# EMP Vehicles



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

GearHeads, approximately what year did most American vehicles become venerable to EMP strikes? Of course were talking about onboard vehicle computers. For example my 1993 Ford pickup has a EEC unit, but around what year did Ford and other makers begin using EEC? When did across the board EEC equipped vehicles come off the assembly line? Sorry if this sounds confusing, but I find your answers interesting....Topside


----------



## MawKettle (Sep 13, 2006)

Any vehicle manufactured in the 1980's is a crapshoot.

It may have chips - it may not. For example, my 1986 Mercury Capri had a limited chipset, but the 1980 Dodge Omni did not.

You're pretty safe with anything older than that.

For post EMP vehicles, you really should be looking for 1970's and 1960's vehicles that can either be restored relatively cheaply, or are already restored without silicone technology upgrades.

Find a nice 1942 Willy's Jeep. Guaranteed to run after an EMP. Will also get you anywhere you need to go. (can ya tell I'm a Jeep Chick?)


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Just cause Dad build and raced them - so I know these engines, etc are good and basic -1956 and 1956 Chevy esp BelAirs.....Or the Ford Fairlane 1963 that I had that my Grandma gave me when she stopped driving.

The 1996 Mazda Protege has an electronic Brain, had to replace it once

That's what I know about cars...


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

You should look for a car with a generator, not an alternator. Also, there is some question whether the spark coil and condenser would survive.

Also have a service station with mechanical pumps so you can get gas.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

A strong enough EMP wave will destroy various components of just about any engine. It's just that circuitry is a lot more susceptible to it. So on the average the less circuitry the better. 

Motorcycles produced before 1978 will continue to function, particularly if they have a kickstart. I have heard also that if you have a vehicle with a fuel injection system it's pretty much toast as well. 

You want to be sure to ride after an EMP blast? Invest in a good bicycle.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I guess I should elaborate a little further ...

EMP will fry most small capacitors. A capacitor has a given dielectric threshold which controls how much voltage it can absorb and if the pulse is close enough, or strong enough, it will fry that capacitor. So pretty much any electric device with small capacitors is going to be toast. There are capacitors distributed all throughout a vehicle's electrical system. Some will go, some won't. Some cars will start but their windows won't roll down and the radio won't work, etc.


----------



## DW (May 10, 2002)

I just read this book (bad at names)...and the VW ran after emp strike.


----------



## Bonnie L (May 11, 2002)

MawKettle said:


> Find a nice 1942 Willy's Jeep. Guaranteed to run after an EMP. Will also get you anywhere you need to go. (can ya tell I'm a Jeep Chick?)


I've GOT to ask - where can I find a Jeep owner's manual? I recently bought a 89 Jeep Cherokee. A manual would be helpful but I haven't been able to find one on-line.


----------



## 7.62mmFMJ (Nov 19, 2008)

I have a 1990 Dodge PU with a Cummins diesel and absolutely no chips for the engine or drivetrain.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

While it is usually safe to buy a 60's or 70's vehicle, it is often car dependent even back then. Watch out for high end vehicles from that era, such as cadillacs since they tended to lead the way in electronics and other vulnerable electric components. For example, the 1979 cadillac eldorado had a load of electronics, but is desirable to collectors due to the 400 big block, front wheel drive and styling. Not EMP proof at all.

In the 60's, most were good but there are some components to be watched for. For example, the Impala (I built a 64). Some models actually came with electric seats and windows. 

It pays to really look at the individual car and go with 60's to be more safe. 50's and 40's are virtually all safe.

You want a carb rather than fuel injection and always keep a spare set of plugs, wires and alternator in a farraday cage if you're really worried about it. 

At least I think that's right. Anyone?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.............If an individual is 75 miles distant from the blast point it just maybe that an EMP device will inflict minimal damage too your electricial equipment , so everything is ....Relative ! , fordy


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Fordy,

I can't speak for everyone, but I was referencing some of that new twist reading "One Second After" brought to the forefront, where EMP at high altitude was the weapon, not the nuke itself. That covers the US..side to side from south to north Canada.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Distance is relative. EMP works by overloading the circuitry with voltage. It fries most small circuits and can severely damage larger ones, if not also render them unusable.

