P
Pranav A S
Pls help
Add comment here or on youtube
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
- Status
Pls help
Add comment here or on youtube
I played the video again and used Google Translate but it didn't work.
The words should be typed in the native language then Google could translate them into clear English with no echoes and no strong accent.
Wye doo dey doo dat??
I doubt that people over there could understand what I say if I spoke their language (I never have) in an echo chamber.
The words should be typed in the native language then Google could translate them into clear English with no echoes and no strong accent.
Wye doo dey doo dat??
I doubt that people over there could understand what I say if I spoke their language (I never have) in an echo chamber.
Arouse1973
Adam
All you have produced is an EMI device nothing more. An EMP device will produce energy to damage a device from a considerable distance. Why do you want to do this anyway.
Adam
Adam
hevans1944
Hop - AC8NS
Well, he was able to brick a Casio calculator with it from a distance of about two millimeters. Be afraid, be very afraid! What's that old saying? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
AFAIK, the only practical large-area EMP generator is a nuclear detonation in the upper ionosphere, where the prompt gamma radiation produces copious quantities of Compton-effect energetic free-electrons that immediately spiral around the Earth's magnetic field lines at relativistic velocities, emitting a huge electromagnetic pulse of broadband radiation. More details can be found here in this Wikipedia article.
The danger of this occurring as an act of aggression by a foreign adversary was considered nil in the previous century because of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. Now that most of the world is interlocked as trading partners, the chances of a nuclear EMP detonation is limited to rogue nations or terrorists actors permitted to obtain and use the required delivery systems, such as nuclear warheads mounted to fractional-orbit delivery (FOD) systems. There is probably no reliable defense against that yet. So, it is a probable but unstated (and highly classified) SIOPS policy of the United States to initiate a pre-emptive massive strike intended to permanently eliminate the possibility of such action before it occurs. Well, that would be my policy if someone put me in charge.
Last edited:
P
Pranav A S
It is too low power because it is illegal to build real- life damaging ones.. It's capabilities are limited.
What are the 'genuine/realistic' effects of a nuclear-generated EMP?
How much more damaging than a decent CME event?
How much more damaging than a decent CME event?
Well duh.
It's a common dream of belligerent schoolchildren everywhere.
....
They want something that they can hide in their pocket and that runs off a 9v battery, that they can take to class and set off to destroy all the classroom computers because they forgot to finish last week's assignment. ;>)
It is a request (or sometimes, an attempted demonstration) of a destructive device--which is against the rules--but then again, it is so unlikely to be destructive that I view it as an educational exercise. It's more helpful to point out all the reasons that it probably isn't going to affect anything more than an inch or two away. Sometimes I can con them into wanting to build a Jacob's Ladder, for example...
hevans1944
Hop - AC8NS
Excellent questions! Let's all hope we never find definitive answers to either one. But, if I were a betting man, I would put my chips on the CME being the most destructive because it has the full faith and credit of this solar system's largest operational hydrogen fusion reactor to drive it. What's that compared to a puny five hundred (or even five thousand) megaton nuclear detonation fifty miles or so above the Earth? Do you really want a mass-extinction event? Try getting in the line-of-sight of a gamma-ray burster. One of those would ruin the whole planet... forever.
And keep your calculators about six inches away, lest ye be threwn back into the time of olde, when we toiled nobly and wraught maths upon parchment with quill feathers...
P
Pranav A S
Pls share this video only if you like it
P
Pranav A S
P
Pranav A S
But I think nuclear is more powerful as it is so close and is actually inside the atmosphere and magnetic field which protect us from CME(almost)
hevans1944
Hop - AC8NS
But I think nuclear is more powerful as it is so close and is actually inside the atmosphere and magnetic field which protect us from CME(almost)
Below is an image, to scale, of the Earth in the background against a typical solar prominence that could be a precursor to a coronal mass ejection or CME. What isn't to scale is the 93,000,000 mile distance between the Earth and the Sun. This distance lowers the probability that any given CME will be aimed at the Earth, but the probability is never zero. CMEs do occur with some regularity, and some of them do enter our magnetosphere and our upper atmosphere where they can cause havoc. Consider the Carrington Event that occurred on August 28, 1859. This was the largest CME event observed in modern history. If a similar event occurred today, it could destroy our technology-dependent civilization. How many H-bombs would it take to equal the energy the Sun puts into just one CME?
