A Study Of The O-Mega™ Network, Inc.’s Less Than Lethal Electrical Defense Units (EDU)
A Medical and Technical Report by Dr. Robert A. Stratbucker
Omega Stun Guns Medical Report II
The Relative Immunity Of The Skin And Cardiovascular System To The Direct Effects On The High Voltage
High Frequency Component Electrical Pulses
O-Mega™ Super Stunner Stun Gun : An Independent Report
The O-Mega™ Super Baton™ & Animal Control
Animal (Dog) Study
A Study Of The O-Mega™ Network, Inc.’s
Less Than Lethal Electrical Defense Units (EDU)
A Medical and Technical Report
Background
The use of tactical electronics is a humane and safe improvement in the tiered use-of-force scale generally accepted by law enforcement in the United States: The primary objective of the application of physical force is to insure the control of a suspect with the only minimum force necessary. The types of force an officer may utilize vary depending on the degree of resistance or aggressive behavior used by a suspect; the officer should always gain and maintain an advantageous position when in such a confrontational situation. The generally accepted use of force scale is as follows: mere presence; verbalization; firm grip and pain compliance; electronic tactical restraint , chemical irritant, stun batons and kicks; upper body control holds ( carotid choke holds ); firearms.
Scope of Report
This report is in specific response to your 1992 request to begin testing on a new tactical restraint unit called the X-Caliber™ versus two conventional“stun guns”, the Secret Agent , and the Super Stunner. This report covers these tests of your new tactical restraint unit, a tubular X-shaped device designated X-Caliber™. Uniquely the X-Caliber™ contains all the electronic circuitry inside a 35’’ black plastic handle. The two more conventionalrestraint units, the Secret Agent , a small single battery unit, and the Super Stunner, a dual battery unit, are electronically similar to the X-Caliber™.
Your request afforded me some latitude in the manner of testing employed. Both operational and destructive testing of all three models of unit were carried out. The operational tests employed were similar to those which I used on earlier devices supplied by other manufacturers. The results of all these tests have been reported in detail in the scientific literature over the past few years.
Medical Theory of Operation
The following discussion covers most of the technical characteristics of stun guns and similar restrain devices. The mechanism for the effectiveness of any stun gun type of restraint device is the interaction of the electrical impulses produced by the device with the nervous and muscular systems. This interaction usually produces some temporary incapacity in the performance of the muscular system and therefore assists control over the aggressive actions of the subject. Nerve and skeletal muscle tissue, although themselves differing rather substantially in certain specific characteristics of electrical stimulation are quite similar in their “excitability” by an electrical impulse.
Precise differentiation of which of these two types of tissue might respond to a particular electric impulse is made difficult by the fact that motor nerves directly activate muscles. Thus some of the muscular activity, which is produced by the stun gun impulse may indeed be caused indirectly by the nerve activation. This includes the incapacitive effect of the stun gun restraint devices. Such an effect is caused by both muscular and neutral excitation by the impulse emitted from the device. Most important in these tissue reactions is the magnitude, duration, shape, and repetition rate of the applied electric impulses.
Electrical energy in optimal amounts may stimulate to respond normally while higher energies may damage as well as stimulate the tissue. This tissue damage is primarily related to the heating effect of electrical current passing through the tissue. Each type of excitable tissue is most efficiently excited by characteristic electrical stimuli. To appropriately excite this tissue, the requisite precise characteristics of intensity ( voltage or current) and timing (pulse shape and duration) must be used. Deviation from optimum characteristics in either direction generally means that more electrical energy must be injected to cause the same reaction, thereby reducing the efficiency and tending to promote thermal injury. Thus the same impulse that can maximally excite neural tissue may have no effect on the muscular tissue and vice-versa.
Nerve tissues favor brief duration stimuli while heart muscle requires much longer duration impulses to become activated. This is primarily due to the much higher electrical capacitance of heart tissue. The common output mechanism of stun gun restraint units generates extremely short duration impulses, each measuring only a few millionth of a second. These pulses are virtually ineffective in stimulating heart muscle no matter how intense thestimulus. These ultra short duration impulses are only slightly effective in stimulating nerves even though the intensity, as measured in terms of peak output voltage, is many times greater than the minimum amount necessary using impulses of optimal duration.
