. Kroll, PhD, Fellow IEEE
Introduction: Human electronic control with the Conducted
Electrical Weapon (CEW) has gained widespread acceptance
as the preferred law enforcement force option technology
due to its dramatic injury and fatal shooting reduction.
However, with bulky or baggy clothing, a CEW probe may
fail to make direct skin contact and thus arcing is critical to
complete the circuit. The goal of the study was to evaluate the
ability of modern CEWs to deliver their pulse charges across
typical required arcing distances.
Methods: Popular TASER®
CEW models X26E (openloop
output), and the X2 and X26P (with closed-loop outputs)
were activated using a cartridge connected to a custom polymer
air-gap fixture. For each model 5 units were tested. The
raw and normalized charge delivery were evaluated according
to ANSI-CPLSO-17.
Results: All 5 units of each model satisfied ANSICPLSO-17
even at maximum arcing length. The X26P CEW
had the greatest arcing gap capability.
Conclusions: The stabilized closed-loop charge output
feedback of modern electrical weapons (X2 and X26P CEWs)
provides a significantly improved output consistency under
arcing conditions. With arc lengths of 10-20 mm per probe,
the X2 CEW normalized output charge exceeds that of some
units of the older higher output X26E CEW model.
Key Words: ANSI, CEW, charge, ECD, electrical weapon,
TASER
BD Chiles is Product Compliance Manager at Axon Enterprise, Inc.
(Axon), formerly TASER International, Inc. bchiles@axon.com).
M. Nerheim is Technical Fellow and Vice President of Research
at Axon (max@axon.com).
MA Brave is Manager/Member of LAAW International, LLC,
and an employee of Axon, Director of the Axon Science and Medical
Research Group, and legal advisor to the Axon Scientific and Medical
Advisory Board (SMAB) (brave@laaw.com).
D. Panescu is Chief Technical Officer, Vice President R&D,
HeartBeam, Inc. (drdpanescu@gmail.com). Dr. Panescu is a paid
consultant to Axon.
MW Kroll is an Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Engineering
at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
(mark@kroll.name). Dr. Kroll is a consultant to Axon, and a member
of the Axon SMAB and Corporate Board.
All authors have served as expert witnesses for Axon or law
enforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Human electronic control with the Conducted Electrical
Weapon (CEW) has gained widespread acceptance as the preferred
law enforcement force option technology due to its dramatic
injury and fatal shooting reduction. Large prospective
studies have consistently found subject injury rate reductions
of about 65%.[1] Of the 310,000 annual CEW field uses, only
1 in 3500 is temporal to an Arrest-Related Death (ARD) vs.
the baseline force-involved ARD rate of 1:1000 (or 1:71000
law enforcement officer (LEO)-civilian encounters). This reduction
in temporal-fatality rate is consistent with prospective
published data, which showed that 5.4% of CEW uses
“clearly prevented the use of lethal force by police.”[2] It is
also consistent with a 2/3 reduction in fatal police shootings
where CEW usage is not overly restricted.[3] Brandishing, including
drawing, pointing, LASER painting, and arcing
(without probe deployment or direct contact) comprises about
71% of CEW-involved force incidents; with subject compliance
increasing to 81% with special officer training.[4]
The short-duration electrical pulses applied by Axon Enterprise,
Inc. (Axon), formerly TASER International, Inc.
(TASER), CEWs are intended to stimulate Type A-a motor
neurons, which are the nerves that control skeletal muscle
contraction, but with minimal risk of stimulating cardiac muscle.
This typically leads to a loss of regional muscle control
and can result in a fall to the ground to end a potentially violent
confrontation or suicide attempt.[5, 6] The present Axon
CEWs meet all relevant electrical safety standards.[7]
Axon’s CEW cartridges deploy probes using inert compressed
gas. The top probe deploys straight to the target, while
the bottom probe deploys at a 7 or 8° downward angle. This
deployment method provides increased spread between the
probes as the distance between the CEW and the target increases.
With 2 probes with increasing spread over distance,
the risk of a direct connection failure (with skin on both
probes) increases. Additionally, with bulky or baggy clothing,
a CEW probe may fail to make direct skin contact and thus
arcing is critical to complete the circuit.[8, 9] The purpose of
the Axon CEW high voltage (arcing) phase is to mitigate or
reduce the risk of a “clothing disconnect” or failed electrical
connection with the skin by allowing arcing to complete the
circuit.
