Maker Pro
Maker Pro

EMP blast - what would happen really?

P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
The molten rock around the blast was probably conductive, and shorted
it out, like a Farady cage.

Interesting observation.
 
P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Where did you get that idea? Weird!

Don't overtly excite the boy. He might jump to another energy state.

One HUGE Weirdon is what you would end up with.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:


Would you mind explaining that to Eeore?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
It amuses me that electricity in the USA is still so widely delivered on poles !
Along with those pole pigs. I think we're a bit odd here ( in my road ) having
phone lines coming off poles still. Well... one of mine does.

Graham


There are good reasons for them being above ground in a lot of
places. Overhead wires don't get flooded out in heavy rain, and you
don't have to remove lots of rocks and trees to put the lines in place.
Do you have any idea how many million trees would have to be cut down to
put all of our electric lines underground? They have to use dynamite to
set power and telephone poles around Cincinnati, Ohio. The standard
work order is marked. R. I. P. which means "Replace in Place". They cut
the old pole off a little above ground level and remove the piece from
the ground. The new pole goes back into the same hole, and the lines are
transferred.

On the other hand, a lot of telephone and CATV lines are buried,
because they can use above round pedestals for splices and access
points.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
A

almo

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sjouke said:
No, I was talking about the voltage in wires(low resistance,high current,
like in lightning(for a few miles of wire,millions of volts at currents
of thousands of amps).
The area that explosion hits, is much bigger than your thundercloud,
and voltage and current is much worse.
Its the voltage and the available current together causing damage.
The sparks you talk about have only minute currents behind them.
Another thing which is worse, is that events take 10 to 100 times
as long as a lightning strike,so try to imagine lightning hitting
everywhere at the same time,at energy levels a thousend times.
Believe me , you want to be somewhere else,by preference at the
other side of the planet.
As somebody else said,at Hawaii the USA blew the powergrid,
from hundreds of miles or more away,and that was not intended to
happen,so conditions for EMP shock were not optimal.

Tim - yes, corrrect, Einstein hated quantum theory, but but the numbers
do work out. And Einstein spent all of his time to the day he died
trying to get the Unified Field theory to work out, but it didn't
happen for him.

Also correct, EM radiation is photons, zero rest mass, but a nuclear
explosion, or reactor meltdown gives off all kinds of nasty things,
although I can't name them off the top of my head. Possibly gamma
rays. Gamma rays are photons, but they are commonly referred to as
Gamma particles.

This is from the EPA site:
"Gamma radiation is very high-energy ionizing radiation. Gamma photons
have about 10,000 times as much energy as the photons in the visible
range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma photons have no mass and
no electrical charge--they are pure electromagnetic energy."

And the 18,000 volts? As someone pointed out about lightning, it ain't
the voltage, it's the current that'll kill you

Also, E=mc**2. So, the gamma particle has no mass, except when it's
moving, then it has mass, but it can't be measured directly due to the
exclusion principle, which get's back to quantum mechanics, and who's
on first, what's on second, and I am outta here. I concede defeat.
I'm going to pick up Einstein's Unified Field Theory, where he left
off, and get the math worked out this afternoon. Maybe I'll hop on
over to sci.math :)))).
 
W

w_tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
The energy content of fields from a lightning strike are really quite
low. For example, a few hundred foot long antenna may suffer a few
thousand volts from a nearby lightning strike. But the energy content
is so low that the voltage drops to near zero when milliamps are
conducted through an NE-2 neon glow lamp.

Meanwhile the fields from a thermonuclear blast are completely
different. For starters, the frequency response from NEMP is totally
across the spectrum - all frequencies. Electric power grids were not
destroyed by this field. Those grids became unstable when their long
wires (acting like antennas) simply caused control and safety equipment
to see a failure condition and shutdown. The grid did not blow. It
simply crashed just like a computer crashes - without hardware damage.

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.

NEMP is different from lightning EMP. One major difference is that
NEMP has energy distributed throughout the frequency spectrum. It is
not just a photon. It is energy in most all electro-magnetic
spectrums.
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
(Why is your reply appearing in response to Sjouke?)

almo said:
Also correct, EM radiation is photons, zero rest mass, but a nuclear
explosion, or reactor meltdown gives off all kinds of nasty things,
although I can't name them off the top of my head. Possibly gamma
rays. Gamma rays are photons, but they are commonly referred to as
Gamma particles.

Oh, it gives off trash literally across the spectrum. The worst offenders,
high-energy (say, more than 10 or 20eV) ionizing radiation (UV-B or UV-C to
x-rays to gamma) is all absorbed by a sufficient thickness of atmosphere
(since the molecules have dissociation energy circa 4-10eV, and are rich
with electrons and nuclei which attenuate x- and gamma rays by momentum
exchange).
This is from the EPA site:
"Gamma radiation is very high-energy ionizing radiation. Gamma photons
have about 10,000 times as much energy as the photons in the visible
range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Visible light is the 1.5-3eV range (more or less), so that puts gamma rays
starting at 15-30keV -- hard x-rays I would say, personally. But they'll be
picked up on most "gamma" detectors.
Gamma photons have no mass and
no electrical charge--they are pure electromagnetic energy."

Also, E=mc**2. So, the gamma particle has no mass, except when it's
moving-

-- It's always moving. A photon with energy five billionths of an
electron-volt (5 x 10^-9) still moves at the speed of light. It's nigh
impossible to detect a single such photon (carrying merely 1.6 x 10^-28
joule!), but a couple oh, say, ten trillion trillion million, per second,
travelling together, represents about the output of a commercial transmitter
(maybe 10kW in this case).
then it has mass

It NEVER has mass. It does, however, follow space-time (relativistic
gravity lensing), and carries energy and momentum (p = m*v classically, but
relativistically p = gamma*m*v, where gamma --> infinity at light speed,
allowing mass --> 0). The relation is E = p*c (c is speed of light).
but it can't be measured directly due to the exclusion principle

No, the Pauli Exclusion Principle only applies to leptons (such as
electrons, neutrinos, and the more exotic muons and tauons). Photon wave
functions happily overlap, a fortunate occurance given our need of lasers
and radio waves.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, however, states that there is some
maximum accuracy that can be obtained when measuring an object's position
and momentum, or energy (including rest mass energy (RME)) and time.
I'm going to pick up Einstein's Unified Field Theory, where he left
off, and get the math worked out this afternoon. Maybe I'll hop on
over to sci.math :)))).

An excellent idea. Perhaps they will grill you much better than I have.

Tim
 
J

Jim Yanik

Jan 1, 1970
0
The energy content of fields from a lightning strike are really
quite
low. For example, a few hundred foot long antenna may suffer a few
thousand volts from a nearby lightning strike. But the energy content
is so low that the voltage drops to near zero when milliamps are
conducted through an NE-2 neon glow lamp.

Meanwhile the fields from a thermonuclear blast are completely
different. For starters, the frequency response from NEMP is totally
across the spectrum - all frequencies. Electric power grids were not
destroyed by this field. Those grids became unstable when their long
wires (acting like antennas) simply caused control and safety
equipment to see a failure condition and shutdown. The grid did not
blow. It simply crashed just like a computer crashes - without
hardware damage.

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.

Uh,I see a lot of trees struck by lightning here in central Florida,and
they usually have a trail of bark blown off them where the bolt travels
down to ground.Later,the tree dies.
NEMP is different from lightning EMP. One major difference is that
NEMP has energy distributed throughout the frequency spectrum. It is
not just a photon. It is energy in most all electro-magnetic
spectrums.

NEMP depends on altitude.
 
W

w_tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
You see 'every' tree struck by lightning - or one in one hundred
whose sugars exploded when struck by lightning? Most all trees struck
by lightning leave almost no indication as demonstrated by the US
Forestry Service study. Just because you saw symtpoms of an exception,
that makes the exception the norm? Too many do this to promote junk
science reasoning. Most all trees struck by lightning have no
appreciable indication.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
w_tom said:
You see 'every' tree struck by lightning - or one in one hundred
whose sugars exploded when struck by lightning? Most all trees struck
by lightning leave almost no indication as demonstrated by the US
Forestry Service study. Just because you saw symtpoms of an exception,
that makes the exception the norm? Too many do this to promote junk
science reasoning. Most all trees struck by lightning have no
appreciable indication.

Do you have a link to the Forest Service study.

My experience with lightning-struck trees is limited, but I do recall a
pine tree that exploded about halfway down the trunk and scattered wood
debris over a large area. I was in a building across a parking lot
from the strike looking out a window.
 
W

w_tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
The Forestry Service study is cited by Dr Uman (U of FL) in one of
his books. I don't remember which one. Alan Taylor, I believe, did
that study.

Many don't realize how often lightning does strike earth. Homeowners
typically can expect about 1 direct strike every eight years. But even
this number varies widely with geology and even within same town.
Neighborhood history would also be an important fact. So how often has
your neighborhood been struck every year?

Another myth is that highest objects are struck. For example,
mountains instead tend to be struck more often farther down where
better conductive geology is located. Often valleys between mountains
are struck more often because that is better conductive soil. But
myths assume lightning strikes highest point only because that is where
lightning strikes are more often observed. Selective data collection
also created myths about electric wires and child diseases.

In one case, lightning avoided a 40 foot tree to strike earth some 60
feet adjacent to that tree. The observer later realized the strike
location was where limestone was closer to the surface. Again, highest
object was not struck for good reason. How destructive is lightning?
First every event must be catalogued. Observing a dead tree due to
lightning does not make a trend. And yet so many use that junk science
reasoning to assume lightning routinely kills trees. Dr Uman is a
highly regarded industry professional.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
Do you have a link to the Forest Service study.

My experience with lightning-struck trees is limited, but I do recall a
pine tree that exploded about halfway down the trunk and scattered wood
debris over a large area. I was in a building across a parking lot
from the strike looking out a window.


There are lots of trees destroyed by lightning here in Florida, and a
lot of fires started by lightning strikes. Tom keeps insisting that
there is no current with a lightning strike, but I've seen the end of a
1/2" steel rod melted by a lightning strike.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
W

w_tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael said:
There are lots of trees destroyed by lightning here in Florida, and a
lot of fires started by lightning strikes. Tom keeps insisting that
there is no current with a lightning strike, but I've seen the end of a
1/2" steel rod melted by a lightning strike.

Elsewhere provided were numbers - that Michael now intentionally
misquotes. Lightning is most often less than 20,000 amps. Lightning at
a strike location does not have the high energy content of myths. High
power, but not the high energy that so many claim only using
assumptions.

Yes, numerous trees are killed by lightning. And there are far more
are struck without that catastrophic damage.

Michael cites a 1/2" steel rod melted by a lightning strike as proof
that lightning routinely melts lightning rods? And that would also be
proof that lightning routinely vaporizes anything that is struck?

w_tom does not insist that there is no current in a lightning strike.
Quite the contrary. Lightning is a classic current source transient.
Michael A Terrell is demonstrating personal contempt of w_tom rather
than posting logically. Michael Terrell will even completely
misrepresent what w_tom has posted.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Jan 1, 1970
0
w_tom said:
Elsewhere provided were numbers - that Michael now intentionally
misquotes. Lightning is most often less than 20,000 amps. Lightning at
a strike location does not have the high energy content of myths. High
power, but not the high energy that so many claim only using
assumptions.

Yes, numerous trees are killed by lightning. And there are far more
are struck without that catastrophic damage.

Michael cites a 1/2" steel rod melted by a lightning strike as proof
that lightning routinely melts lightning rods? And that would also be
proof that lightning routinely vaporizes anything that is struck?

w_tom does not insist that there is no current in a lightning strike.
Quite the contrary. Lightning is a classic current source transient.
Michael A Terrell is demonstrating personal contempt of w_tom rather
than posting logically. Michael Terrell will even completely
misrepresent what w_tom has posted.


You made a claim in the past that the damage done to electrical
circuits was from the AC power lines, not the lightning.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
M

Mark

Jan 1, 1970
0
Another myth is that highest objects are struck. For example,
mountains instead tend to be struck more often farther down where
better conductive geology is located. Often valleys between mountains
are struck more often because that is better conductive soil. But
myths assume lightning strikes highest point only because that is where
lightning strikes are more often observed. Selective data collection
also created myths about electric wires and child diseases.

I don't think the conductivity of the ground vs that of a wet tree has
anything to do with it. Before the bolt stikes, there is very little
current flow and the top of the wet tree is at essentially the same
(ground) potential as a copper pipe in the ground.

And height is a factor but a small one becasue when you consider the
bolt is traveling over 5000 feet another 50 feet here or there is not a
big deal, so just by random chance a low spot or a high spot may be
struck. The 50 foot high spot a little more likely. The 1200 foot
hight spot like the Empire State Bld. MUCH more likely.

Mark
 
W

w_tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael, you are now confusing two completely different topics.
Learn from those who do this work successfully and also write. From
Colin Baliss in his book "Transmission & Distribution Electrical
Engineering":
Although lightning strikes have impressive voltage and current
values (typically hundreds to thousands of kV and 10-100 kA)
the energy content of the discharge is relatively low and most
of the damage to power plant is caused by 'power follow-through
current'.

So how did you reinterpret this as no current in a lightning strike?
AC electric can be a high energy destructive force especially when
lightning diverts the high energy of utility electricity. Somehow you
reinterpreted this as no current in lightning? Somehow this is
relevant to lightning striking a tree?
 
J

joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've heard that if an EMP weapon were used, *nothing* in the blast area
that relies on electricity would work.

Is this really true?

If you had an alkaline battery, it would still put out a voltage,
correct?

Failing that, one could still take a roll of paper towels, immerse the
towels in a salt solution (table salt should do), place alternating
plates of copper and zinc (or any two dissimilar metals), and obtain a
current... right?

Would motors still work, or would their windings be guaranteed
destroyed in an EMP blast?

Thanks,

Michael

I am a bit disappointed here, I had not thought you could become a troll.
Mind you, i had learned the answers to this question by myself by the time
i was 16. Perhaps you are just a journalist.
 
J

joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:

Get an entire 50 pound bag of salt before reading these sites. Most any
adequately educated person could find the gross inconsistencies,
politically motivated distortions, and some outright lies. Better educated
persons could find most of the baloney physics, clearly misunderstood
physics, and the skewed thought trains driving the distortions. These
sights can best be used as an example to teach the small mindedness of
politicians.
 
Top