The extremely narrow pulse width of the stun gun output accounts in great measure for the lack of penetration to deep tissues. Although the peak output from the circuit is of such high voltage as to cause ionization of the air, producing ozone and awesome discharge arcs, the pulse width is so narrow that the physiologic response is transient and clearly sub-maximal. Cardiac tissue, normally far removed geographically from the point of application of the device, would not be stimulated due both to isolation and to the unique physiologic characteristics of heart tissue. Even with direct application of the device to heart tissue any deleterious effect is minuscule.
The physiologic principle governing these observations is known as “tissue chronaxie”. The principle relates stimulus intensity to stimulus duration and is not constant but varies widely from one tissue type to another. Depending on the physical and chemical surroundings of the tissue, the value of the tissue chronaxie may even vary from moment to moment.
The shorter the duration of an electrical impulse, the higher its intrinsic frequency components. In case of stun gun restraint units, the major energy component of the shock pulses is actually in the radio frequency spectrum rather than the audible frequency spectrum where most functional nerve and muscle stimuli are located. This results in the “skin effect” (does not necessarily imply human skin), a well known and predictable electricalphenomenon wherein high frequency electrical currents crowd to the surface of an electrical conductor such as the human body and may not penetrate to the deeper nerves and muscles beneath. It has been shown that for frequencies above one megahertz, most of the actual current path is concentrated in the upper few millimeters of the human skin. This phenomenon should not be confused with dielectric heating such as diathermy, an unrelated mechanism which can cause deep tissue warming.
In summary, very short duration pulses as produced by stun gun tactical restraint units are only marginally effective in stimulating excitable tissue. This is a desired circumstance in the design of restraint devices since the region of the body affected by the discharge of the pulse is quite limited, and therefore the effect on the body, no matter how long the device is applied, is brief. The device produces a short period of incapacitation and no significant residual effect such as burning or damage to tissue appears to be possible. The heart is not directly stimulated at all, and any potentially hazardous subtle or gross rhythm abnormalities of the kind associated with accidental electrocution are, practically speaking, not possible. Only deep penetration of lower frequency or direct electric current into tissue is potentially hazardous due to the thermal effects and possible arrhythmic excitation of the heart muscle.
A stun gun restraint device’s output, when operating normally and when used in the prescribed manner, is not a significant hazard to normal adults. Impulses delivered to the subject’s face and especially near the eyes are to be avoided. This is because of the exquisitely sensitive nature of facial skin and the tissues of the eyes. For these reasons, stun gun impulses to the face have not to date been specifically tested.
Omega Stun Guns restraint devices are not medical devices. Omega Stun Guns makes no claim of diagnostic or therapeutic efficacy about the devices. Since no such claim is made, the device does not appear to fall under the jurisdiction of the Device Amendments to the Food and Drug Act-1976, which laws prescribe detailed testing of the new medical devices before manufacture. Also, the FDA imposes strict regulations for quality assurance in the manufacturing process of medical devices.
Physical Theory of Operation
All restraint devices such as the X-Caliber™, including the older and less familiar TASER, possess common elements of electronic design. The design is based on a transistorized relaxation oscillator which periodically transfers an electrical charge accumulated on a small timing capacitator into the primary winding of a high ratio step-up transformer. If the electrical parameters and operating conditions of the circuit are properly chosen, the secondary winding voltage will exceed the dielectric breakdown potential of the air gap separating the output terminals resulting in a distinctive succession of very brief discharge arcs. These arcs will occur with familiar auditory and visual characteristics.