EMP is a side effect of a nuclear blast. They have not, as of my knowledge, perfected an EMP bomb that doesn't also have an explosive blast as well. The estimated range of EMP effect is 300 miles, but that's extremely speculative. Various things will also affect its transmission through the air. Park your car in a cinderblock garage? That is supposed to nullify a large amount of the damage. Live next to a steel transmission tower? It will pick up and magnify the EMP. 

There hasn't been any significant testing of EMP, so nobody really knows how much damage it could be. They do small scale tests and then try to extrapolate the results, but atmospheric conditions would widely effect it. EMP doesn't carry as well in dry hot air as opposed to wet cold air, etc. The nuclear test ban treaties that were signed had prohibited testing of the EMP and the last time above ground tests were done was in the 1950's when circuitry and electronics was not as advanced. 

My belief is that with the minituarization and proliferation of microchips we've opened ourselves up to EMP in a greater fashion. I accidentally fried a cellphone a few years ago when I left it sitting near a 300 watt transmitter and inadvertently keyed the mic.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Ernie,

I suppose I'll just be more clear. A lot of us around the boards have recently read One Second After (there are a few threads if you are interested). A formal report on this was given to our govt as a serious threat but unfortunately on the same day as the 911 report came to them. That overshadowed the EMP report.

In the book, and in the report, one of the gravest threats to the US is the EMP weapon, which is manufactured from a nuke. But as I said, the nuke isn't the weapon, it is the EMP. The nuke can be launched from anywhere, such as container ships in harbors, detonated at 100km to 200km above the US and, if it has been adjusted correctly, create an EMP that will wipe out circuitry not specifically hardened against it over almost 95% of the US at 200km. It doesn't even have to be a big one, just adjusted a tad. 

Any nuke effects themselves, would be insigificant at the size most likely used and limited to a small area just below the bomb itself. So, as I said, the EMP is the weapon not the nuke that triggers it.

Hope that makes it more clear.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

park the car in a well grounded metal building . aka a faraday cage and it wont matter .
funny all the paranoia about emps you all do realize that all commercial air craft already have emp shielding as do most computers and such


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..............Too EMP proof that outside Crapper.......Wrap it in Chicken Wire and ground all 4 sides ! Plus , don't use a Metal Lid or you'll have a Horse shoe Tattoo on ur TOOOtoo . Might want to also wrap all the inside walls with Tin Foil . , lol , fordy:dance:


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

My interest is not generated by the new book, but because of this type chatter coming out of Korea. Believe what you want from the article. World events seem to be coming to a head and may burst when you least expect itâ¦.. Topside

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KF12Dg01.html


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

ChristyACB said:


> Ernie,
> 
> I suppose I'll just be more clear. A lot of us around the boards have recently read One Second After (there are a few threads if you are interested). A formal report on this was given to our govt as a serious threat but unfortunately on the same day as the 911 report came to them. That overshadowed the EMP report.
> 
> ...


I have not read the book and I can only share what I learned in the military in my role as SIGINT. Things have probably changed in the past 20 years, but I do not as of yet know that it's possible to do what you are describing with a single nuclear blast. 

My own preparations exclude the use of any electronic devices, as well as most electric devices. I simply do not believe they are reliable enough to function long-term, and particularly if exposed to EMP burst, whether it's one blast 200km up or a series of more conventional blasts staggered across the United States. 

Technically speaking though, 200km seems too high. The troposphere which contains 95% of the earth's atmosphere is only 17km thick across North America. The stratosphere is another 50km thick, and then you reach the mesosphere. That is the level which helps protect us from solar radiation and meteors, so I would tend to think that it would distribute an EMP wave so broadly as to render it mostly negligible. 

