4 May
2005
4 May
'05
4:39 p.m.
Subject: Re: OT: EMP and Equipment
From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:01:40 -0500
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Allison wrote:
Lightining, direct hit to a TV antenna. Antenna and #6 CU ground
lead were reduced to little BBs or otherwise vaporized.
The affected systems were one floor down. Not less than two portable
(battery only) radios had the RF stages fried.
The term EMP is ElectroMagnetic Pulse refers to any large
magnetic pulse. It is not exclusive to a nuke going off though that
can generate a whale of a big one. Though dumping a sufficiently
large (say 100KW/S) stored charge into a coil can really mess
up local equipment.
Years of working around commercial towers I've seen what those
big sparks from the sky can do. Its impressive.
Allison
I have a computer that was damaged by EMP from a
direct hit to the
house I was in at the time. It was not connected to power or terminal.
Your house was hit by a nuclear device? (Kidding, obviously; what caused the EMP? 
5 May
5 May
5:56 a.m.
>>>> "Allison" == Allison
<ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> writes:
Allison> The term EMP is ElectroMagnetic Pulse refers to any large
Allison> magnetic pulse. It is not exclusive to a nuke going off
Allison> though that can generate a whale of a big one. Though
Allison> dumping a sufficiently large (say 100KW/S) stored charge
Allison> into a coil can really mess up local equipment.
That's not how PolyPhaser (a major player in the professional
lightning/EMP protection business) uses the terminology. Lightning
and (nuclear) EMP have rather different waveforms (EMP has faster
risetime). So protectors designed to protect from lightning aren't
necessarily helpful for EMP. (However, EMP protectors also do fine
for lightning.)
Calling a lightning strike "EMP" is certainly a confusing use of the
term.
paul
7171
days inactive
7172
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
pkoning＠equallogic.com