[R-390] EMP vs Tube Gear

[Mark Huss]

Below:
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html
is a good link to EMP.  It includes recent Soviet data as well.  But 
from what I can see, anything under 130,000 feet, and the atmosphere 
eats the electrons, so to speak.  120 miles to 200 miles seems most 
effective, not that easy to do from a distance.  Referring to the first 
chart at the link, you will note that the blue line is really poor 
compared to the others.  the difference, pre-ionization, is a codeword 
for the trigger for a fusion device.  In other words, Hydrogen Bombs 
suck at EMP. :-)


Dave Maples wrote:
> All: Wonder what kind of radius would be achieved with something at
> 40,000-45,000 feet (e.g. use a Learjet as a delivery platform)?
>
> Dave WB4FUR
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Mark Huss
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:05 PM
> To: James A. (Andy) Moorer
> Cc: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [R-390] EMP vs Tube Gear
>
>
> Only for Ground bursts or Air bursts below about 5 miles. A 60 to 100
> mile high burst with a ten KT warhead would take out a five hundred to
> thousand mile radius, depending. Remember, one particularly nasty emp
> pulse most people do not consider are the Power Lines. The spikes can
> cause arc shorts in transformers, as well as taking out those rectifier
> diodes.when it does. If Ltl-Kim ever gets the No-Dong missile (somebody
> really needs to talk to his PR Dept about those names) to work right, he
> should be able to take out the coast west of the Rockies.
> P.S. I have been told that a suborbital burst is quite a sight from 2500
> miles at night. And even with tube gear, it will kill the Ionosphere for
> an hour or so. Then the 'ringing' means CW is about the only
> understandable mode. (Witness in Johnson Island during a high-altitude
> burst over Bikini Atol.)
>
> James A. (Andy) Moorer wrote:
>   
>> If you are close enough to a nuclear blast that EMP is an issue, I
>> submit that the survivability of your radio will be the least of your
>> problems.
>>
>> The EMP halo does extend past the zone of immediate vaporization, but
>> not a lot. Chances are good you will die a long and lingering death
>> from radiation poisoning while trying to tune your radio.
>>
>> James A. (Andy) Moorer
>> www.jamminpower.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>     
>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Perry Sandeen wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 1. That after an EMP, listening to the radio will be important.
>>>> 2. That there will be something to listen too.
>>>>
>>>>         
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> R-390 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
>> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>>
>>     
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some people are like a Slinky .. not really good for anything,
> but you still can’t help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _____________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>
>
>
>   


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are like a Slinky .. not really good for anything,
but you still can’t help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------