Bottom line though ... don't rely long-term on any technology your great-grandparents wouldn't have known how to use and maintain. It will let you down.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................If that pompass little jerk thinks he can win a confrontation , then he is a complete idiot ! Our cruise missles have somewhere around 1500 statute miles of range so I'm thinking we can pound his grits in quick order . He will pay a very high price for his arrogance . , fordy


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Ernie,

The science doesn't actually require the thickest part of the atmosphere to work, it works by successive charges of particles. The author of the book very kindly linked up a bunch of the stuff at his site and I was able to get a copy of the senate paper and digest it. Since one of my degrees is in physics specific to meteorology, it was fairly easy to put it together once the paradigm was shifted for a downward movement vice the standard thinking of upward movement. Think lightning for a sec and it starts to make a bit more sense.

200km would be the upper limit for really heavy effect and would require a larger one, while 100 km would be a lower limit before the area affected decreased. It's a simple spreading algorithm but can be approximated to a first degree by thinking of normal line of sight. Even without bends and refractions you can get a good idea, but do add earth size or the number is artificially large.

As for the military. You may remember I'm still in it and have been for over 23 years now. I still work in war and science specifically. Long ago when we had to keep up and we shifted to COTS and had to keep upgrading quickly, we stopped doing a whole lot of hardening. Not getting classified at all, most information on what we purchase is open availability and the lack of hardening is a hot topic on public sides of policy. Heck, they even talk about it in that report which is publicly available. In short, a lot of the periphery of life in military isn't at all hardened anymore. Not going to discuss key systems, but just think about it for a sec and you'll probably think of our constant hassle with individual unit costs, restricted unit repair (replace by major segment) and portability and you can make it out for yourself. 

Also, our entire grid is completely vulnerable. There isn't any major portion of our electric, communications or relay system that is hardened anymore. Too expensive. And even some of the fancier flashlights use chips now, not to mention diabetes monitors or even your generators of today. 

Personally, I was also so hot to read the 911 report that I completely missed the EMP report and I consider the author and Newt Gingrich (who forwarded and publicized and provided support for the writer) as having given us a gift by laying it out so nicely and with so much humanity.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Can you provide a link to the EMP report? I'll go see if I can catch up.

I think what we're debating is the SCALE of impact. Back in '93 we were mostly just hardening comm systems. Or at least those were the only ones I came into contact with. I don't know to what extent the military is hardening current stuff, and I probably wouldn't sleep any easier knowing.

For the average person, having the electrical grid go down after EMP is going to be enough of a hassle. For others, I don't know that we'd even notice.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Believe me, Ernie, you wouldn't sleep well. 

Here are some of the links you were looking for and I'd highly recommend the book. It is wonderfully written and might even make you shed a little tear the story is so good. The full impact on appliances is far more than you might think. No current solar set ups (if they have chips), no wind converters, no geothermal..nothing...would work. And nothing run on batteries that had chips that wasn't hardened before the fact. 

Just have lots of extra elec parts in a cage is my advice.

http://www.onesecondafter.com/

http://empcommission.org/ The report is PDF on this site.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm no expert but thought that as long as you have points (no electronic ignition) that you should be fine.

Had my dingbat ex husband (auto tech) tell me that, lol. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

Bonnie L said:


> I've GOT to ask - where can I find a Jeep owner's manual? I recently bought a 89 Jeep Cherokee. A manual would be helpful but I haven't been able to find one on-line.


You can usually order one from a dealer. They are hard to find cause most people lose them before they trade them in. 

If you are interested in a complete repair manual, they have them at most auto parts stores like Auto Zone.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Hintonlady,

I wish! But lets say you have a car built today that for some reason doesn't have electronic ignition, pretty much everything else about the car still runs through one of several computers in the car. Fuel balancing, mixes, temps...everything. Heck, even whether or not your tires are fully inflated goes through a computer. And in some of those chains, it will interupt operation of the vehicle. Not all, of course, but just enough to make a big mess of a nice new car.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

For example, my 1990 Jeep Cherokee has a special switch which won't let it start unless it's in neutral or park. It's a small little circuit that's heck to get to, but when it burned out (on its own) then the engine wouldn't start, even though it was in perfect condition.