978-1-5386-3646-6/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 2234
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The goal of the study was to evaluate the ability of modern
CEWs to deliver their pulse charges across typical required
arcing distances. The charge delivery was evaluated according
to ANSI (American National Standards Institute)CPLSO-17.[10]
This standard requires that a minimum
charge of 40 µC (microcoulombs) be delivered. The charge is
also normalized to a standard 100 µs duration to correct for
shorter pulses being more efficient at stimulation than longer
pulses.[11] The ANSI standard requires a minimum normalized
charge of 60 µC.
A typical CEW pulse is shown in Figure 1. By convention,
the “main” phase is defined as being positive. The initial
brief negative phase serves to establish an initial arc in case
of a connection gap. The creation of the arc allows the lowervoltage
main phase to flow through the circuit. The duration
of the pulse is defined as the time from the 1st downward transition
below –100 mA (-60 V with the 600 Ω load) up until
the last downward transition below a value of +100 mA
(60 V) according to the ANSI standard. The raw charge is the
integrated value throughout the duration of the pulse. Note
that the raw charge is always less than that of the main phase
since the arc phase contributes a negative charge, thus cancelling
some of the main phase charge.
Figure 1. Typical X2 CEW pulse with current in amperes.
The most common CEW is the single-shot X26E model introduced
in 2003 as the X26 and discontinued in 2014. It is now
referred to as the X26E to distinguish from the present X26P
model. It operates open loop and thus has more output variability
than newer generation CEW models. It also has a much
longer — and hence less efficient — waveform. For these reasons,
its typical raw charge is about 35 µC greater than the
newer models. Note: the manufacturer initially rated the
X26E CEW charge using the main-phase charge and this artificially
provided another 10 µC of apparent difference.[8]
The newer single-shot X26P “Smart” CEW (introduced in
January 2013) has a feedback loop allowing a feature referred
to as “charge metering” to stabilize the output. The X2
“Smart” CEW (introduced in April 2011) is a 2-shot CEW,
also with a feedback loop to stabilize the output charge. The
X26P and X2 CEW have high voltage modules designed with
the same pulse and feedback technology. However, due to differences
in the physical design of the cartridge bays and cartridges
themselves, they exhibit different circuit interactions
and charge delivery when delivering charge into different size
arc gaps.
METHODS
The TASER brand models X26E, X26P, and X2 CEWs were
the subject of this study. Five samples of each model, spanning
a serial number range to represent a manufacturing interval
greater than 4 years were selected for the test. The noninductive
600 Ω resistive load used was the Ohmite®
LN100J600 resistor.[12] A Tektronix®
DPO3034 oscilloscope
was used with a Tektronix TCP-202A current probe.
The oscilloscope was set to acquire data sampling at a rate of
500 megasamples/second, averaging the last 8 samples (of the
5-second delivery) to reduce the influence of high voltage
noise on the measurement equipment.
To maintain the natural air gaps of the CEW systems, the
CEWs were activated using a previously deployed cartridge
connected to a custom air-gap fixture. The air-gap fixture was
machined from polyvinyl chloride and is shown in Figure 2.
The air-gap fixture allows the cartridge probes to be “zeroed”
out and secured in place. The air gap can then be manually
adjusted in or out while arcing by the turn of a non-conductive
Lexan® knob.
Figure 2. Test setup with X2 CEW.
The wires of the deployed cartridges were wrapped up and
separated to minimize any capacitive coupling effect on the
arcing distance results, and to minimize the risk of erroneously
discharging into anything other than the load-gap fixture.
Two details were noted during the setup calibration;
(1) the portion of the wire placed in the current probe must
2235
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
have an additional layer of insulation, otherwise there could
be a discharge through the thin wire insulation into the current
probe when the arc distance is reaching its maximum, and (2)
the arc fixture needs to be elevated above any work surface to
prevent the arc from “riding” the along the surface, resulting
in longer than expected arc distances. A small length of electrical
tape was wrapped around the cartridge wire where the
current probe was clamped to prevent arcing through the thin
wire insulation to the probe. The gap fixture, resistive load,
and cartridge wires were insulated from the conductive electrostatic
discharge work surface by placing them on top of a
6 mm thick sheet of plastic. The gap fixture was further elevated
by a 6 mm stack of dry paper between it and the plastic
sheet. The cartridge probes were inserted into the gap fixture
with the probes pressed against the electrode plates and tightened
down to prevent movement. The fixture’s gap was adjusted
by manually turning the knob to move the probes closer
or further from the fixture’s electrode plates. Mitutoyo®
CD-
6” CSX digital calipers were used to validate the correct arcing
distance for each test gap.
