Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thunderclouds in China ... A Storm is Brewing ...
self | 15 June, 2005 | joanie-f

Posted on 07/15/2005 10:29:12 AM PDT by joanie-f

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last
To: George from New England

APC UPS systems have a Phone/Modem jack that is optically isolated along with the power supply so that doesn't happen.


221 posted on 07/29/2005 8:00:43 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

"Overblown; the paranoia hucksters have gotten to you once again "

Thank you for bringing documented reason to the conversation. Lightning protection will essentially double as EMP protection. However, it is important to note that if this report was circa 1984, the solid state electronics of that era is probably much more survivable than todays electronics -- IF the voltages make it into the electronics -- and that's a big if.

The stone age scenario with EMP is strictly a construct of hollywood.


222 posted on 07/29/2005 8:03:54 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

"'Faraday cage' - an over-wrought saw; what are your intentions, E-field shielding only?
(That's all you'll get with strictly a 'Faraday cage'.)"

Yep. You have to put stuff in a box made of Mu-metal to really protect it from E and H components......


223 posted on 07/29/2005 8:06:03 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

"I may be crazy but I see an internal attack by the muslims (nuclear) and then a piling on by the Chinese. I wouldn't be suprised if the two aren't working together. We are in serious trouble and no one seems to be addressing the problem. We are wide open to internal attack despite the much hearlded Homeland Security that seems to be aimed more at controlling American citizens than guarding the country."

It is possible that the first part of your statement could prove to be true. The second part, about our Homeland Security being aimed more at controlling American citizens than guarding the country, is not the case, IMO. I can't understand people who don't understand that a war, any war, brings about the need, the duty of our country to protect its citizens. I think those who have an issue with more security requirements in the U. S. are wearing tinfoil hats folded and bent just right using the Constitution as the foil.



I do not find it a stretch of the imagination to believe that two of our enemies would join together for a common cause. Their cause being to destroy the United States. I have often thought of this scenario myself and would only add that I also do not trust Putin, aka Russia.


224 posted on 07/29/2005 8:06:39 PM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Thank you for bringing documented reason to the conversation.
Thanks.
it is important to note that if this report was circa 1984, the solid state electronics of that era is probably much more survivable than todays electronics
I think I addressed this in post 212. Intrinsic ESD protection in semiconductor devidces has had some side benefits in that it makes COTS equipment more reliable under EMP conditions than previously thought possible, although there may be 'momentary upset' the equipment (notably digital) itself should a) survive and then b) recover from the 'fault' state.

225 posted on 07/29/2005 8:32:38 PM PDT by _Jim (<--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
How far out in space were these bursts, and what was the yields of these bursts?
The 'armchair' EMP analysts would seem to paint the picture that there were 'many' of these tests conducted; there seems to have been only one which showed 'classic' EMP effects (in Hawaii):
STARFISH PRIME Nuclear Test mission
1962 Jul 9 - 8:46 GMT
1.45 megaton
altitude: 400 km

226 posted on 07/29/2005 8:45:16 PM PDT by _Jim (<--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: marron
We need to make the millions aware of what cannon fodder they are, just as with the ignorant masses of Islam.
227 posted on 07/29/2005 9:03:52 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
"These collisions generate Compton recoil electrons which interact with the earth's magnetic field to produce a downward traveling electromagnetic wave, the "EMP" that is.)"

Do you know if there have been any experiments in an attempt to configure or focus the incoming EMP to a target area -- or to enhance the collision by distributing additional substances in the atmosphere?

Sounds like it might be useful for weather control -- or even free energy.

Thanks for the reply.

228 posted on 07/29/2005 9:36:28 PM PDT by Eastbound (Read the Koran? Hey, if I wanted fairy tales I'd do Mother Goose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f

Confucius say in Laundryticus 11.4..."When thunderclouds are brewing in Guangdong, it is time to bring in the laundry."


229 posted on 07/29/2005 9:39:19 PM PDT by Supercomputer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Okay, I'll bite, what's Mu-metal?