----------



## nathan104 (Nov 16, 2007)

I have a 1955 chevy 1 ton truck outside that should run no matter what. It has points and a condensor which we have extras of. I wouldnt trust any of the newer stuff to run.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

When I was in highschool in the 70s the big concern was the coil.

Inside a coil is a couple miles of antenna wire. If not shielded and grounded properly that wire will gather enough current to melt itself into a pool of slag.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

PyroDon said:


> park the car in a well grounded metal building . aka a faraday cage and it wont matter .
> funny all the paranoia about emps you all do realize that all commercial air craft already have emp shielding as do most computers and such


Humm? No commercial or consumer grade computer is EMP proof. Just having a metal shield doesnt make it a farday cage. It must be grounded as WELL.
Computers are very prone to emp, Heck a near by lightning strike will produce enough EMP to fry network ports.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

nathan104 said:


> I have a 1955 chevy 1 ton truck outside that should run no matter what. It has points and a condensor which we have extras of. I wouldnt trust any of the newer stuff to run.


Unless the extra coils are stored in metal grounded valut they will be of no use. If the coil in the truck goes, the coil in the spare pile goes as well. Also dont forget the alternator or generator on your vehicle. Can you crank start your truck? if not you have issues.

What about blower fans? heater/cooling controls these also have coils. Any place there is a coil, electronic or switch there could be issues with an EMP.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Why all the sudden concern about EMP these days? It doesn't seem to be a very likely scenario. More likely is a ground-level detonation to produce fallout or a terrorist strike. An EMP is a weapon of military warfare, designed to deny equipment and communications as a preface to invasion. Yes, it would cause a lot of hardship, but rifles would still work. Bicycles would still work. Gardens would keep right on growing.


----------



## RAHN (Mar 10, 2009)

Yes, an EMP is an excellent way of partially disarming a military. But, if you wanted to hurt our economy terribly- and not even have a military objective- think about the economic problems that you would generate with a pulse. 

In the old cold war/civil defense days- when the USSR was our primary potential enemy- the EMP was a byproduct of a military strike. But now that the world has changed we have to consider an Islamic-state/terrorist organization backing an attack on our country. And although we have some pretty serious enemies and potential enemies, the use of a nuclear weapon in an attack does, for whatever reason, seem to be contrary to Islamic doctrine. So while the Islamic religious leaders would be hard-pressed to sanction a nuclear attack on our population except in retaliation for an extreme action on our part, using one or more to generate EMP(s) without significant death tolls would probably be an acceptable use. 

Remember, the past two attacks (WTC bombing and 9/11) from Islamic terrorists on our soil were directed at financial and symbolic targets- not military targets. While a nuke detonation in NY or DC would certainly also have a financial impact, many people across the country would actually not 'feel' it as much as they would if they were very literally directly impacted by being sent back in time a hundred years or so- with no power, no communications, no transportation, no working infrastructure and no bank accounts.


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

EMP is called a Politically Correct attack. Disable the country and let the un-prepared population take care of the rest......


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Gary in ohio said:


> Humm? No commercial or consumer grade computer is EMP proof. Just having a metal shield doesnt make it a farday cage. It must be grounded as WELL.
> 
> Computers are very prone to emp, Heck a near by lightning strike will produce enough EMP to fry network ports.


I agree.

The closest you can get is to buy a PC that is 'TEMPEST' rated.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I would recommend that everyone building a home, consider the benefits of a faraday cage.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I agree with Ernie that an EMP attack is unlikely. There are scenarios though where it would be a viable strategic option so it can't be ruled out entirely - an example may be that China decides it wants to settle the Taiwan matter once and for all: rather than face off against US Pacific forces, they EMP us (maybe through a proxy). The damage to the economy would render us ineffective politically and financially if not militarily and save them a lot of money in the process - well sort of, since they'd take the biggest loss financially if we tanked, but you can see where I'm going.


