Talk:Electromagnetic bomb

Old talk

I don't know if this should persist; please try to cite your sources Lectonar 07:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm not certain yet.

For sources, here's a link to an article on these. Here's another one.

I just found that electromagnetic bomb redirects to Explosively pumped flux compression generator. I might redirect this one too, but I think someone else ought to call it.

One possible reason this may need its own item would be if Explosively pumped flux compression generator was actually a type of E-bomb.

If so, then electromagnetic bomb should be redirected here. Otherwise, E-bomb should be redirected there. Randy 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Electromagnetic bomb now redirects here. Eric Herboso 22:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This should be moved to electromagnetic bomb instead. I will do it with my new admin powers as soon as the electromagnetic bomb article is deletable (block-compressed revisions problem?) - Omegatron 23:56, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

The article has been expanded, and I love all the new info, but much of the text is just copied and pasted from outside websites. This needs to be changed ASAP, or else a {{copyvio}} will have to be put up on the page. - Eric Herboso 22:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Popular Mechanics quote might have been a copyright problem, however, the other quotes aren't in violation, as they are not copyrighted. I don't see what the problem is exactly anyways. It's noted that everything marked with a "*" is quoted from said page.--^Syke^ 06:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) Acknowledging the source is good, but it's still violating the author's copyright unless permission for use is explicitly granted. (2) No, this is not "fair use", it's simple duplication. (3) Copyright exists automatically even if there's no (c) symbol or anything like that. -- AnonymousCoward, 13 March 2005

I've removed all the offending material. You can't use others' material verbatim, or even with rephrasing, without permission. —Simetrical (talk) 04:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References added

Added reference to Spooks series 6, episode 1. Here, armoured Landrovers don't seem to function as Faraday cages in the face of roadside electromagnetic attacks... Binary-x (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Social effects

Since we are directed here from the EMP site and it states that to see damage from an EMP go here, maybe this is the place to list all the results to a developed nation if an EMP explodes above it. For example, our communications and transportation systems would fail, but would cars be affected. The setting off of an EMP above the US would take us back to the 1800s before electricity. No mail, no work, no food, no refridgeration, no heat, no gasoline for cars, no airlines, etc. Great place for this discussion, but it needs to be accurately done. Trucker11 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I read the article on Electromagnetic Pulse and a large focus of that article is on emp weaponry. Since this article is a stub, and e-bombs are a type of EMP weapon, I suggest this article be merged with that one. I might do it after I get sufficient feedback. Thanks. --Pyg 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rather see the weaponery portion of EMP be merged into this article and leave EMP to the physics & theory behind it. Cburnett 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the EMP article should be improved so that it is not just about weaponry. Do not merge. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 15:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty there is that EMP is primarily a weapon effect, and there's very little to discuss in the main article outside of its use as a weapon. It's like expecting an article about tasers not to focus on applying electricity to a living body. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better if the EMP page mentioned more of the non-weaponized versions of EMP? I believe there is a related effect from lightning bolts, for example. Sociotard (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Defense

Is there any defense against this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not for your typical private citizen. The article briefly mentions Faraday cages. Basically you protect something from EMP by giving all that energy somewhere else to go, usually by surrounding what you want to protect with conductive material that's well-grounded. If you're looking at, say, protecting your home computer from EMP, then unfortunately there's not a lot you can do. All those cables coming in and out the back of your computer will carry the EMP from the wall socket or from the air straight into the electronics inside and fry them. The cables mess up whatever else you may try to do to shield your PC. Stopping that requires extensive filtering on all connections. That being said, there are buildings and electronics out there that can be & are built to be safe from EMP weapons. Nuclear missile silos are all built to be safe from EMP. Banks, I think, also have EMP-safe backups of financial information. It's possible, it's expensive, and it's already in place in some important places. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cars are Faraday cages that can even withstand lightning, as has been proven again and again. So is the story about all the cars grinding to a halt as a first sign of EMP attack, like in The Day After or Warday, just a stereotype?

Also, even if car electronics were vulnerable, couldn't you just bury a metal crate full of spares so you could fix up your ride in the post-attack world? Maybe throw in a laptop and a radio while you're at it.--Cancun771 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You could probably buy spare electronics for a car, yes. However this wouldn't be all that cheap, and most Americans wouldn't know how to install the replacements anyway. If you do, more power to you. As for the car acting as a Faraday Cage: I wouldn't bank on it. Look at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM , where it says the following:

" Other conducting structures, such as aircraft, ships, automobiles, railroad tracks, power lines, and communication lines connected to ground facilities, also effectively serve as receiving antennas for EMP coupling. If the resulting induced currents and voltages, which can be large, are allowed to interact with sensitive electronic circuit and components, they can induce an upset in digital logic circuits or cause damage to the components themselves."

Sociotard (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rendering Faraday cages useless because of the conductors

Some makeshift Faraday cages have been suggested, such as aluminium foil, although such a cage would be rendered useless if any conductors passed through, such as power cords or antennas.

I find this affirmation rather dubious because the electromagnetic bombs affect mostly miniaturized electronic circuits, which have wires small enough to be burnt by the additional electricity from induction. It is highly unlikely that a powercord would get enough power from induction to destroy the electronic equipment. bogdan (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally the risk due to induction isn't due to the small amount of power induced in the power cord (or even the leads inside the IC) but rather the hundreds or thousands of volts that got induced in the power lines the power cord is connected to. If the electromagnetic field were strong enough to induce harmful voltages in the power cord itself, the field itself would be lethal to most mammals.

The E1 pulse can potentially put a few tens to hundreds of volts at very low current across even microscopic conductors, which is the primary damage to unconnected electronics. The E2 pulse is basically just like a lightning strike a few hundred feet away and does similar damage, but with a much larger footprint (It has a substantially similar strength at locations many hundreds of miles apart). The E3 pulse caused by the slow return of the distorted geomagnetic field primarily causes damage by inducing high voltages and high currents into long powerlines that can persist for 3-10 minutes or so. This primarily only affects long distance transport lines, not the much shorter local lines, and usually burns out transformers and insulators before getting to the local area. As such, it destroys infrastructure but offers relatively little direct damage to consumer electronics. 75.140.251.185 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

HEMP - Not high frequency

According to a military report that I was reading, HEMP stands for High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse, not High Frequency Electromagnetic Pulse. Can someone fix this?

If you have any more reports on EMP or E-Bombs, let me know on my talk page, I'm interested in the subject.

--Thr3ddy (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Horrible Article

So... there are NO scientists that think this threat might be a bit overblown or anything? A whole lot of hype in this article without any balance from skeptics, etc.

Articles like this make me embarrassed for wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)