 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Electronics / November 2004How tom make the electronics EMP-proof ???
You know, the stupid French may test a nuclear weapon again and the EMP may destroy my boat's electronics. So it's better to make the electronics EMP-proof. How can I do this? vacuum tubes, your only hope. > You know, the stupid French may test a nuclear weapon again and the > EMP may destroy my boat's electronics. > > So it's better to make the electronics EMP-proof. > > How can I do this? If your boat is close enough to be affected by the EMP, I feel fairly confident you will NOT have a boat to go back to. -Jim > If your boat is close enough to be affected by the EMP, I feel fairly > confident you will NOT have a boat to go back to. Sure you have. If a moderate (what is that anyway) nuclear bomb explodes at high altitude, say 30km, there will be hardly any physical damage on the ground, but in a radius of about 1000km, all electronics will be destroyed because of an EMP. Meindert The French can't possibly be contemplating an above ground explosion?? That's against international treaties and would spark a lot of outrage. If you have a below ground test, say 1km down, will EMP be a problem? It seems to me that most discussion around EMP is related to wartime above ground explosions. In that situation most of us will have other worries. >> If your boat is close enough to be affected by the EMP, I feel fairly >> confident you will NOT have a boat to go back to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Meindert > It seems to me that most discussion around EMP is related to wartime above > ground explosions. In that situation most of us will have other worries. Wait a minute here, there have been only Three Wartime Nuke explosions in history, and they were in August 1945, and the original Nevada Test. EMP wasn't discovered untill the first Hydrogen Bomb tests in the South Pacific, years later. Let us get our FACTS Straight before we go around expounding our expertiese........ Me >EMP wasn't discovered untill the first Hydrogen Bomb tests in the South >Pacific, years later. ========================= More precisely, it wasn't discovered until after the first high altitude tests in 1962. The tests caused scattered power outages in Hawaii 800 miles away. > The French can't possibly be contemplating an above ground explosion?? > That's against international treaties and would spark a lot of outrage. Since when have the French worried about international treaties or opinion if it interfered with their wishes. Didn't they sink a Green Peace boat in New Zealand killing a crew member so that it wouldn't protest an H bomb test. I will assume that there was sarcasm in your post and that I was too dense to see it. Rob >> The French can't possibly be contemplating an above ground explosion?? >> That's against international treaties and would spark a lot of outrage. > > Since when have the French worried about international treaties or opinion > if it interfered with their wishes. Why single the French out? Since 2001, the US has broken or extricated itself from one treaty after another.  SignatureToday George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." >>> The French can't possibly be contemplating an above ground explosion?? >>> That's against international treaties and would spark a lot of outrage. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why single the French out? Since 2001, the US has broken or extricated > itself from one treaty after another. Well, it's difficult to extricate one's country from a morass of stupidity in one action; we have to whittle away the crap one treaty at a time. And if the French are offended, well, they know how to shrug, eh? Ed > Well, it's difficult to extricate one's country from a morass of stupidity > in one action; we have to whittle away the crap one treaty at a time. And if > the French are offended, well, they know how to shrug, eh? French set new security-level: HIDE French security conditions (lowest to highest risk): 1. Hide 2. Retreat 3. Surrender 4. Collaborate Jack >> Well, it's difficult to extricate one's country from a morass of stupidity >> in one action; we have to whittle away the crap one treaty at a time. And [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jack American method of capturing Osama bin Laden: Send troops to Afghanistan. Turn job over to mercenaries. Send troops to Iraq. Claim capture of Osama is not that important. Watch 1100 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis get killed in stupid war that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Watch Osama's latest video. Ask for four more years to capture him. Send troops to Afghanistan. Turn jobs over to mercenaries. Send troops to invade Iran. Claim Osama is not that important... SignatureToday George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." >>> Well, it's difficult to extricate one's country from a morass of >>> stupidity [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Send troops to invade Iran. > Claim Osama is not that important... Oil is damn important