# EMP blast - what would happen really?

J

#### JoeBloe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Too many see big voltage numbers and then assume massive energy.
Lightning, for example, has massive power but far less energy at a
strike location. It is why most all trees struck by lightning leave
almost no indication.

I have seen several trees that were split wide open from lightning
strokes. I have seen them aflame as well.

J

#### JoeBloe

Jan 1, 1970
0
The energy content of fields from a lightning strike are really quite
low.

Tell that to the NASA boys down at Cape Kennedy. (they would laugh
at you)

The stroke the launch pad got the other day was 20,000 amps and had
quite a long duration.

H

#### Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
JoeBloe said:
On 16 Aug 2006 16:43:52 -0700, "w_tom" <[email protected]> Gave us:
Tell that to the NASA boys down at Cape Kennedy. (they would laugh
at you)

No shit. Most people who 'survive being struck by lightning' actually were
hit by induced current - sort of like the difference between standing NEAR
the tracks and standing ON the tracks.

--
_____ _ _
|_ _| | | | |
| | __ _ _ __ ___ | |__| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ _ __
| | / _ | '_  _ \ | __ |/ _ \| '_  _ \ / _ \ '__|
_| |_ | (_| | | | | | | | | | | (_) | | | | | | __/ |
|_____| \__,_|_| |_| |_| |_| |_|\___/|_| |_| |_|\___|_|
__ ____
/ _| | _ \
___ | |_ | |_) | ___ _ __ __ _
/ _ \| _| | _ < / _ \| '__/ _ |
| (_) | | | |_) | (_) | | | (_| |_
\___/|_| |____/ \___/|_| \__, (_)
__/ |
|___/

J

#### JoeBloe

Jan 1, 1970
0
No shit. Most people who 'survive being struck by lightning' actually were
hit by induced current - sort of like the difference between standing NEAR
the tracks and standing ON the tracks.

The whole reason that an ESD smock is used is for abatement of any
field a charged individual carries. There are components that are so
sensitive that even local electrical fields can damage them.

Otherwise all we would need is a simple wrist strap or heel strap.

The smock also reduces the amount of charge one builds as one walks
through the air in a room.

I have seen real demonstrations of the differences. It is quite
significant. Raw components that have not yet been installed are the
most vulnerable.

This is also why there are differences in the types of ESD packaging
"bags". The black, fully dissipative types are the best for most
purposes.

R

#### Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
JoeBloe said:
This is also why there are differences in the types of ESD packaging
"bags". The black, fully dissipative types are the best for most
purposes.

They really suck for carrying real-time-clock chips with built-in
batteries.

C

#### Chris Foster

Jan 1, 1970
0
My older brother, who is with the Navy, once brought home some, lesse
I have the datasheets, CK5703 and CK5744 type miniature (wire-lead,
T-3 bulb) single triodes. He said that, on the fighters (F-18ish) he
was working with, there are the normal systems, backup systems, robust
backup-backup systems, and at the very bottom, when all the hit shits
the fan...a handful of tubes so you don't completely drop out of the
air.

Tim

Not true. i worked on the F/A-18 at McDonnell Douglas for nearly 20 years.
The Flight Control System was a quad redundant GE designed fly-by-wire
system. If that failed, the pilot had a hydraulic backup. If that failed;
time to eject

R

#### Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chris said:
Not true. i worked on the F/A-18 at McDonnell Douglas for nearly 20 years.
The Flight Control System was a quad redundant GE designed fly-by-wire
system. If that failed, the pilot had a hydraulic backup. If that failed;
time to eject

As I recall it, the F-14 has two hydraulic systems attached to each
critical control surface, one powered by each of the engines, and a
backup electric pump to provide power for critical things like getting
the landing gear down. F-14 #1 crashed early in the testing process
due to total hydraulic failure

R

#### Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chris said:
Not true. i worked on the F/A-18 at McDonnell Douglas for nearly 20 years.
The Flight Control System was a quad redundant GE designed fly-by-wire
system. If that failed, the pilot had a hydraulic backup. If that failed;
time to eject

M

#### [email protected]

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chris said:
Not true. i worked on the F/A-18 at McDonnell Douglas for nearly 20 years.
The Flight Control System was a quad redundant GE designed fly-by-wire
system. If that failed, the pilot had a hydraulic backup. If that failed;
time to eject

No, um, electronics in the ejection mechanism, right?

Hoo boy... Grab sledgehammer, break canopy, crawl out of cockpit?

Michael

L

#### Leon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chris said:
Not true. i worked on the F/A-18 at McDonnell Douglas for nearly 20 years.
The Flight Control System was a quad redundant GE designed fly-by-wire
system. If that failed, the pilot had a hydraulic backup. If that failed;
time to eject

I worked for Racal on military radio systems. A typical MoD spec. that
we worked to stated that the system had to carry on working after a
nuclear event, albeit at reduced performance.

Leon

K

#### Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
No, um, electronics in the ejection mechanism, right?

There wouldn't have to be. It could be made purely mechanical. The
mechanical workings would have to have a few springs and dashpots. You
want the canopy flung out of the way before the rocket under the seat is
fired.

There may have to be a gyro under the seat that gets spun up before launch
too. I don't think you can expect the pilots weight to be centered over
the thrust. Doing it all mechinically would technically be "rocket
science" but it wouldn't be out of the question.

C

#### Chris Foster

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in
No, um, electronics in the ejection mechanism, right?

Hoo boy... Grab sledgehammer, break canopy, crawl out of cockpit?

Michael
Nope. Purely mechanical tied to explosive bolts. Can shoot the pilot
right thru the canopy if needed.

J

#### JoeBloe

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in

Nope. Purely mechanical tied to explosive bolts. Can shoot the pilot
right thru the canopy if needed.

Yes, explosive bolts actuated by a mechanical force, as well as an
explosive propellant to actually facilitate the ejection process.

R

#### Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in
Nope. Purely mechanical tied to explosive bolts. Can shoot the pilot
right thru the canopy if needed.

I've seen this, except it was a maintenance man, and it not only shot
him and the seat through the canopy, but through the corrugated steel
roof of the hangar. The seat stayed on top of the roof, next to the
hole, and his body fell back down splat on the wing of the airplane.

A couple of months later the base safety officer went around to all
of the shops to give the summary of the accident report, and in a
nutshell, he said, "It's a bitch when you have to tell a young wife
with a new kid that her husband has just killed himself by his own
stupidity."

Thanks,
Rich

J

#### JoeBloe

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've seen this, except it was a maintenance man, and it not only shot
him and the seat through the canopy, but through the corrugated steel
roof of the hangar. The seat stayed on top of the roof, next to the
hole, and his body fell back down splat on the wing of the airplane.

A couple of months later the base safety officer went around to all
of the shops to give the summary of the accident report, and in a
nutshell, he said, "It's a bitch when you have to tell a young wife
with a new kid that her husband has just killed himself by his own
stupidity."

He wasn't strapped in, nor at altitude, idiot. He was servicing the
craft. Not only that, but it may not have been "his stupidity". It
may have been accidentally initiated.

Replies
16
Views
882
Replies
0
Views
332
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K