The circuitry is conceptually quite similar to an automobile ignition system with the circuit parameters altered to achieve a more psychologically and physiologically effective discharge while maintaining non-lethality. Indeed, the analogy of the X-Caliber™ circuitry to an automobile ignition system is apt in that the destructive tests reveal a highly reliable automobile spark plug NGK-C6HSA as the primary circuit control switch. Conventional restraint devices routinely employ PC board elevated “X tracks” as the primary circuit control switch. The use of a commercial spark gap was a wise choice in theX-Caliber™ design because older stun guns which employed PC board spark gaps were subject to erosion and failure if used for extended periods of time. Since the likely scenario for the X-Caliber™ may entail extended use, the spark plug circuit provides a rugged enhancement to X-Caliber™unit.
Improved performance often comes at some expense to safety. However, the margin of safety in all three units is extremely high as confirmed in actual practice as well as with laboratory animals. In my opinion, the slight degradation of safety expected from the enhanced performance would not be significant.
The Secret Agent is a small single battery unit of conventional design. It has a peak voltage output of 80 KV across the output terminals. The profile is small and the unit readily lends itself to being carried in a pocket. The small profile and modest output voltage assign this unit to personal protection, where the intended use is in emergency personal defense situations. Click here for Secret Agent Stun Gun full description or here for a Secret Agentdemostration video.
The Super Stunner is capable of delivering a higher peak voltage, 120 KV versus 80 KV for the Secret Agent. To my knowledge, it is the only hand-held restraint unit employing “Resonance Augmentation”. The effect of resonance augmentation is to substantially enhance both the snapping sound emitted during the arcing mode as well as the brilliance of the arc itself. This enhancement occurs as the result of a specially designed high voltage capacitor electrically across the output of the step up transformer, but physically formed so as to reside unobtrusively in the head of the device. Resonance augmentation tunes the output transformer to resonate at the frequency of the principal sinusoidal components of the output pulses.
This familiar principle is used widely in other technologies, but was not available to restraint unit technology until recently because of the unavailability of suitable capacitors. This technological breakthrough appears to have resulted from an imaginative combination of capacitor advancements coupled with high voltage packaging techniques.
The higher pulse output voltage of the Super Stunner stun gun is a direct result of three component changes in this model as versus the Secret Agent:
1. Larger storage capacitor (0.47 μf versus 0.33 μf )
2. Larger battery supply (2 X 9V versus 1 X 9V)
3. Resonanance Augmentation versus no augmentation.
Once again, enhanced performance raises the question of possible diminished safety. In the case of the Super Stunner Stun Gun, this question is perhaps somewhat more than academic.
Animal experiments with the Super Stunner Stun Gun showed no effect on the cardiovascular system of the test swine. For more about stun guns andanimal control, click here.
The primary frequency components of the Super Stunner Stun Gun are an order of magnitude or more greater than the highest frequency pulses known to affect the heart when applied anywhere to the body surface. This margin of safety is over and above other safety characteristics regarding low power external pulse energy applied to the body.
The X-Caliber™ is an electrically-active repelling device whose principle benefits appear to be in the ability to repulse an aggressor or mob at more than arms length. This is an improvement in operator safety and effectiveness in successfully coping with such dangerous situations.
The primary repelling and intimidating features of the X-Caliber™ are a multiplicity of awesome electric discharges from the X-shaped crossmembers located at the end of a long tube. Quite apart from the physical characteristics of the structure, the electric discharges have a commanding sight and sound. The arc discharge elements are located at the ends of the X members and are paired resulting in two nearly simultaneous large arcs on either side of the device.
In assessing the “worst case” safety considerations of the X-Caliber™, one must postulate a highly unlikely but uniquely possible situation with this device as compared to a hand-held restraint unit. One of the intrinsic safety margins in conventional hand-held restraint units results from the localized nature of any electric current delivered to a subject by the contact probes. In almost any imaginable circumstance of contact with a subject, the current flow pathway is limited to a very small area of non-critical skin and subcutaneous tissue. But assume for the moment that an assailant grabs two opposing arms on the X-Caliber™, one with each hand. In contrast to traditional stun guns, which can only create a vanishingly small current in the chest regardless of the application pattern of the probes, the scenario posited above with some of the current through the chest could increase this minuscule value somewhat. Electric Field Theory suggests that even in this scenario, most – perhaps 90+% - of the current would flow the path of least resistance and flow though both palms with very little current traversing the longer, higher resistance path through the thorax. In any event the safety factor due to the previously mentioned “skin effect”, which is attendant in all restraint unit devices, is operational and would be the dominant safety factor insuring subject immunity to electrical hazard.
The X-Caliber™ has the same peak potential (120 KV) as the Super Stunner (120 KV). It’s delivery is enhanced by having two output transformers, two batteries, and an even larger storage capacitor (0.66 μf). These factors, along with the resonance augmentation enhancements described above, serve to tailor the output of the X-Caliber™ to support multiple nearly simultaneous discharges occurring randomly over the active surfaces. The two outputtransformers have their secondary windings connected in series, not in parallel as might be expected. These circuit changes optimize the incapacitation ability.
Respectfully submitted this 4th of August, 1994.
Robert A. Stratbucker, M.D., Ph.D.
Click here for the author's Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae.
The Relative Immunity Of The Skin And Cardiovascular System To The Direct Effects On The High Voltage –High Frequency Component Electrical Pulses
Robert A. Stratbucker. Heath Tech. Corp. 10744 West Center Road. Omaha, NE 68124
Matthew G. Marsh. Paktronics. 5635 South 148th Plaza. Omaha, NE 68137
Abstract
This paper summarizes our testing to date of commercially available battery powered hand held electric pulse generators, sometimes called “tasers”,stun guns, or Less Than Lethal Weapons (LTLW). We present the generalized electronic properties of these devices along with physiologic effects on human and animal subjects.
A.Introduction
The objectives of this work fall into two primary categories:
1. To characterize by physical measurements the electrical emissions from a representative cross section of commercially available battery poweredhand held electric pulse generators whose primary application is in effecting non-lethal compliance and control of persons (or animals – please clickhere to view our “Omega Super Baton Stun Gun & Animal Control” report, and here to view our “Stun Gun Animal Study”) whose manifest or latent behavior constitutes a perceived threat to the safety and well being of the holder of such a device; and
2. To further characterize by physiology testing the biologic interactions of such emissions as they may effect the safety and effectiveness of such devices in the hands of their holders when such devices are used both in the prescribed manner as well as certain unexpected ways in healthy and previously sensitized individuals.
B. Methods
1. Physical measurements:
Most of the devices tested were designed to generate a default arcing condition in the air gap between closely spaced opposing interior projections of the two principal forward facing output terminals which are spaced 50mm apart. Such arcs only occurs when the output transformers feeding the terminals are electrically unloaded and peak potential across the interior probes exceeds the dielectric breakdown value of the air gap. Contracting the skin with the forward probes under almost any orientation or pressure and with virtually any topical condition of the skin significantly loads the outputtransformer resulting in a lowered output voltage which extinguishes arcing. A 20,000Ω dummy test load composed of twenty 1000Ω one watt resistors in series was used in all the testing. Graphic recordings were taken with a Model 2654 Tektronics oscilloscope operating in the differential mode. The probes were placed across a 20Ω resistor in the center of the test load providing a differential voltage divider factor of 1000. Further voltage division was accomplished using the scope attenuation controls. The battery powered pulse generator under test was entirely self-contained with no ground reference.
2. Physiologic Measurements:
a. Skin – Twenty 21-50 year old male police officer volunteers were exposed to 3 second bursts of the pulse generator output delivered to the volar aspect of one forearm. A non-electric pressure injury of a similar degree was applied to the contralateral arm. These sessions took place during regularly scheduled training programs specifically related to familarization with the devices. Color photographs of the exposed sites were taken 1 and 10 minutes post shock and again at 24 hours.
b. Cardiovascular System – Two 60 Kg Hampshire gilts were anesthetized with 20mg/Kg of Ketamine and supported under 5% Halothane and O2 anesthesia. Venous bipolar pacing catheters were placed in the right ventricle under fluoroscopic control. Twenty shocks of 3-5 seconds each were delivered to the endocardium by passing pulses from the two terminals of the pulse generator to the pacing leads of the catheter. Arterial blood pressure and surface EKG were recorded before, during, and after the application of the pulse.