For all the “zero” gap, or contact activations, the 600 Ω
load was connected directly to the cartridge probes to collect
baseline values. For all the gapped tests, the load was connected
to the arc-gap fixture’s coated copper landing plates.
After acquiring the contact data, the arc testing began with
both the top and bottom probes arcing. The arc fixture was set
for a 2.5 mm gap (5.0 mm cumulative), the oscilloscope set to
trigger on the current pulse, the CEW was armed, and then
triggered. A typical arc is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Typical arc.
After the data were saved, the arc fixture’s gaps were increased
to 5.0 mm (10 mm cumulative), oscilloscope set to
trigger, CEW armed, and then triggered. This was repeated in
5 mm increments until there was no arc connection when the
CEW was triggered. The fixture gap was then slowly reduced
and adjusted while constantly activating the CEW until a consistent
discharge could be achieved at the maximum distance.
The same process was repeated for the top probe arcing, with
the bottom probe directly connected to the load, in 5 mm increments,
and again for the bottom probe arcing with the top
probe directly connected to the load, also in 5 mm increments.
The effectiveness normalized charge (QNE) was calculated
according to the ANSI standard formula to normalize to a
standard 100 µs (microsecond) duration:
𝑄𝑄" = 𝑄𝑄$
100 + 140
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 140
This normalization is based on the chronaxie of 140 µs for
motor-neuron stimulation.[13-15] This normalization is illustrated
in Figure 4. For example, a waveform with an 80 µC
raw charge with 100 µs duration will have a normalized
charge of 80 µC. However, if the 80 µC was delivered by a
60 µs duration waveform then the normalized charge is
96 µC. The specific data shown are for the 15 mm bottom dart
gap using data measured in our study.
Figure 4. Normalized vs raw charge. Examples given are
with 15 mm bottom dart gap.
Note: This paper uses Qr and Qn for the raw and normalized
effectiveness charge respectively; the ANSI standard uses Q0
and QNE. For our measurements, we used ± 50 V limits for
historical comparisons instead of the ± 60 V limits in the
ANSI standard.[8] The resulting differences are immaterial,
being 0.3% and 0.01% (direct contact and maximum arcing
respectively) in the normalized charge for the X26E CEW, for
example.
RESULTS
The baseline results are given in Table 1. As expected, the
X26E CEW has more variability in its output than the newer
X26P and X2 models which have output charge feedback stabilization.
The lowest output X26E is shown as X26E(L) in
order to illustrate the effects of the variability of outputs with
this model. The X26E mean values includes X26E(L). Since
2236
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the pulse durations of the X26E CEW are > 100 µs, the normalized
charge is reduced from the raw charge.
Table 1. Baseline outputs with direct contact.
CEW
Model
Qr=Raw
Charge (µC)
Duration
(µs)
Qn=Normalized
Charge (µC)
X26E 99.5 ± 6.5 131.4 ± 6.2 86.6 ± 4.1
X26E(L) 88.5 123.6 79.4
X2 63.8 ± 1.7 69.3 ± 1.6 74.6 ± 2.0
X26P 65.9 ± 1.8 94.8 ± 3.0 67.4 ± 2.0
X26E(L) is the lowest output X26E CEW of the 5 tested.
The opposite is true for the X26P and X2 CEWs since they
have pulse durations < 100 µs. The charge stabilizing effect
of the output charge feedback and the newer charge control
method is clearly seen with the raw charges of the X2 and
X26P CEWs having standard deviations < 2 µC compared to
the 6.5 µC of the X26E.
Table 2. Maximum gap for continuous arc.
