Macroware Technology

Welcome Portlet


Welcome to Macroware Technology Blog.

The purposes of this engineering blog:

- Share knowledge
- Learn
- Have fun
- Document what I was doing / thinking

Search Box

 

Private Area

Mailing List

Engineering Education

Engineering Organizations

Professional Career Networking Groups

Electronics Hobby

Trade Publications

Wart Zapper Circuit

posted Thursday, 5 January 2006
I have had some warts on my feet, and I came across a circuit in Nuts & Volts Magazine to help remove them [1].  The basic concept of the circuit is that it uses high frequency current pulses through the wart to destroy it.  The article makes some mention of Crane Frequencies which are specific frequencies identified by Dr. John Crane in the 1950s as effective in destroying certain microbes.  The frequencies for warts are 2.127 kHz and 21.27 kHz.

Circuit Description

The functionality of the circuit in [1] can be described as follows:

12V oscillator -> FET switch

The FET switch turns on and off at the desired frequency (21.27 kHz) grounding the active side of an electrode when it is on.  The dispersive side of the electrode is connected to a 24V source.  The 24V source is created from the 12V supply input with a simple voltage boost circuit.  Most of the circuit is based on a Philips HEF4060BP oscillator IC.

My Implementation

I implemented the design with a Fairchild CD4060BCN equivalent of the HEF4060BP.  The design in [1] sets the frequency of the oscillator using pin 9, 10, and 11 of the IC with an RC circuit with C1 = 100 pF and R1 = 5 k Ohms.  Pin 11 is connected to the RC oscillator through R2 = 100 k Ohms.  The article mentions that the frequency should be adjustable by varying R1 so I made that a potentiometer.   The circuit from my implementation is shown in the following figure.




As it turned out, the circuit did not work with R2 = 100 k Ohms as specified in the article because this resistance was too large.  A resistance value of 22 k Ohms was found to work better through experimentation and consultation of the Fairchild datasheet.  Once I got everything working on the input side of the 4060, the voltage at DE was measured to be a fairly flat waveform at a level of 22.45 V (a little less than the 24 V mentioned in the article).  For Q1, the article used an IRF823 but stated that an IRF510 should be fine.  I used an IRF510 originally.  I found that with the original circuit applied to my wart, I did not get a very large peak to peak AC voltage across the wart.  The Q1 was able to drive the AE point pretty close to ground when it was on, but when Q1 was off, there was not enough drive current in the high direction to drive AE back to 24V.  The high drive was provided simply through the pull up resistor formed by my wart which is a pretty large resistance.  This was not enough to charge the capacitance of Q1 and my skin within the half period time of 21.27 kHz.  I did some experimentation with fixed resistors connected between AE and DE, and I also switched out Q1 for a lower capacitance FET (MPF102) and the results are listed as follows.

  Tested with Q1 = IRF510
Tested with Q1 = MPF102
Load Vae min Vae max Vde - Vae peak to peak V Vae min Vae max Vde - Vae peak to peak V
100 k Ohms 1.875 V 11.25 V 9.375 V 2.5 V 18.125 V 15.625 V
my wart with lotion -225 mV 75 mV 300 mV 187.5 mV 1.5625 V 1.375 V
Rp=50 k Ohm and my wart with lotion 5 V 10 V 5 V 5 V 13.125 V 8.125 V
50 k Ohm 4.375 V 18.75 V 14.375 V 3.75 V 19.375 V 15.625 V


With a load of 100 k Ohms the original circuit with the IRF510 only delivers 9.375 V peak to peak to the load.  The article mentions that it is difficult to get skin resistance much below this level.  My wart's resistance must have been much larger because I only got about 300 mV peak to peak across it with the original circuit.  If the original circuit had any chance of working it was strictly through electrolysis effects from applying approximately 20 V DC across it.

With a modification to the circuit of adding Rp at 50 k Ohms and changing Q1 to an MPF102, I was able to get a peak to peak voltage delivered to the wart of 8.125 V.  Nothing ever happened to the wart though.  I followed the directions in the article and never even felt anything with the electrodes applied.  With the large resistance of my skin, I think the amount of power this circuit delivers is not sufficient to do much of anything.  I even tried cranking up the battery voltage to 18 V and still got no results.

The author refers to spectacular results in destroying warts with this circuit.  I did not see them with my warts.  I would be very interested to hear of anyone else's experience with this type of circuit.  The key is fighting through any initial problems with the 4060 IC, since it seems like characteristics of this chip vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

[1] Scarborough, Thomas. February 2005. "Wart Remover." Nuts & Volts Vol. 26 No. 2 pp 30-34.



1. Scott Olson left...
Friday, 3 March 2006 3:48 pm

I ran across this blog while googling for info on Scarborough's circuit. From your description, it seems like the problem could be that your wart's resistance is too low rather than too high. I would try decreasing VR1 so that more voltage (and power) can be delivered to the desired load (your wart).


2. David Carney left...
Saturday, 4 March 2006 9:53 am

VR1 is a potentiometer. The author includes it because he said that without it there can be an initial "jolt" when the electrodes are applied to a person's skin. The way it works is you're supposed to have VR1 set to a high resistance when you apply the electrodes and then after applying them you turn down the resistance of VR1 slowly so there is no "jolt". In all my testing I never got any "jolt" so I always did all my testing with it turned all the way to 0 Ohms.

Other reasons I don't think the resistance was too low:

- Adding Rp in parallel with the wart improved the peak to peak voltage across the wart. If the resistance was too low, adding more resistance in parallel with it would make it even lower.

- I tested the circuit with fixed load resistors of 100 k and 50 k across the electrodes. The peak to peak voltage increased when going from 100 k to 50 k.

I actually did some testing with a higher voltage source than 24 V as well. I was able to get higher peak to peak voltage across the wart (I didn't record the exact results), but still I got no results with my warts.

It is interesting to note that what eventually destroyed my warts was high frequency current (the Hyfrecator), but at quite a bit higher power delivery than the wart zapper circuit.


3. Thomas Scarborough left...
Monday, 21 July 2008 9:38 am :: http://thomasscarborough.blogspot.com

I admit that the Nuts & Volts design was potentially a bit quirky, you correctly recognise that. I know that in at least one of my articles, I advised against trying to remove warts from the SOLES of the feet, they're too touch to tackle. I know of at least three companies which have now put the concept into production, for example www.wartabater.com. I suppose it's predictable that they extol its virtues! ;-) With kind regards, Thomas.


4. Jay left...
Sunday, 9 August 2009 6:27 pm :: http://jaydmdigital.blogspot.com

I just built this circuit as it is shown on http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/Misc/wart_zap/wart_zapper.htm . I used the author's parts list and substituted the same SMD parts/ I have the benefit of a CNC mill so I was able to mill the circuit I laid out in Eagle Light. I soldered it up tonight and turned it loose on my three warts. It works. I had my o-scope connected watching the voltage and frequency on the probe. I knew when I hit the right spot as the voltage would drop low and start to climb. The 500K pot is not needed for me.

FWIW, Jay