C. Results
1. Physical Measurements:
Units from 5 different device companies were tested. Listed in random order, these manufacturers were:
a. Ultron – 2 models
b. Omega – 2 models
c. Nova – 1 model
d. U.S. Protector – 1 model
e. Guardian – 1 model
Some features common to all devices:
1. Pulse repetition rate. 5 to 25 Pulses Per Second.
2. A single transistor relaxation oscillator with internal etched PCB spark gap, driving a high ratio ferrite step up transformer.
3. Charging capacitors ranging 0.2 to 0.6 mfd.
4. One or two 9v battery power source.
Some features unique among devices.
1. One with a very high voltage output capacitor (not the charging capacitor) across the output transformer yielding resonance enhancement. 2. One with hermetically sealed internal spark gap. 3. One with 30% lower output impedance than the average of the others. 4. One with loaded peak voltage 3.5 times the lowest. 2. Physiological Measurement:
a. Skin – All twenty subjects exhibited the typical “signature response”, specifically a punctate reddening of the skin at 10 minutes post shock limited to a 3-5mm diameter circle directly under each probe. Five out of 20 showed small wheals at the stimulus site. All of these hive-like elevations had disappeared at 1 to 2 hours. Only one case, a man of Mediterranean ancestry, showed residual markings at 24 hours, however, these were gone in 2 days. No burns or other permanent markings were ever noted.
b. Cardiovascular – One device with 50kv output peak potential was used to deliver ten 3-5 second bursts to the pig’s endocardium. In no case was there any evidence of alteration in the heart rhythm, or significant blood pressure variations occurring during or after bursts.
Finally, these same tets were repeated in the presence of 1mg of epinephrine administered IV. The expected elevation of blood pressure and heart occurred in each case, but without any evidence of sensitization to the effects of the endocardial stimulus. No malignant rhythms or their progenitors were ever seen.
D. Discussion
Although little has been published in the medical or bioengineering literature on subject or less than lethal weapons (LTLW’s), the U.S. federal government has had a keen interest in the subject since the Johnson administration (1). The interest was renewed in the mid 80’s with a special symposium on the subject sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Justice (2). Bernstein (3) in the mid 70’s attempted to characterize the TASER, a ballistic counterpart to the hand held devices, in terms of the 60Hz equivalent energy delivered to a subject. He updated his treatment of the subject to include certain hand held devices in 1985 (4). Stratbucker (5) reported the first animal studies involving LTLW’s in the bioengineering literature in 1986. Most recently, Roy. Et. Al. (6) have published a report describing apparent ventricular fibrillation associated with the direct epicardial application of a stun gun to exposed pig hearts. This work appears ro draw on prior work from the Canadian group related to high frequency transients encountered in theelectric power industry. Our study appears to be at some variance with the Canadian group’s work. The difference may lie in the dissimilar current density patterns associated with differing application techniques. To our knowledge, no one has ever demonstrated an arrhythmic effect on LTLW’s when applied anywhere on the exterior of the body, human or otherwise.
(1) Natl. Comm. On Causes & Prevention of Violence, U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Wash. D.C. ,1969
(2) Atty. Gen. Conf. on LTLW. U.S. Dept. Justice Report. FBI Academy, June 11-12 1986
(3) T. Bernstein. “Lethality evaluation for the TASER electric gun”. AAMI Ann. Meeting. March 1978
(4) T. Bernstein. “Evaluation of the Electric Shock Hazard for the NOVA XR 5000 Stun Gun”. Madison WI. 1985
(5) R.A. Stratbucker. “The assessment of potential cardiac hazards in the use of hand-held electronic law enforcement devices”. Prod. 8th Ann. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. & Bio. Soc., Nov, 1986
(6) O.Z. Roy, A.S. Podgorski. “Tests on a shocking device - the stun gun”. Med. & Bio. Eng. & Comp., 27. 445-448. 1989.