230 posted on 07/29/2005 9:48:38 PM PDT by investigateworld ( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

From Wikipedia:

"Mu-metal is a nickel-iron alloy (77% nickel, 15% iron, plus copper and molybdenum) that is very efficient for screening magnetic fields."

a simple faraday cage, or screen will still be penetrable by the magnetic portion of an EMP. Mu-metal directs the magnetic portion around an enclosure.


231 posted on 07/29/2005 10:02:50 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I know where there's a bunch of abandoned mines going mines into the earth. Would the contents therein be EMP proof without additional shielding?
232 posted on 07/29/2005 10:11:39 PM PDT by investigateworld ( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

The point is that under an EMP you wouldn't need to put all your electronics at the bottom of a mine. THey'll probably be fine at home with a surge protector and lightning protection on any external antennas.

But the bottom of a mine would be safe from an EMP, too.........


233 posted on 07/29/2005 10:17:55 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Thanks. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
234 posted on 07/29/2005 10:38:02 PM PDT by investigateworld ( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Have you looked into the effect that a powerful, high-altitude EMP would have on anything other than ham radios? (say, public telecommunications network switches and facilities, satellite teleports, signaling, control and data acquisition systems, switching systems, routers, etc.?)

The NCS is responsible for assessing and addressing threats to our national communications infrastructure. I would suspect that that particular group would be less than eager to admit that America has developed an Achilles heal in regards to any major threat to our communications systems. That would be like asking a corporate CFO to comment on the accuracy and honesty of his company’s numbers.

Combining that obvious observation with the fact that you chose to prove your ‘paranoia’ allegation by linking to an evaluation of the EMP threat that was written more than twenty years ago kind of dilutes your argument, don’t you think?

Even though we would still be contending with a ‘corporate CFO/company numbers’ type issue, let’s look at a much more recent statement by Dr. Peter Fonash, the current acting director of the NCS, presented just a few months ago in an address before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security:

Just last year [2004] the NCS actively participated in the congressionally-chartered ‘Commission to Assess the Threat from High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse’ that examined and evaluated the state of the EMP threat at present and looking fifteen years into the foreseeable future. The Commission’s report, delivered last July, concludes that EMP presents a less significant direct threat to telecommunications than it does to the National Power Grid, but would nevertheless disrupt or damage a functionally significant fraction of the electronic circuits in the nation’s telecommunications systems in the region exposed to EMP (which could include most of the United States). The NCS concurs with this assessment.

He then goes on in great detail describing future plans to harden our communications infrastructure.

Kinda like a CFO saying that only a small percentage of the books are cooked, and that small percentage, in turn, affects most of the bottom-line figures … but that’s okay … we’re working really hard to find the broken calculator.

Your comment ‘… those gamma rays traveling toward the earth’s atmosphere are stopped by collisions with atmospheric molecules at altitudes between 20 and 40 kilometers. These collision generate Compton recoil elections which interact with the earth’s magnetic field to produce a downward traveling electromagnetic wave’ is also included in an essay by Major M. Cajohn, USMC, entitled ‘EMP: From Chaos to a Manageable Solution’.

Not only was this essay also written nearly twenty years ago (when our EMP hardening was far more widespread and reliable than it is today), but its purpose was to awaken our national leadership to the fact that manageable solutions to the EMP threat do indeed exist. The essay served as an exhortation to focus on those solutions before it is too late. When Maj. Cajohn penned it, the Reagan administration was indeed in agreement with him and was funneling finances and manpower into doing just that. In the sixteen years since, as last year’s report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack concluded, The end of the Cold War relaxed the discipline for achieving EMP survivability within the Department of Defense, and gave rise to the perception that an erosion of EMP survivability of military forces was an acceptable risk.

That you are citing two twenty-year-old documents, the first of which was written by anything but unbiased authors, and the second of which is taken from an essay which warns of our unpreparedness for an EMP attack doesn’t exactly make for an air-tight argument that there is nothing to fear.

As for your references to Starfish, a fairly recent article written by Dr. Michael Bernardin of the Theoretical Institute for Thermonuclear and Nuclear Studies at Los Alamos, stated:

It is clear that EMP is a real effect and that damage is virtually certain. To establish that the problem is well understood, one must begin with a model of, say, Starfish, and demonstrate that the predicted EMP environments, EMP coupling, and effects match observation. Then, one must be able to establish that the model retains its fidelity when the warhead model is changed, when the burst location is moved over land and changed in elevation, when the electromagnetic coupling paths change, when the vintage of electronics changes, and with the incorporation of EMP test simulator data, that the results are reliable.

