EMP Discussion from Morrow Project mailing list

Taken from http://www.thenostromo.com/maillist.html and go to The Morrow Project link.

Re: New packages

 To: MP@nostromo.gate.net
 Subject: Re: New packages
 From: "michael cessna" <clinkerbuilt@hotmail.com>
 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:40:10 PST

>From: Doozer <doozer@frontiernet.net>

>To: "Mailinglist 'MP'" <MP@nostromo.gate.net>
>Subject: Re: New packages
>
>Donald Harden wrote:
>>
>> >TnkrM48A5 wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> As I read it, there is SUPPOSED to be(meaning it was planned to be) a
>> large support organization for resupply and organizing the rebuilding
of
>> civilization. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the statement above seems
to
>> reflect planning for 150 years after, not 3 to 5.
>>
>(snip the rest)
>
>Seems to me that the Project would have to plan for the Long Haul even
>if the plan had gone off without a hitch. After WWIII, manufacturing
>and raw materials both would be extremely difficult to come by for a
>long time. Mark Twain recognized this a hundred years ago when his
>Connecticut Yankee tried to modernize Camelot - an automobile, a house,
>even a toaster or microwave, is the culmination of a LONG line of
>inventions, developments, and manufacturing processes, each of which is
>in turn an end product in itself. Our world and culture are very
>fragile, if you think about it (and we obviously do, playing End-of
>World games alla time!). Bruce Morrow would undoubtedly be considering
>this when he and his people drew up plans of supply for the teams and
>installations they were putting in place.
>
>Doozer
>
>>
Thank Ghu someone said it!! This IS an incredibly fragile structure we
have built for ourselves. Take out too many elements, and..........
'CRASH!!BANG!!!BOOM!!!..nothin'<G>
But, seriously...has anyone thought to use the cache plan from
'Allegheny Uprising'(T2K)?? They actually laid out a post-OOPS
cache that contained 'strategic materials'. I'll try to find the info &
post it. M.Cessna
>
Re: New packages
 To: MP@nostromo.gate.net (Mailinglist 'MP')
 Subject: Re: New packages
 From: Bill Garmer <bgarmer@tsc.net>
 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:43:59 -0800
 In-Reply-To: <http://www.thenostromo.com/archives/mp/1998-03/msg00520.html>
 References: <http://www.thenostromo.com/archives/mp/1998-03/msg00516.html><http://
www.thenostromo.com/archives/mp/1998-03/msg00478.html>

At 01:42 PM 3/23/98 -0500, you wrote:

>At 08:38 AM 3/23/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 03:13 AM 3/22/98 EST, you wrote:
>>>In a message dated 98-03-22 03:08:14 EST, you write:
>>>
>>><<
>>> >A nuclear war causing massive death and destruction on a global scale
>>> >causing a collapse of civilization does not mean the civilization was
>>> >fragile.
>>>
>>> No, but as I stated above, if you remove electricity and the ability to
>>> move via mechanized means, and do no damage at all, in any other way, to
>>> the ground, the civilization will fall to its knees and may never recover.
>>> >>
>>>
>>> And one can't forget fear of the unknown. This will cause a great deal of
>>>chaos. The Chaos will cause further dislocation and destruction. Think
>>of it
>>>as series of failures that, individually are just a problem, but all
>>together,
>>>one-two-three, are TEOTWAWKI.
>>>
>>> The text of the Postman illustrates a scenario like this.
>>
>>Again - you are talking about a world wide event. The word Fragile
>>indicates something that requires special care or that is easily broken.
>>Not surviving such an event isn't fragile. Take the phrase "remove
>>electricity and ability to move via mechanized mean, and do no damage at
>>all" how? Loss of foreign oil - 65% of the oil used in the US is for
>>private vehicle. Loss of foreign oil will mean loss of private vehicles
>>and more public transportation. Most electricity is via coal which we have
>>in plenty. Loss of mechanized movement (trains, trucks, etc) how without
>>major damage? God just removes them or changes to laws of physics?
>
>I have one simple method of stopping everything in its tracks...Electro
>Magnetic Pulse.
Oh you pick the wrong person for this Boogey Man - I have had to design against EMP for real military
hardware. I have had the training to know and I can tell you it isn't as scary as it was 25 years ago.

The reasons:
1) First electronics had become more hardened. This has been caused not by an effort of the military but
by consumers demanding reliable electronics. A static electric discharge can be many thousands or 10's
of thousands of volts. Modern electronics, properly designed can handle it.
2) Consumers have also demanded that electricity producers become more reliable. In the old days you
could afford an occasional power outage - no more. The cost is too high for even a short outage so steps
have been taken. Power lines have been buried (esp: Southern CA) which helps against EMP -
transformer and line equipment has been designed to handle lightening strikes (direct strike is worst than
EMP). There is a lab in FL that does nothing but test such equipment against lightening strikes.
3) As more electronics have been used in everyday equipment, it has become EMI and EMC have
become important. These stand for ElectroMagnetic Interference and ElectroMagnetic Compatibility. To
give one story - when anti-lock brakes first hit the trucking industry there were cases were the brakes
would suddenly "come on." They were traced to CB radios (which were starting to become a craze). The
radiation would scramble (not destroy) the electronics and cause odd (read: stupid) behavior. That was in
the '70's - designers now have to design equipment to handle EM fields in the order of 100's V/m and the
survive through higher.