to the American economy. Oil is damn important to a lot of other country's economies. (Think Japan in 1941.) As long as people like Sadaam can influence how many grannies freeze to death in Buffalo this winter, we have a right to influence the future of people like Sadaam. When a turd like Sadaam (who already controlled a lot of oil) decides that Kuwait is his too, and that Saudi Arabia looks ripe, we have a right to influence his future. We should have done the job right in 1991. Kerry vows to capture and punish terrorists. Odd, considering that he has voted to eliminate every major American weapon system. I suppose we should just trust him. Last time I trusted Democrats, I got the Bay of Pigs and Viet Nam. Ed wb6wsn ...snip > I suppose we should > just trust him. Last time I trusted Democrats, I got the Bay of Pigs and > Viet Nam. > > Ed > wb6wsn Hi Ed, I'm not a Democrat, but it seems like the last one we elected gave us 8 years of economic prosperity and eliminated deficit spending. I don't think one can use such a broad brush. No flame. SignatureLarry email is rapp at lmr dot com 10/31/04 10:12:49 AM > ...snip > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > years of economic prosperity and eliminated deficit spending. I don't > think one can use such a broad brush. No flame. No flame taken. Just a little reminder to those whose memories are about as long as a fruit fly. I'm not too fond of either candidate, and even less fond of the two major parties. But I think Bush's judgmental mistakes pale in comparison to Kerry's prevarications; the last Kerry quote I heard was a promise to hunt down and punish terrorists. Who's gonna do that, how they gonna get there, and what effect would they have, if we had followed Kerry's Senatorial voting record opposing almost all military systems? Finally, a President doesn't "give" us an economy, at least not for a few years. Our system is so ponderous that it's not very responsive to legislative tinkering. I used to think that was a fault, but considering the agendas of each administration, I now think it's a blessing. Ed wb6wsn >> ...snip >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Ed > wb6wsn We certainly agree on both candidates. Personally, I'm quite disappointed that McCain didn't make it. Regarding Kerry's Senate voting record - I hate to be seen as supporting the guy, but it certainly appears that he felt that supporting those major weapons systems would do little against the enemy we now face. Frankly, the only logical way to get those guys is with "boots on the ground" and a greatly improved intelligence community. I realize that the economy was not a direct result of 8 years of Clinton - in fact, it probably had more to do with Greenspan than Clinton, but it did occur under Clinton's watch. And certainly one can't argue that he eliminated deficit spending, although he certainly wasn't the sole cause. Perhaps the best solution is when one party controls the Congress and the other controls the Presidency. This has been a pet theory of mine for years. In such a situation, there is more than the usual amount of conflict and little gets done. By and large, that seems to be a good thing! There is less special interest legislation and what gets passed is scrutinized more carefully. It's hard to characterize the Democrats as "tax and spend" and the Republicans as "fiscally conservative" when you look at the last four years. SignatureLarry W1HJF email is rapp at lmr dot com 11/01/04 9:57:07 AM > Oil is damn important to the American economy. > Oil is damn important to a lot of other country's economies. (Think Japan in > 1941.) > As long as people like Sadaam can influence how many grannies freeze to > death in Buffalo this winter, we have a right to influence the future of > people like Sadaam. Okay, I think I get the picture here. So, following the same line: when your local supermarket stops supplying a certain product you want, it gives you the right to arrest the manager and kill some employees along the way as collateral damage...... Meindert Also Sprach Meindert Sprang <mhsprang@nocustomspamware.nl>: > Okay, I think I get the picture here. > So, following the same line: when your local supermarket stops supplying a > certain product you want, it gives you the right to arrest the manager and > kill some employees along the way as collateral damage...... Also, Legolas and The Hulk beat the sh.t out of the entire Greek army. That would have been a much better movie. Dan SignatureWar doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left. >> Oil is damn important to the American economy. >> Oil is damn important to a lot of other country's economies. (Think Japan [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Meindert Yeah Meindert, so long as you can equate a local supermarket with OPEC. You're not that dumb, so I must assume mendacity. Ed wb6wsn > Yeah Meindert, so long as you can equate a local supermarket with OPEC. > You're not that dumb, so I must assume mendacity. I still believe there is a huge difference between dealing with the oil problem through OPEC and invading a country for false reasons. If a country is lacking resources, it should either get them elsewhere in a legitimate way or do something about it's demand. Just invading a country that has these resources and killing people along the way is, in my opinion, an act of war for which I can have no sympathy. Meindert > "Ed Price" <edprice@cox.net> wrote > > Yeah Meindert, so long as you can equate a local supermarket with OPEC. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that has these resources and killing people along the way is, in my opinion, > an act of war for which I can have no sympathy. Hi Meindert, your sympathy and about $5000 could buy the history lessons you missed. The only land the United States has ever asked for from countries we liberated was enough room to bury our dead. Maybe your sympathy would be better directed at the corrupt UN officials, including Kofi Anan's son, who diverted Iraqi oil-for-food money to their own personal benefit. These people are your heroes, we know. Fortunately our sensibilities don't suffer from the same lunacy as yours. Don't look for any big contracts in rebuilding the Iraq you would have preferred remain under Saddam's rule. We know you were happy selling him weapons and technology that his people were so *starved* for. One day when they aren't so hungry, they may realize their real friends were never in France, Germany, or Russia. Jack Painter Virginia Beach VA > The only land the United States has ever asked for from countries we > liberated was enough room to bury our dead. Not quite true here Jackieboy.... what about the Phillipines, Cuba, Italy, Germany, We got bases in all those countrys AFTER "Liberating them"...... Me History is a double edged Sword....... > "Jack Painter" <223bthp@cox.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Me History is a double edged Sword....... Dear no-such-person, hiding behind a phony address and name: "got bases" is a little broad a term for the very different reasons we lease property from those countries today. Most were enemies conquered in world or regional wars, and once housed occupying armies (and Navies). Another was a possession that had nothing to do with liberation, there was never a country there. It is of course a free and sovereign country now, thanks only to the efforts of the United States. A double edged sword to you would be the pencil you once take exams with, it's obvious you poked yourself in the eye more than scored with it. Jack Painter Virginia Beach VA > Hi Meindert, your sympathy and about $5000 could buy the history lessons you > missed. The only land the United States has ever asked for from countries we > liberated was enough room to bury our dead. Maybe your sympathy would be > better directed at the corrupt UN officials, including Kofi Anan's son, who > diverted Iraqi oil-for-food money to their own personal benefit. Ok, what about the so called WMD's that where supposed to be in Irak, although all people who were investigating this said there were no WMD's? > We know you were happy selling him weapons and technology that his people were > so *starved* for. So where the US. Meindert > So where the US. See http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm Meindert > > So where the US. > > See http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm > > Meindert Hi Meindert, that isn't news, that has been widely known and accepted since it was conceived. How is it perplexing to you that a country would support the enemies of their enemies? I once lived in Germany as an exchange student, and traveled all over Europe many times since. I have never met a European so utterly daft about all things political as you. And this from a supposedly educated engineer, although that could be an improper title for your education, I'm having doubts now. You're not on a fast track to win friends and influence Americans, I can assure you. Whether that is a concern of yours or not, it is my goal to expose idiots wherever they crawl out from when they insult my country and my government. Especially when spouting off from a country my Father and Great Grandfather defeated in two world wars. I will add for the enjoyment of the group (and to stay on topic), that my Father, having fought across most of France and Germany also, later commented that after knowing both, he thought we were "fighting the wrong people". Jack Painter Virginia Beach VA > I have never met a > European so utterly daft about all things political as you. My political opinion is just different than yours. Why can't you live with that without starting to call me daft? > And this from a > supposedly educated engineer, although that could be an improper title for > your education, I'm having doubts now. What do my engineering skills and education have to do with my political opinion? > You're not on a fast track to win > friends and influence Americans, I can assure you. My experience with many happy customers tell me otherwise. > Whether that is a concern > of yours or not, it is my goal to expose idiots wherever they crawl out from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > commented