Using what you perceive as the implications of Starfish as an infallible model amounts to a refusal to consider the affects of a number of variables, the instances and numbers of which have multiplied dramatically in the forty-plus years since that relatively small nuclear experiment.

Try moving out of the sixties/eighties. It might provide you a better perspective from which to view both the science and the politics involved.

~ joanie

235 posted on 07/29/2005 11:07:25 PM PDT by joanie-f (If you believe God is your co-pilot, it might be time to switch seats ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f

"That you are citing two twenty-year-old documents, the first of which was written by anything but unbiased authors"

Your original post cites many sources that could be less than defensible when you consider how gov't funded research dollars are handed out.

Which premise would get more money for a gov't funded lab:

1. EMP is a disaster waiting to happen

2. EMP is a concern, but it is likely that modern design methods will mitigate it significantly

I'm not impugning the entire premise, just pointing out that your own sources are potentially biased - Defense and gov't labs can hardly be seen as squeaky clean in your "CFO scenario".

It is quite possible that any EMP hardening would amount to making sure that our power and telecommunications infrastructure implements the electrical code with respect to grounding and lightning protection. I concede the point that some may not properly implement their design, even though sufficient grounding/ESD/lightning protection was called for in the design specs. That is worth checking for.

An EMP has nothing over close proximity lightning, and/or ESD - The physics of which have changed little over the past 50 years.

The Ham radio paper is relevant - as anything connected to an antenna will be more apt to absorb the energy from an EMP.

One item of note, the ionization of the atmosphere following a nuclear attack will raise the noise floor of any communications system - those not designed to compensate will be useless for the time that it takes atmospheric ionization to dissipate.

Regarding the power grid, as I have stated before - EMP hardening may require little more than prepositioning an additional inventory of fuses and breakers, and reviewing lightning protection. Procedures for quickly bringing a cold power grid back up in a stable fashion could also be useful (note the recent Northeast US blackout)

The paranoia is real - fueled by hollywood and less-than-impartial gov't and defense types.


236 posted on 07/30/2005 6:35:37 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; investigateworld; _Jim; BraveMan; Chode; joanie-f; Physicist
The point is that under an EMP you wouldn't need to put all your electronics at the bottom of a mine. THey'll probably be fine at home with a surge protector and lightning protection on any external antennas

BS. Any long wire (even after your surge protector) will couple EMP. Believe it, you will lose much of your stuff in a real EMP event. I know. I worked with the Defense Nuclear Agency testing a facility for that very scenario. Not all of us are no-nothing armchair wankers _Jim.

The reason I even post to these threads is I personally did EMP studies and hardening tests.

237 posted on 07/30/2005 8:26:11 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
An EMP has nothing over close proximity lightning, and/or ESD - The physics of which have changed little over the past 50 years.

Again BS. And EMP is a cascading even in the atmosphere. It does not act like a nearby lightning strike.

238 posted on 07/30/2005 8:28:03 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

"Again BS. And EMP is a cascading even in the atmosphere. It does not act like a nearby lightning strike."

No, not really. The failure mode of the electronics is exactly the same, whether it is caused by lightning or an EMP. Excessive induced voltage across a semiconductor junction.

So what happens to the electronics connected to a radiotelescope when it gets struck by lightning? Does research stop while equipment gets replaced every time?


239 posted on 07/30/2005 8:33:41 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
No, not really. The failure mode of the electronics is exactly the same, whether it is caused by lightning or an EMP. Excessive induced voltage across a semiconductor junction.

You are spot on.

So what happens to the electronics connected to a radiotelescope when it gets struck by lightning? Does research stop while equipment gets replaced every time?

A lightning strike does not couple across every single non-shielded circuit path. You can protect from a lightning strike using a surge protector since it has a point of origin. EMP affects the entire facility at the same time. Think of it as a field coupling to every single wire (even exposed circuit runs in a circuit board).

240 posted on 07/30/2005 8:39:29 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson