Posted: 11-28-2009 03:38 AM
The subject might be a bit hair-raising but at least we can take a moment to consider it. And then draw our own conclusions.
Fantastic Forum the Original Art Bell's Midnight in the Desert and Coast to Coast AM Forum
The Next Generation
https://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/
ORR~27 Nov 09~Art Bell Live w/Prof. Wm. Forstchen
Page 8 of 10
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:48 AM
They are mentioning how old vacuum tube radios would be more resistant to an EMP. Well, I have a basement full of those, and some of them even work! But would there be much to listen to. That's a good question.
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:49 AM
Lastmartian wrote: They are mentioning how old vacuum tube radios would be more resistant to an EMP.
They certainly make guitars sound fantastic. I have an amplifier with a vacuum-tube.
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:53 AM
rumike wrote: They certainly make guitars sound fantastic. I have an amplifier with a vacuum-tube.
Yes, tube technology is still very popular with audiophiles and is a hit with guitar amps. My neighbor had a new Fender tube amp that was acting up and I managed to fix it for him. Basically it was just the tube sockets. I like simple fixes, they make everybody happy.
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:55 AM
Why can't educated people pronounce "nuclear" correctly? Drives me nuts.
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:57 AM
Some thoughts here. If the US was aware ahead of the event, that such an event was in progress (and they would be) - what would prevent the govt from having an emergency response in place which led to a rapid phasing out of the grid. Turn your power off! (heh). Then, after the device had detonated in the higher atmosphere, have a plan to phase in a repowering of the grid?
Another thought. If terrorists had the ability to detonate such a device to disrupt the power grid, and they did not fear any retaliation, why would they not just go for full out nuclear destruction?
If you think about all this for awhile, it really doesn't make much sense.
Another thought. If terrorists had the ability to detonate such a device to disrupt the power grid, and they did not fear any retaliation, why would they not just go for full out nuclear destruction?
If you think about all this for awhile, it really doesn't make much sense.
Posted: 11-28-2009 03:57 AM
The 'nucular' issue....
It's a clumsy word in english....
It's a clumsy word in english....
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:01 AM
Linnea wrote: Then, after the device had detonated in the higher atmosphere, have a plan to phase in a repowering of the grid?
Another thought. If terrorists had the ability to detonate such a device to disrupt the power grid, and they did not fear any retaliation, why would they not just go for full out nuclear destruction?
If you think about all this for awhile, it really doesn't make much sense.
To the first question, would the EMP only affect electronic devices that are active, or would it melt circuits regardless? I don't know.
I think the second point is true except for nations that do not have the re-entry capability, as was pointed out regarding N. Korea.
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:01 AM
If you smile when you say it, it not easy to mispronounce it. However, who is usually smiling when they use the word?
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:05 AM
Linnea wrote: Some thoughts here. If the US was aware ahead of the event, that such an event was in progress (and they would be) - what would prevent the govt from having an emergency response in place which led to a rapid phasing out of the grid. Turn your power off! (heh). Then, after the device had detonated in the higher atmosphere, have a plan to phase in a repowering of the grid?
Another thought. If terrorists had the ability to detonate such a device to disrupt the power grid, and they did not fear any retaliation, why would they not just go for full out nuclear destruction?
If you think about all this for awhile, it really doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure but whether a grid was powered or not it would still be damaged by a sufficient EMP.
The fanatics wouldn't fear retaliation so much as they would welcome it. And that does make me wonder why they haven't struck yet. Unless they are unable to do so, or maybe unwilling, or even non-existent. The 'fear factor' can certainly be an issue here.
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:07 AM
Linnea wrote: If you think about all this for awhile, it really doesn't make much sense.
I agree, Linnea. Good ideas, too. Preventive rather than preemptive sounds much better to me.
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:14 AM
Linnea wrote: If you smile when you say it, it not easy to mispronounce it. However, who is usually smiling when they use the word?
That makes me think of the general West Coast accent and diction, in which there is a tendency to keep the mouth less open. This even impedes the capacity to enunciate sometimes.
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:22 AM
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:27 AM
rumike wrote: To the first question, would the EMP only affect electronic devices that are active, or would it melt circuits regardless? I don't know.....
With solid state devices whether they are passive or active they can be damaged by an EMP. And even something simple such as a coil can be fried if the field is intense enough. A coil can be the starter solenoid in a car as well as the ignition coil. A computer circuit would certainly suffer too but even an old '48 Packard might not start after an EMP event.
Posted: 11-28-2009 04:37 AM
Here's a decent article (seemingly) which gives some tips on how to protect small electronic devices with faraday cages, which can easily be constructed. There is a reason they call many of us 'tin foil' hat people... 
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-protection.html
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-protection.html