----------



## Randy Rooster (Dec 14, 2004)

Your radio wont work either unless its an old tube type. Find a good battery powered tube type radio if you want to keep up with the outside world.

When I was in the service many years ago, we studyed soviet weapons systems and laughed to learn they were still useing tubes instead of modern transitor technology. That was until we learned later in class about how nuclear detonations set off electromagnetic pulses and fry transistors, but not radio tubes.


----------



## radiofish (Mar 30, 2007)

Well in case of a EMP event effecting the West Coast - my 1967 and 1969 Ford F-100 pickup trucks should do just fine...They have 1 fan belt, 1 vacuum hose, and very simple ignition systems. I do have extra points, condensers, and coils squirreled away in a faraday cage. I could also "pop start" them by going downhill and dumping the clutch while in gear..

Plus the extra ham gear I have put aside that is protected in grounded enclosures. Hey HF transceivers are getting pretty small today. That and the pile of tube type radio gear, I have accumulated in 30+ years of ham radio.. I can run gear off of 12 VDC, so as long as my roll up solar panels hold up, then I should be able to communicate.

I would miss my computer. So maybe I should look for another used laptop and put it in the electronics stash?


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Someone here mentioned that a faraday cage would have to be grounded. Why not have a ground on your car and just hammer it into the ground when it is parked. Wouldn't that be enough to at least limit the amount of damage to the vehicle electrical system?










Not sure if it is 100 percent EMP proof but I figure with points and a generator this car is the most likely one out of the beaters that I own that would still be running after an EMP attack.


----------



## spiffydave (Mar 19, 2008)

I've read a lot about Faraday cages and have searched for straightforward plans to build one without a lot of success.

If someone can point me to a plan a semi-novice could build, that would be excellent.


----------



## Randy Rooster (Dec 14, 2004)

I dont know why you would want to drive anywhere if we got hit my emp. Seems to me that would be opening you up to all sorts of zombie kooks on the road.

As far as a simple faraday cage mabe a piece of steel culvert pipe to shield some small useful items like radios , portable generators and the like would work? Anybody?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Randy Rooster said:


> I dont know why you would want to drive anywhere if we got hit my emp. Seems to me that would be opening you up to all sorts of zombie kooks on the road.
> 
> As far as a simple faraday cage mabe a piece of steel culvert pipe to shield some small useful items like radios , portable generators and the like would work? Anybody?


Steel culvert pipe set into the ground is great!

Really for anything underground is good.

An underground rootcellar lined with grounded-sheetmetal or chicken-wire would be fantastic.


----------



## Wilbur (May 7, 2004)

I realize this thread is a bit old but I have just finished reading the report from the EMP Commission.

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

Some things I found very interesting....if we got a large scale EMP attack the country would come to a screeching halt. All powerlines, natural gas and oil pipelines, as well as our financial system would stop instantly. The report goes into great detail describing the risks to the system and while it is pretty boring it certainly highlights the risks pretty thoroughly. 

Some things I DIDN'T know were the potential for EMP from non-nuclear sources. Granted the damage would not be as widespread so the impacts would be much more limited but the damage in a particular area could be really bad. And when coupled with the complexity of SCADA systems (remote sensor systems used in pipelines, power grids, etc.) that would all likely fail in an EMP situation it is pretty scary. I found this story (from the report) pretty amazing considering the cause (which I bolded at the end of the paragraph). 

_In November 1999, San Diego County Water Authority and San Diego Gas and Electric companies experienced severe electromagnetic interference to their SCADA wireless networks. Both companies found themselves unable to actuate critical valve openings and closings under remote control of the SCADA electronic systems. This inability necessitated sending technicians to remote locations to manually open and close water and gas valves, averting, in the words of a subsequent letter of complaint by the San Diego County Water Authority to the Federal Communications Commission, a potential &#8220;catastrophic failure&#8221; of the aqueduct system. The potential consequences of a failure of this 825 million gallon per day flow rate system ranged from &#8220;spilling vents at thousands of gallons per minute to aqueduct rupture with ensuing disruption of service, severe flooding, and related damage to private and public property.&#8221; *The source of the SCADA failure was later determined to be radar operated on a ship 25 miles off the coast of San Diego.*_

So if an EMP type attack could come from non-nuclear devices it could cause just as much damage albeit more local. Things like Katrina show just how bad it can be in a particular area for an extended period of time, even though it could be fixed ultimately. It still makes those preps very important IMHO. 