CEW
Model
Top (mm) Both (mm) Bottom (mm)
X26E 23.5 ± 1.2 22.7 ± 0.9 30.8 ± 1.8
X2 20.1 ± 0.3 18.3 ± 1.6 26.6 ± 0.3
X26P 24.4 ± 1.3 24.6 ± 0.5 33.8 ± 1.0
The maximum arc capabilities are shown in Table 2. The
maximum arc gap was always with the bottom probe since
that is the positive polarity probe during the arc phase. In an
arc, electrons carry charge from the cathode (-) to the anode
(+) while positive ions carry charge in the opposite direction.[16-18]
Since the electrons move more rapidly, they arrive
at the anode before the positive ions arrive at the cathode.
This implies that the initial, transient current density is highest
at the point, on the cathode, where the arc initiated and
launched the electrons.[18]
Figure 5. Results for X26E CEW.
Figure 5 depicts the performance for the X26E CEW averaged
over all 5 tested units. For the bottom probe arcing the raw
charge Qr decreased from 100 µC to 76 µC. Because the
X26E CEW pulse duration is nominally > 100 µs, the normalized
charge is less than the raw charge. However, with an
increasing arc gap, the pulse duration decreases and at about
15 mm equals 100 µs. Thus, at this gap the normalized charge
equals the raw charge. For the bottom probe arcing the normalized
charge (Qn) decreased from 87 µC to 80 µC. Similar
changes are seen for the top gap and for both probes arcing.
Figure 6. Results for X2 CEW.
Figure 6 shows the performance for the X2 CEW averaged
over all 5 tested units. For the bottom probe arcing the raw
charge Qr decreased from 64 µC to 57 µC. Because the X2
CEW pulse duration is always < 100 µs, the normalized
charge is greater than the raw charge. For the bottom probe
arcing the normalized charge (Qn) decreased from 76 µC to
69 µC. Similar changes are seen for the top gap and for both
probes arcing.
Figure 7. Results for X26P CEW.
Figure 7 depicts the performance for the X26P CEW averaged
over all 5 tested units. For the bottom probe arcing the raw
charge Qr decreased from 66 µC to 52 µC. This is somewhat
of an exaggerated decrease as the X26P CEW is capable of
2237
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
much longer arcs than the X2 CEW. For consistent comparisons
at a 25 mm arc, both deliver a raw charge of ≈ 57 µC.
Like the X26P CEW, because the X2 CEW duration is also
always < 100 µs, the normalized charge is again greater than
the raw charge.
The X26P CEW has the greatest arcing capability for
both the top and bottom probes. For clarification, the arc gap
measurements for “both” probes meant that each probe was
spaced at an identical gap and continuous current was passed.
In other words, the measurement of 24.6 mm for the X26P
CEW means that the length of the arcs was 12.3 mm for each
probe, giving a total cumulative arc distance for the 2 probes
of 24.6 mm.
The X26P CEW model has a significant pulse shortening
with typical gaps (5-20 mm). This leads to an increase in the
normalized charge compared to a direct connection. This interesting
feature is clearly seen in the top curves. For the bottom
probe arcing the normalized charge Qn increased from
67 µC to 74 µC before slowly decreasing to 63 µC. Similar
changes are seen for the top gap and for both probes arcing.
Figure 8. Normalized charge vs. bottom gap.
Figure 8 compares the normalized charge for all CEW models
for the bottom probe arcing. We have included the X26E(L)
CEW which was the lowest output unit of the X26E CEW
models tested. The average X26E model output is, of course,
greater than the other models for any arc gap. What is striking
about this plot is how consistent the normalized charges are
for the X26E(L), X2, and X26P CEWs for all gaps between
5-25 mm.
DISCUSSION
We believe that this paper represents the first systematic
measurement of the performance of modern electrical weapons
under various arcing conditions. Our results appear to be
consistent with those of Reilly who tested a single X26E
CEW arcing into a 5 cm sphere and a 500 Ω load.[19]
The most interesting finding is the improved effectiveness of
the X26P CEW under arcing conditions. The high voltage
technology in all of these weapons is called Shaped Pulse™.
The patented technology uses separate arc- and main-phase
capacitors connected to a common high voltage output transformer.
The circuit generates first an arcing voltage of up to
around 50 kV by discharging the arc capacitor through the
transformer primary windings, followed by the positive polarity
main pulse created by discharging the main phase capacitors
through the transformer secondary windings. As the output
transformer passes the main capacitor current through its
secondary winding into the load, it stores some of the capacitor
energy in its magnetic core. After the main capacitor is
sufficiently discharged, the energy that was stored in the output
transformer’s magnetic core is released as electric charge
into the load. This happens during the last portion of the waveform’s
main phase. The energy needed to drive a given electric
charge into the load is in proportion to the load impedance.