The US has non-nuclear EMP weapons. These were covered by Time Magazine the 90's, and Scientific American sometime before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse_(NNEMP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator
ak
hevans1944
Hop - AC8NS
None of the research and development in the past sixty or so years (since WWII) has yielded a practical EMP weapon, suitable for deployment on the battlefield.
There have been many attempts to build one-time-use-only, as well as re-loadable, EMP generators that could possibly prove useful in theater operations under very specialized circumstances. However, the cost and efficacy of such "weapons" does not compare well against ordinary high-explosives in the form of aerial-delivered bombs and artillery fire. For example, a priority during any armed conflict is communications superiority and the "easiest" way to deliver that is to destroy the enemy's communications infrastructure using ground assets as well as coordinated air attacks. Most recently, the desert warfare in Iraq, against a vastly incompetent resistance, demonstrated how effective armor, artillery, and air-to-ground attacks can be in modern warfare.
In recent years, the Holy Grail of future weapons development has been directed-energy weapons, which would include a directed EMP if such a weapon existed. High-energy lasers (HEL) are the bad boys to keep an eye on here because the can be scaled up in size, have short "time-of-flight," and the required optics (such as electronically deformable mirrors) for focusing and aiming the beam are well understood. Their main limitation is lack of momentum in the directed energy beam, which means the target must be destroyed or incapacitated by energy absorbed from the beam. There are many ways to defeat this, including ablative shields and mirrored reflections.
OTOH, a kinetic-energy weapon such as the U.S. Navy's rail gun is very hard to defeat. Imagine a Volkswagon-sized projectile, moving at several dozen kilometers per second, arriving uninvited to your tea party. The Air Force tries to keep up by delivering their MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) but you really can't beat a rail gun for virtually unlimited fire-power. They are to artillery today what the Gatling gun was (and still is) to small-arms fire in the previous century.
P
Pranav A S
Below is an image, to scale, of the Earth in the background against a typical solar prominence that could be a precursor to a coronal mass ejection or CME. What isn't to scale is the 93,000,000 mile distance between the Earth and the Sun. This distance lowers the probability that any given CME will be aimed at the Earth, but the probability is never zero. CMEs do occur with some regularity, and some of them do enter our magnetosphere and our upper atmosphere where they can cause havoc. Consider the Carrington Event that occurred on August 28, 1859. This was the largest CME event observed in modern history. If a similar event occurred today, it could destroy our technology-dependent civilization. How many H-bombs would it take to equal the energy the Sun puts into just one CME?
Well the whole sun itself is relative in size to the moon when we look from earth. Why? The distance. The sun emits millions of H - bombs energy each second. Yet it is just heat and light when reaches here. One H - bomb exploded here, which emits nothing compared to sun, is devastating because of proximity. The same thing must apply to EMP , right?
hevans1944
Hop - AC8NS
Yes, I agree with your observation that distance diminishes the effects. The radiation from our Sun is not just heat and light. The solar wind is real, high-energy particles, that can do considerable damage to unprotected objects, Fortunately, the Earth's magnetic field deflects most of the solar wind energy around us, except at the magnetic poles where it lights up the sky with a magnificent aurora display.
An EMP generated by a high-altitude nuclear detonation has effects limited to the line-of-sight path to the horizon. It is left as an exercise for the student to calculate how many simultaneous detonations, and where and at what altitude they should be placed, to cause world-wide disruption of all unshielded power and communications infrastructure. Hint: Sir Arthur C. Clarke figured most of this out when he suggested using satellites in geosynchronous orbits for radio communication purposes in 1945. The problem, in general, is finding a set of (overlapping) cones that will completely cover the surface of the Earth.
- Status
Similar threads