Just food for thought.

ETA the impact to cars and trucks is less than I anticipated- I thought they would all come to a halt due to the electronics but this suggests otherwise:

_Automobiles 
The potential EMP vulnerability of automobiles derives from the use of built-in electronics that support multiple automotive functions. Electronic components were first introduced into automobiles in the late 1960s. As time passed and electronics technologies evolved, electronic applications in automobiles proliferated. Modern automobiles have as many as 100 microprocessors that control virtually all functions. While electronic 
applications have proliferated within automobiles, so too have application standards and electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility (EMI/EMC) practices. 
Thus, while it might be expected that increased EMP vulnerability would accompany the proliferated electronics applications, this trend, at least in part, is mitigated by the increased application of EMI/EMC practices. 

We tested a sample of 37 cars in an EMP simulation laboratory, with automobile vintages ranging from 1986 through 2002. Automobiles of these vintages include extensive electronics and represent a significant fraction of automobiles on the road today. The testing was conducted by exposing running and nonrunning automobiles to sequentially increasing EMP field intensities. If anomalous response (either temporary or permanent) 
was observed, the testing of that particular automobile was stopped. If no anomalous response was observed, the testing was continued up to the field intensity limits of the simulation capability (approximately 50 kV/m). 

Automobiles were subjected to EMP environments under both engine turned off and engine turned on conditions. No effects were subsequently observed in those automobiles that were not turned on during EMP exposure. The most serious effect observed on running automobiles was that the motors in three cars stopped at field strengths of approximately 30 kV/m or above. In an actual EMP exposure, these vehicles would glide to a stop and require the driver to restart them. Electronics in the dashboard of one automobile were damaged and required repair. Other effects were relatively minor. Twenty-five automobiles exhibited malfunctions that could be considered only a nuisance (e.g., blinking dashboard lights) and did not require driver intervention to correct. Eight of the 37 cars tested did not exhibit any anomalous response. 

Based on these test results, we expect few automobile effects at EMP field levels below 25 kV/m. Approximately 10 percent or more of the automobiles exposed to higher field levels may experience serious EMP effects, including engine stall, that require driver 
intervention to correct. We further expect that at least two out of three automobiles on the road will manifest some nuisance response at these higher field levels. The serious malfunctions 
could trigger car crashes on U.S. highways; the nuisance malfunctions could exacerbate this condition. The ultimate result of automobile EMP exposure could be triggered crashes that damage many more vehicles than are damaged by the EMP, the consequent 
loss of life, and multiple injuries. 

Trucks 
As is the case for automobiles, the potential EMP vulnerability of trucks derives from the trend toward increasing use of electronics. We assessed the EMP vulnerability of trucks using an approach identical to that used for automobiles. Eighteen running and 
nonrunning trucks were exposed to simulated EMP in a laboratory. The intensity of the EMP fields was increased until either anomalous response was observed or simulator limits were reached. The trucks ranged from gasoline-powered pickup trucks to large diesel-powered tractors. Truck vintages ranged from 1991 to 2003. 

Of the trucks that were not running during EMP exposure, none were subsequently affected during our test. Thirteen of the 18 trucks exhibited a response while running. Most seriously, three of the truck motors stopped. Two could be restarted immediately, but one required towing to a garage for repair. The other 10 trucks that responded exhibited relatively minor temporary responses that did not require driver intervention to correct. Five of the 18 trucks tested did not exhibit any anomalous response up to field strengths of approximately 50 kV/m. 