As the load impedance increases, the load voltage will
be higher, and more energy will be needed to drive the same
amount of charge. Because only a certain amount of energy
can be stored in the output transformer’s magnetic core, as the
output voltage increases, the faster the stored magnetic energy
will be depleted, As the magnetic energy depletes faster, the
output waveform duration becomes shorter, while the charge
feedback regulation keeps the delivered charge consistent.
In order to charge the main capacitors between pulses
there needs to be air gaps present between the main capacitor
and transformer circuit and the electrodes in front of the
weapon. The circuit that generates the high voltage is physically
very small, on the order of 6 x 3 x 3 cm and in order to
contain the very high voltages the circuit is potted in a high
voltage potting compound; Hence, the required circuit air
gaps must be placed outside the potted module assembly. The
natural location for the required air gaps is as part of the handle
assembly. Due to different body designs, the air gaps in
the 3 weapons are different. In addition, there are air gaps
present from the weapon electrodes to the cartridge electrodes.
Due to the physical construction of the weapon and the
cartridge, the X2 weapon has longer air gaps from the high
voltage circuit to the cartridge wire connections than the
X26P which has equivalent high voltage circuitry. Because of
the X2’s longer air gaps, the X2 has an overall shorter waveform.
But since the X26P has shorter air gaps connecting the
high voltage circuit to the cartridge electrodes, the output
waveform can jump a slightly longer distance to connect a
circuit. If the X26P must arc to create a circuit connection, the
charge regulation circuit keeps the output charge constant,
while the increased circuit impedance leads to a shorter waveform,
At the same delivered charge, the shorter waveform
thus becomes more effective.
Our results appear to confirm the manufacturer’s use of
closed-loop feedback to stabilize upper charges for the X2 and
X26P CEWs.
2238
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The ANSI CPLSO-17 electrical weapons standard does not
have requirements for arcing performance and all testing is
done with direct connections.[10] Nevertheless, it is tempting
to compare the arcing performance to the ANSI standard output
requirements. They require a normalized charge Qn > 60
µC. All units tested exceeded this 60 µC requirement for all
gaps. For bottom gaps of 10-20 mm, the X2 CEW had the
highest normalized charge, slightly exceeding that of the
X26P and the X26E(L) CEWs.
LIMITATIONS
Our testing used an air gap constructed with probes and metallic
landing section mounted in PVC. This is different from
the field situation where the arc landing is human epidermis.
For a direct skin connection, there is human data showing an
inter-probe resistance of 602 ± 77 Ω for inserted probes, hence
consistent with the use of a 600 Ω non-inductive resistor.[12]
The arcing distances found were consistent with earlier results
using moist bovine tissue yielding arc distances of
~ 25 mm.[20] While dry skin has a high initial resistance it is
highly nonlinear and begins to break down at 15-40 V.[21,
22] Skin obtains a very low resistance at 200-500 V which is
far less than our 50 kV arcing voltages.[23] Arcing quickly
desiccates and eventually burns the tissue and thus our model
provided superior repeatability over tissue.
The testing was performed by product compliance manager
BDC independently from R&D and manufacturing staff
which staff had no input into either the study design or data
analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The stabilized closed loop charge output feedback of modern
electrical weapons (X2 and X26P CEWs) provides a significantly
improved output consistency under arcing conditions.
With arc lengths of 10-20 mm per probe, the X2 CEW normalized
output charge exceeds that of some units of the older
higher output X26E CEWs.
REFERENCES:
[1] J. M. MacDonald, R. J. Kaminski, and M. R. Smith, "The effect of lesslethal
weapons on injuries in police use-of-force events," Am J Public
Health, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 2268-74, Dec 2009.
[2] A. L. Eastman et al., "Conductive electrical devices: a prospective,
population-based study of the medical safety of law enforcement use,"
J Trauma, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1567-72, Jun 2008.
[3] F. V. Ferdik, R. J. Kaminski, M. D. Cooney, and E. L. Sevigny, "The
Influence of Agency Policies on Conducted Energy Device Use and
Police Use of Lethal Force," Police Quarterly, p. 1098611114548098,
2014.