I could go on and on but the in the final analysis, yes a lot of the country would be out of electricity for a
while. Cities would get it back fairly quick but I do not be everything would come to a standstill. Even if
the modules in the trucks were to stop working, the spares on the shelf would. The diesel electric trains
could run (the big metal shield of the locomotive would shield it) and so on.

> This can be the result of trying to divert an asteroid

>from hitting us with atomic weapons,

Only if you are trying to do it in the upper atmosphere and that would be too late. Only a very small
EMP is generated in deep space explosions and most of that would be reflected back into space when it
hits the atmosphere.

> atomic weapons used in a malicious

>"soft kill" manner by detonating them where they will do no physical damage
>but the EM pulse will fry electronics, or even solar flares.

What is the last piece of ground based electronics you have owned that died by solar flare?

>I do not care how your electricity is created. If the transformers and
>switching stations/equipment is fried doe to EMP, you are not going to get
>electricity, or if you did, it would not be in a useable voltage or at a
>viable distance from the powerplant.

>Kurt Feltenberger
>kurt@blazenet.net
>
>
>http://www.igateway.com/clients/kurt/mp Morrow Project Site
>
>http://www.igateway.com/clients/kurt/pj PJ the Welsh Terrier Site
>
Bill

William R. Garmer
Member Technical Staff
Torrey Science Corporation
3550 General Atomics Ct, Bldg 14
San Diego, CA 92121

Voice: 619/552-1052
Fax: 619/552-1056

e-mail: bgarmer@tsc.net
web: www.torreyscience.com

Re: New packages

 To: MP@nostromo.gate.net (Mailinglist 'MP')
 Subject: Re: New packages
 From: Bill Garmer <bgarmer@tsc.net>
 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:27:25 -0800
 In-Reply-To: <http://www.thenostromo.com/archives/mp/1998-03/msg00597.html>

At 02:27 PM 3/25/98 EST, you wrote:

>In a message dated 98-03-25 14:04:58 EST, you write:
>
><<
> I hate to tell you all this but there has been a lot of improvements in
> electronics over the last several years and a lot of improvements in
> protection of the electrical and phone lines. A ref would be the article
> "EMP - effects and theory" which covers the EMP and it comparison to
> lighting strikes. It is in the June '92 Proceeding of the IEEE.
>
> Bill
> >>
>
>
> Unless there is a supply of these at my local library, doesn't seem likely
>(though I will look). In the house here we have the normal appliances, three
>TVs, two VCRs, two PCs (one w/ printer), innumerable clock, the furnace and a
>water heater. The furnace and water heater, as well as my PC (w/ Printer),
>one TV and VCR all in the basement. An EMP effect shouldn't reach these
>items, and if it did, the effects would be less severe because of "effective"
>shielding - Trees, the structure of the house overhead, lots of soil if the
EMP
>wasn’t coming straight down...

What I was talking about initially was equipment necessary for life to
continue but...

EMP travels through free-space (which is different than air) but has to be
coupled into a piece of equipment to cause harm. For example: a radio
connected to an antenna could (and probably would) be damaged unless it is
protected. A radio, sitting on the shelf with no power connected or
battery powered would not. The power lines to your house can conduct the
EMP pulse into equipment but the same lines can bring in lighting strike.
For this reason, electric companies have made great strides in the last
several years to solve this problem. It has also helped that the major
transmission lines that link cities have increased their power level also
requiring better protection. To give another example, SDGE loss power to a
major portion of Southern CA in the late '70's due to a thunderstorm in the
AZ. A lighting strike hit a major transmission line and it travelled 300
miles and burned up equipment in San Diego. This does not happen now
because the equipment is better designed and lighting (and EMP) is better
understood. Lighting is basically the ultimate form of EMP in that it has
reached the field strength to actual cause an arc (something EMP does not
do). The major difference is that lighting is localized.

So if this equipment is not connected to the power lines when it hit then
it should still work. Some equipment, like a blender, is just too tough to
get hurt (it is a switch and motor) even if connected.

> But this travels through the air, Right? Anything can get hit by EMP, so
>even battery-powered items are vulnerable, right? Science Magazine (gone
>now...) Dec 82 had the first article aimed at the general public (but not the
>"Simpsons" demographic - the folks that don't read) about EMP true it's
dated,
>but it also described attempts to harden military equipment and power
>transmission lines.

Actually the first public articles was in '63 but the threat of EMP
increase as semiconductors became more common. As Kurt pointed out, some
semiconductors can be killed with a static electric discharge (peak output
about 15 kV) but modern electronics are in better shape. Also government
requirements for import (the CE mark) require protection against such things.

> The article stated that semiconductor chips were, due to the amount of
>energy (don't remember what kind - volts or amps), especially vulnerable. The
>level of power was just too high, and the surge could hit the chips directly,
>didn't need a power line. This is what made EMP such a boogeyman.
> Could you add to this, and explain the differences. Due to your having
>work and such, I realize it may take a while.

This and my other post should cover the basics.

>Scott H
>

Bill