A comparison of two respresentative devices
| Model X | Model Y | |
| Battery | 9V Alkaline | 9V NiCad |
| Transistor | NPN FreeStanding | NPN FreeStanding |
| Oscillator Transformer | Dual Primary | Dual Primary |
| Storage Capacitor | .33μf 1500V | .3μf 1500V |
| Spark Gap | PC X-Track | PC X-Track |
| Output StepUp Transformer | Single Stage Secondary 117 Ω DC Primary 0.5 Ω DC | Single Stage Secondary 326 Ω DC Primary 0.4 Ω DC |
| Output Capacitor | None | None |
| Peak Volts 20KΩ Load No Arc | 80,000 V | 50,000 V |
| Output Frequency | 4 μ second cycle 250KHz | 2 μ second cycle 500KHz |
The O-Mega™ Super Baton™ & Animal Control
Technical:
The O-Mega™ Super Baton™ uses two DURACELL 9v batteries for its power source; its oscillator transformer is Dual Primary; its storage capacitor is .5 Uf 1500v; Fundamental pulse frequency is 3.3 u second cycle/303 KHZ; Output repetition rate is 8.2 times per second; Peak pulse power is 18.3 Watts; Delivered pulse energy is 1.5 J.
Usage:
The O-Mega™ Super Baton™ is intended to function in two ways: as a deterrent, and as an incapacitator (restraint device).
Deterrent:
When an animal hears the arching and cracking sound of the electricity, it hears not only those sounds we humans hear, but also other frequencies not audible to us; it hears these sounds as waves of sound moving towards it, and is not able to comprehend the nature of the sound, which is frightening to it; it usually chooses to withdraw rather than face this unknown and frightening sound.
Incapacitator:
If, in the rare occurrence, an animal (dog) does not retreat, then you may have to touch it and restrain it with the O-Mega™ Super Baton™. The baton should be held out, at arms-length, toward the animal (dog); it may be touched either on the muscle or a leg or paw; it should be held in contact until the animal retreats or is restrained (becomes passive). We have heard that the animal will retreat in most cases, but when it is touched, the animal may lie down, rollover, or limp away, regaining normality in a few minutes. If the animal attempts to bite the baton, the same results will occur, since the shaft of the baton has two electrified metal strips extending approximately 5’’ from the bottom of the shaft.
Research:
Several years ago, we commissioned the testing of our product on dogs, to determine the effect on them, generally, and specifically on their heart rates, respiration, skin, and general health. The animal was monitored with an EED recorder and observation for respiratory and skin effects. Our product was found to be an effective and humane method of controlling the animal; with no adverse short or long term effects on the animal. In another study, commissioned exclusive for O-Mega™ by the noted Medical Authority and Cardiologist, Dr. Robert A. Stratbucker, M.D., M.S., Ph.D., F.E., he found that our product was safe to humans, could not stimulate the heart (we use a frequency that does not even stimulate the heart), and he had no other detrimental.
I hope the information presented in this letter will be helpful to you and that you will find out product is an excellent choice for your meter readers or others with similar concerns.
Animal (Dog) Study
Due to the increasing number of dangerous dogs being kept by unqualified persons, a safe and effective, and yet human, method is needed to subdue large and dangerous animals. The stun gun is quick, effective, and humane, causing no adverse short or long term effects on the animal, but providing the carrier with sure fire protection.
METHOD:
A pilot study was done using a 252 gram female rat. The rat was anethticized using .4 ml of 2.5% Nembutal (Sodium Pentothal) injected intraperitoneally. The animal was hooked to the ECG recorder using subcutaneous probes to the right and left legs and left arm. Normal tracings were recorded. The animal was shocked with the chart speed at 5.0 cm/sec, but the shock caused a large disturbance of in the equipment and the recording needle could not be realigned quickly and as result no data were obtained. Two more shocks of approx. 1 second in duration were administered and data were recorded at a chart speed of 2.5 cm/sec. The heart rates of before and after were calculated. The whole animal would contract at the moment of the shock, but normal respiration would resume afterward. No burns or evidence thereof appeared on the skin of the animal, however, in a test shock of an unrestrained animal a small amount of hair was singed, presumably due to poor contact and arcing through the hair.