Based on these test results, we expect few truck effects at EMP field levels below approximately 12 kV/m. At higher field levels, 70 percent or more of the trucks on the road will manifest some anomalous response following EMP exposure. Approximately 
15 percent or more of the trucks will experience engine stall, sometimes with permanent damage that the driver cannot correct. 

Similar to the case for automobiles, the EMP impact on trucks could trigger vehicle crashes on U.S. highways. As a result, many more vehicles could be damaged than those damaged directly by EMP exposure._


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

It would sure be nice to know the makes/models of those vehicles they used in the EMP testing and how each performed during/after the test. 

Showing my stupidity here, but couldn't lightening strikes be considered as a form of EMP attack? And can't lightening be created using electricity? Aside from that, I think back to some of the storms that have moved through this region. One storm recently had upwards of eighty thousand lightening strikes in an hour. And the weather service is always talking about the ground to cloud lightening when giving out storm warnings.


----------



## Wilbur (May 7, 2004)

Lightning has a different wavelength than EMP. But yes lightning would fry many of the same circuits if they hit the same way but the problem with EMP is that where lightning strikes one specific spot at a time a large EMP strike could cover the country all at once.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Wilbur said:


> Lightning has a different wavelength than EMP. But yes lightning would fry many of the same circuits if they hit the same way but the problem with EMP is that where lightning strikes one specific spot at a time a large EMP strike could cover the country all at once.


A single EMP, nuclear-generated, would be a truly massive nuclear detonation. For the EMP wave to cover the nation the blast itself would need to be many miles in diameter.


----------



## Wilbur (May 7, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> A single EMP, nuclear-generated, would be a truly massive nuclear detonation. For the EMP wave to cover the nation the blast itself would need to be many miles in diameter.


From what I have read it appears the ability to cover the continent has more to do with the height of the detonation than the size of the blast. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "the blast itself would need to be many miles in diameter". The Starfish explosion was 1.4mt explosion (not huge by nuclear standards) at an altitude of 250 miles and yet the EMP hit Hawaii (900 miles away).

This chart (yuck hate to use Wiki as a source but its a pretty good chart) gives a pretty good comparison of detonation heights and coverage:










I don't think there is significant liklihood of a national EMP that blows everything out. but as we have seen EMP can come from other sources and any EMP has the ability to cause a cascading list of failures of things that society takes very much for granted (supermarkets, water systems, electricity, telephones, fuel systems). The areas affected would be thrown very much back into colonial times. And given the difficulties of rebuilding all those systems at once (EMP failures are not at all like an ice storm or large blackout where once the power is back up everything returns to normal) those areas could stay that way for an extended period of time. If it were a larger section of the country it would cause serious chaos.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

The higher the transmitter is the further a direct line-of-sight wave will reach.

The higher a blast is, then the further out a direct line-of-sight to it would be.

So yes as the blast goes higher and higher, the line-of-sight to it will also get further and further away.

However each time you double your distance from the source the strength of the radiation hitting you is a quarter. [whatever your measurement at one foot away step to two feet away and your measurement will be 25% of the first reading.]

A blast strong enough to knock out everything 1,500 miles away would likely be leaving a 200 mile in diameter melted glass parking lot under it's center.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Believe me, Ernie, you wouldn't sleep well.


But, but , but..... Pyro says we're just paranoid.
Should I believe him, or someone with a degree who does this for a living?

I'm so confused..........


----------



## Wilbur (May 7, 2004)

Believe me I am NO expert in this stuff by any stretch so I DO appreciate more information than I have on the subject.....



ET1 SS said:


> However each time you double your distance from the source the strength of the radiation hitting you is a quarter. [whatever your measurement at one foot away step to two feet away and your measurement will be 25% of the first reading.


But its not the radiation that is a problem correct? The radiation from a blast like this (over KS or MO or whatever) would not be the issue- the issue is the EMP caused by the explosion that fries electronics. I don't think anyone would be sick from radiation on this. I read a story where a Russian general during the cold war told his US counterpart that if Russia wanted to destroy us they would simply detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere above us and let EMP do the work. 