[4] N. Grove, C. Grove, O. Peschel, and S. Kunz, "Welfare effects of
substituting traditional police ballistic weapons with non-lethal
alternatives: Medico-economic comparative study," Rechtsmedizin,
vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 418-424, 2016.
[5] J. Ho, D. Dawes, J. Miner, S. Kunz, R. Nelson, and J. Sweeney,
"Conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed
task as a function of probe spread," (in eng), Forensic Sci Med Pathol,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 358-66, Dec 2012.
[6] J. C. Criscione and M. W. Kroll, "Incapacitation recovery times from a
conductive electrical weapon exposure," Forensic Sci Med Pathol, vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 203-7, Jun 2014.
[7] D. Panescu, M. Nerheim, M. W. Kroll, and M. Brave, "New Conducted
Electrical Weapons: Electrical Safety Relative to Relevant Standards.
," Conf Proc IEEE EMBC, vol. 39, pp. 2185 - 2190, Jul 2017.
[8] A. Adler, "Toward a Test Protocol for Conducted Energy Weapons,"
Modern Instrumentation, vol. 02, no. 01, pp. 7-15, 2013.
[9] C. Mesloh, M. Henych, and R. Wolf, "Less Lethal Weapon
Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A FiveYear
Analysis," Report to the National Institute of Justice, vol. 224081,
pp. 1-103, Sept 2008.
[10] ANSI, "Electrical Characteristics of ECDs and CEWs," American
National Standards Institute, vol. 17, pp.
https://estandards.net/product/ansi-cplso-17-2017/, 2017.
[11] G. Weiss, "Sur la possibilite' de rendre comparable entre eux les
appareils survant a l'excitation electrique.," Arch Ital de Biol, vol. 35,
pp. 413-446, 1901.
[12] D. M. Dawes, J. D. Ho, M. W. Kroll, and J. R. Miner, "Electrical
characteristics of an electronic control device under a physiologic load:
a brief report," (in eng), Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, vol. 33, no. 3, pp.
330-6, Mar 2010.
[13] W. Irnich, "The terms "chronaxie" and "rheobase" are 100 years old,"
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 491-6, Apr 2010.
[14] C. C. McIntyre and W. M. Grill, "Sensitivity analysis of a model of
mammalian neural membrane," (in eng), Biol Cybern, vol. 79, no. 1, pp.
29-37, Jul 1998.
[15] C. R. Voorhees, W. D. Voorhees, 3rd, L. A. Geddes, J. D. Bourland,
and M. Hinds, "The chronaxie for myocardium and motor nerve in the
dog with chest-surface electrodes," IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 39,
no. 6, pp. 624-8, Jun 1992.
[16] M. W. Kroll and D. Panescu, "Physics of Electrical Injury," in Atlas of
conducted electrical weapon wounds and forensic analysis., D. Ho,
Kroll, Ed.: Springer, 2012, pp. 25-45.
[17] J. P. Reilly, Applied Bioelectricity: From Electrical Stimulation to
Electrical Pathology. New York: Springer, 1998, pp. 1-563.
[18] A. Howatson, An Introduction to Gas Discharges. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1965.
[19] J. Reilly, A. Diamant, and J. Comeaux, "Dosimetry considerations for
electrical stun devices," Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 54, pp. 1319-1335, 2009.
[20] A. Maier, P. Nance, P. Price, C. Sherry, and J. Reilly, "Human
Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular
Incapacitation Device - A Limited Analysis of the TASER. Part 2.
Appendices," Storming Media Pentagon Reports, p. 31, March 2005.
[21] D. Panescu, J. G. Webster, and R. A. Stratbucker, "A nonlinear finite
element model of the electrode-electrolyte-skin system," IEEE Trans
Biomed Eng, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 681-7, Jul 1994.
[22] D. Panescu, J. G. Webster, and R. A. Stratbucker, "A nonlinear
electrical-thermal model of the skin," IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 41,
no. 7, pp. 672-80, Jul 1994.
[23] M. Prausnitz, "The effects of electric current applied to skin: A review
for transdermal drug delivery," Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol.
18, pp. 395-425, 1996.
2239
Authorized licensed use limited to: Charles University. Downloaded on October 10,2025 at 23:36:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.