that after knowing both, he thought we were "fighting the wrong > people". Not that excuse again. Does the fact that the US helped us in the past automatically mean that we should agree with all decisions made by the US governement afterwards? Let's end this pointless discussion Jack. We both have different views and opinions, let us just respect that fact. Meindert In article <10ojoe760ag6l9d@corp.supernews.com>, mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl let his mind wander into.. > > I have never met a > > European so utterly daft about all things political as you. > > My political opinion is just different than yours. Why can't you live with > that without starting to call me daft? Mud slinging. Favourite hobby of some right wing Americans. They can have their president now (who is also a big fan of doomsday-scenarios as portrayed in the bible) and look forward to his brother in 2008. (And then perhaps his daughter in 2016?) It's just a shame for the 75% of the US citizens who didn't vote for the guy. All the while being completely off-topic, off course. Victor > Let's end this pointless discussion Jack. We both have different views and > opinions, let us just respect that fact. Meindert, we both share interests in marine electronics and engineering, where I would gladly limit our discussions. And you would be welcome to visit my home if you ever stop in the Norfolk VA area. Best regards, Jack > Meindert, we both share interests in marine electronics and engineering, > where I would gladly limit our discussions. And you would be welcome to > visit my home if you ever stop in the Norfolk VA area. Thanks for the invitation Jack. I'll definately keep that in mind whenever the occasion. Best regards, Meindert > > "Ed Price" <edprice@cox.net> wrote > > > Yeah Meindert, so long as you can equate a local supermarket with OPEC. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Jack Painter >Virginia Beach VA Nicely said. > Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument > for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the > American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions > without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your > Commander-in-Chief." And he got in anyway, with an even bigger majority. Its beyond all logical explanation as to why he got re-elected. >> Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument >> for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And he got in anyway, with an even bigger majority. > You know, the stupid French may test a nuclear weapon again and the > EMP may destroy my boat's electronics. > > So it's better to make the electronics EMP-proof. > > How can I do this? BOEING377 wrote: > vacuum tubes, your only hope. Double that. Except for the law. If you find your way back, you could sue, If the USA recognised an international court. Perhaps even the one it instituted. The international court of shame. French shame? In prophylaxix: Input and output lines must all be interfaced through vacuum tubes. All power bifilar and shielded. All critical control lines need gas arc (neon) bulbs across their terminations. All lines should be bifilar, or single twisted pair cable, except spark plugs. If engine co-detonation is not desired, shield spark lines, grounded to distributor end only. Shield distributor. Diesel, use mechanical fuel pump. Ensure hand start works. All coils and condensers need to be encased in mu metal and lines in and out need gas arcs to the mu metal shield. Still probably won't work an hundred percent, so: Encase the entire boat in steel and mu metal, with an inner screen cage to surround all electrics, suspended by only one conductive connection? Be sure you are inside when the surprise attack goes off. Might do. Your wrist watch mayn't make it unless you keep it in an ammo box with conductive braid in the rubber seal, nor your radio, but your sextant will still work. Geosat? Probably no if the extent is exercised. Nope. You will need to use the stars, and books. Most people hope to be in a direct hit if nukes ever fly in anger. That is as far as they want to go. Complacency since the end of the cold war has us going decadent, waiting the benefit of demilitarization. Can't have that, if the mil-ind complex is to prosper! After ww3, stones will be hi teck, and winter long and dark. Any society based on revenge will fail. An alcohol fuelled moped might be a real luxury, but where to go? Only Bill Gates and A few caveman Bushes would be left to blame each other. We, the world wide citizenry, must abolish government terror, theft, and all nuclear arms. Us. Gradually, world wide. In synch. Quickly. Good luck. Only the internet could do it, along with human speech. A world wide coup. Government by demonstration. Terry K -Computational manner questioned. Global warming result erroneously written into "hockeystick" analysis programs. Normal variations in climate mainly due to sunspots. Oil surplus overpriced. Texas oil men cry "Phewl!" Iraqi Oil 1 euro per barrel. Bombers aloft. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.