A 10 Kg female dog approx. 10 months of age was lightly sedated and carefully restrained to avoid injury to the animal. The ECG probes were attached subcutaneously as before. Normal tracings were recorded at 2.5 cm/sec. Shocks of approx. 1 sec. in duration were administered and where possible data were recorded. Three shocks in all were administered in 11 minutes. During the first shock, given in the left shoulder area, the involuntary muscle contraction of the animal pulled out a probe and recording was lost. The following two shocks caused such a disturbance of our equipment that no immediate recording was possible but continuous chart rolling and timing allowed for tracing to be recorded at accurate post shock intervals. As in the rat experiments the dog returned immediately to normal breathing and there was no damage to the skin or hair of the dog. Heart rates of before, during, and after were calculated.
RESULTS:
Heart Rates of Rat:
| Before | 8.25 beats/sec |
| Post Shock 1 | 4.16 beats/sec |
| Post Shock 2 | 5.07 beats/sec |
Heart Rates of Dog:
| Before | 130 beats/min |
| Post Shock 1 | 162 beats/min |
| Post Shock 2 | 122 beats/min |
| Post Shock 3 | 150 beats/min |
In both cases, the animals heats rates were back within normal range in minutes. Also, both animals were up and around and behaving normally within 30 minutes. Both animals were observed for 7 days afterward and appeared normal in every way.
O-Mega™ Super Stunner Stun Gun
This stun gun clearly has the strongest effect of those stun guns tested. Not only did it stand out in effectiveness, but it showed no arcing or discernible leakage current to the hand of the user.
The Super Stunner Stun Gun has two switches, an on-off switch and a trigger switch. The on-off switch is useful in that it may prevent the device from being activated accidentally. It has a potential disadvantage in that if it is inadvertently left on for an extended period, the battery will be drained. An automatic timeout on this function would be very desirable. The on-off switch, which is not spring loaded, protrudes in such a way that it can easily be pressed to the ‘on’ position unintentionally while the stun gun is being carried in a purse or pocket.
This is the only model tested to include a battery indicator – a small red LED – that glows when the safety switch is in the ‘on’ position and the battery ostensibly has sufficient energy remaining. The other stun guns must be activated and arced in order to verify the battery condition, resulting in significant wear on those units with internal spark gaps.
Unfortunately, the battery condition light does not always operate as intended. If the on-off switch is left in the ‘on’ position and the battery drained to a low level, the battery condition light may still glow indicating that sufficient battery energy remains. But, in fact, there may not be enough energy to cause a single spark, let alone enough to discourage an assailant.
The O-Mega™ Super Stunner Stun Gun has two other potential drawbacks. Firstly, it is a fairly large unit and therefore may be inconvenient to carry; though some may consider its size an advantage in that it is easier to get a good grip on. Secondly, it is not as good as some of the other stun guns at penetrating very thick layers of clothing.
The distributors of the O-Mega™ state in the literature that accompanies their product. “A very small percentage of people, however, can withstand this amount of electric shock, so O-Mega™ cannot absolutely guarantee that their stun guns will render everyone unconscious.”. Some of the other distributors are not so forthright in their claims.
The Super Stunner Stun Gun has a belt clip as well as very sturdy strap.
While the manufacturers of three other devices tested claim higher voltages, they did not perform nearly as well as the O-Mega™ Super Stunner Stun Gun.
Batteries
This device uses two 9 volt batteries, e.g. Duracell MN1604.
Distributed by O-Mega™, Network Incorporated. Made in Taiwan.
Published by:
T’Prima Technology
Gateway Station, Aurora, CO 80044-1126 U.S.A., 1994
