P
Phat Bytestard
The molten rock around the blast was probably conductive, and shorted
it out, like a Farady cage.
Interesting observation.
The molten rock around the blast was probably conductive, and shorted
it out, like a Farady cage.
Where did you get that idea? Weird!
John said:During.
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
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.
Where did you get that idea? Weird!
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.
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."
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
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 ))).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Eeyore said:Spot on.
A US test once knocked out street lighting in Hawaii !
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/00-03-SPR/theblack.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski15.html
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-terror.htm
Graham