ET1 SS said:


> A blast strong enough to knock out everything 1,500 miles away would likely be leaving a 200 mile in diameter melted glass parking lot under it's center.


But isn't the point that this is done in the atmostphere so the damage from the blast on the ground is very little? (Again- my ignorance on this subject is substantial so please feel free to correct my misunderstandings! )


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Wilbur said:


> ... But its not the radiation that is a problem correct? The radiation from a blast like this (over KS or MO or whatever) would not be the issue- the issue is the EMP


EMP [Electro-Magnetic Pulse] is radiated from the blast. EMP is a form of 'radiation'.

Radio waves are also a form of radiation.

Magnetic fields are also radiation.





> ... caused by the explosion that fries electronics. I don't think anyone would be sick from radiation on this. I read a story where a Russian general during the cold war told his US counterpart that if Russia wanted to destroy us they would simply detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere above us and let EMP do the work.
> 
> But isn't the point that this is done in the atmosphere so the damage from the blast on the ground is very little? (Again- my ignorance on this subject is substantial so please feel free to correct my misunderstandings! )


A nuc gives off a blast, within that blast is many forms of energy [radiations] that radiate from the blast. Some of them are particles [Alpha, Beta] and some of them are energy waves [gamma, xray, RF]. The energy radiations that radiate out will be strongest when nearest the center of the blast. As they get further away from the blast they will be measurably weaker.

While a small nuc in the upper atmo may have an EMP that is measurable at 1,000 miles away, the strength of it [1,000 miles away] will be fairly weak.

Things that have really huge antenna will pickup the most signal and will fry their components even when the EMP blast was far away. The biggest antenna tend to be the power grid [miles and miles of electric cable strung on phone poles all over our nation].

But many other things, are encased inside metal, so will require much stronger EMP radiation to disable them.

I do not doubt that a tiny nuc in the upper atmo will radiate an EMP, and that it could be detected at a great distance.

What I do doubt is that it would be totally disabling to our nation.

To fry our nation's everything from one nuc blast, would require a HUGE nuc.


----------



## Wilbur (May 7, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> EMP [Electro-Magnetic Pulse] is radiated from the blast. EMP is a form of 'radiation'.
> 
> Radio waves are also a form of radiation.
> 
> Magnetic fields are also radiation..


I appreciate that- sorry I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were concerned about the nuclear aspect and the dangers of it. What I have read suggests the nuclear radiation is less of a danger over distances where the EMP can still cause problems. 



ET1 SS said:


> While a small nuc in the upper atmo may have an EMP that is measurable at 1,000 miles away, the strength of it [1,000 miles away] will be fairly weak.
> 
> Things that have really huge antenna will pickup the most signal and will fry their components even when the EMP blast was far away. The biggest antenna tend to be the power grid [miles and miles of electric cable strung on phone poles all over our nation].
> 
> ...


The Starfish Prime test was a 1.4kt nuke and that caused problems 900 miles away in Hawaii....and that was in 1962 far earlier than the circuitry seen today. The "suitcase" nukes Russia can't seem to find are 1kt in size. I guess I see that as being big enough to cause a problem over a significant part of the US under the right circumstances given the level of electronics that exist in today's world. But I believe your point is valid that it would need to be pretty good sized to cover the US- thanks. 

Thanks for the info! That helped me understand it better!


----------



## Just Cliff (Nov 27, 2008)

I am just about ready. I have a 1983 Chevy Chevette Diesel. Yeah The Chevette was a turd so I got a 1982 Datsan 210 Station wagon to put it in. It should be ready by October. It will run without any electronics. Cant wait to get it done.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Just Cliff said:


> I am just about ready. I have a 1983 Chevy Chevette Diesel. Yeah The Chevette was a turd so I got a 1982 Datsan 210 Station wagon to put it in. It should be ready by October. It will run without any electronics. Cant wait to get it done.



Hey that is neat!

I am curious though, when you replaced the coil, what did you put into it instead of a coil?


----------

