Solar Storm Activity

hachiban08 wrote: Hey Turbo, any truth in the whole " if a car is made before 1980, it should be fine theory" or is it hogwash and most cars should be fine? Just wondering because I'm on the hunt for a car right now and your last post was about how misleading the threat to vehicles is.  I'm ok with older cars if they were kept up pretty well, but I am mostly looking for mid-late 90s or early 2000s models, just to get around and would last going through the Grapevine (in California) and not overheat and die on me. The downside to living 400 miles from home, and still being in California haha.

 

Turboguy wrote: LOPPER wrote: Turboguy wrote: LOPPER wrote: Very few of the vehicles were tested up to the maximum level of the EMP simulator.  There was considerable disagreement among Commission staff members about how to report on the testing that had been done.  Some EMP Commission staff members believe that the wording of the paragraphs in the EMP Commission's Critical National Infrastructures Report about the effect of EMP on vehicles is quite misleading.   EMP hardness is something I have to do with my job. I'm an avionics technician.   We actually have to test for EMP hardness at the simulator. Well that is nice but it still does not change the fact that the EMP Commission's wording in their report is misleading as expressed by some EMP commission staff members. I was agreeing with you. I go down to the tester about once every year or so and we screw around with it. It is misleading because some far overblow the threat of EMP to vehicles.

Actually those staffers on the EMP commission were alluding to the fact that the EMP commissions final report downplayed the actual threat posed by an EMP to vehicles.

The Carrington event was actually a series of CME's. I would think that depends on the size, duration and number of CME's in a event as to whether or not it would be more powerful than an EMP if the CME event was earth facing.

Albert wrote: coyote wrote: [link to washingtonexaminer.com] The earth barely missed taking a massive solar punch in the teeth two weeks ago, an "electromagnetic pulse" so big that it could have knocked out power, cars and iPhones throughout the United States. Two EMP experts told Secrets that the EMP flashed through earth's typical orbit around the sun about two weeks before the planet got there. It's a little disconcerting That officials didn't warn people about this incoming one.

nothing scarier than a herd of stampeding sheeple

Albert wrote: Only for those getting trampled satori.  Would be interesting to see someday how people actually react.  Of course up in L.A. there would be immediate gangs rioting and looting.  Any excuse to steal a new TV and stereo.

Albert wrote: coyote wrote: [link to washingtonexaminer.com] The earth barely missed taking a massive solar punch in the teeth two weeks ago, an "electromagnetic pulse" so big that it could have knocked out power, cars and iPhones throughout the United States. Two EMP experts told Secrets that the EMP flashed through earth's typical orbit around the sun about two weeks before the planet got there. It's a little disconcerting That officials didn't warn people about this incoming one.

Turboguy wrote: hachiban08 wrote: Hey Turbo, any truth in the whole " if a car is made before 1980, it should be fine theory" or is it hogwash and most cars should be fine? Just wondering because I'm on the hunt for a car right now and your last post was about how misleading the threat to vehicles is.  I'm ok with older cars if they were kept up pretty well, but I am mostly looking for mid-late 90s or early 2000s models, just to get around and would last going through the Grapevine (in California) and not overheat and die on me. The downside to living 400 miles from home, and still being in California haha.   Almost all cars are largely unaffected. The skin of the vehicle acts as a fantastic Faraday cage. The car might shut off, but it'll start right back up. Modern cars, as long as it isn't one of the hybrids or electricals, will be just fine.   In fact almost all aircraft are 100% EM hard too. Lightning strikes happen pretty regularly and carry with them significantly more voltage/amperage in a very directed manner.   If you look at easily 75% to 90% of the wiring in aircraft it is all coaxial, triaxial or more specifically to shunt any EM interference straight to ground. Modern cars have begun this practice too. My old car, a Crown Victoria I bought from my old department, had coaxial wires going from the computer to each spark plug, and various other wires were coaxial. My new truck continues this practice.   If there is a Solar EM event, well... having your vehicle work will be the least of your problems.

Thanks for the reply, Turbo :) That's actually really interesting and makes me feel better about having a more open car buying decision. I'm not much of a fan of those hybrid or electric cars. I think they are just a big fad, tbh, just like how hummers and escalades were. I'm a truck kind of gal too.  I was thinking about taking some automotive classes at the local community college, just so I know how to fix up my car pretty well on my own if need be. That is true though about the other problems that arise because of things like this.  I think I might take some EMT courses too.  I think that'd be useful, especially since I get my B.A in Linguistics soon so I'll have time to take other classes.

hachiban08 wrote: Thanks for the reply, Turbo :) That's actually really interesting and makes me feel better about having a more open car buying decision. I'm not much of a fan of those hybrid or electric cars. I think they are just a big fad, tbh, just like how hummers and escalades were. I'm a truck kind of gal too.  I was thinking about taking some automotive classes at the local community college, just so I know how to fix up my car pretty well on my own if need be. That is true though about the other problems that arise because of things like this.  I think I might take some EMT courses too.  I think that'd be useful, especially since I get my B.A in Linguistics soon so I'll have time to take other classes.

LOPPER wrote:   During Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP.  In an important international electromagnetics conference in 1994, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, General Vladimir Loborev delivered an important technical paper in which he stated, "The matter of this phenomenon is that the electrical puncture occurs at the weak point of a system.  Next, the heat puncture is developed at that point, under the action of the power voltage; as a result, the electrical power source is put out of action very often."  This illustrates that even vehicles without an electronic ignition or other electronic components are not immune from EMP.

Turboguy wrote: LOPPER wrote:   During Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP.  In an important international electromagnetics conference in 1994, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, General Vladimir Loborev delivered an important technical paper in which he stated, "The matter of this phenomenon is that the electrical puncture occurs at the weak point of a system.  Next, the heat puncture is developed at that point, under the action of the power voltage; as a result, the electrical power source is put out of action very often."  This illustrates that even vehicles without an electronic ignition or other electronic components are not immune from EMP.   Okay, now I'm going to have fun with you... (You're wrong, BTW)   You're correct insofar as your claim that Generators and *ESPECIALLY* Transformers are acutely vulnerable to induced Amperage. Furthermore, you're good at parroting why these items are damaged, though I don't think you really understand what's happening and what specifically is damaged or why it is, nor do I think you grasp what happens from that damage.   Question 1: Why do you think generators and transformers are particularly vulnerable to damage from this kind of event? As you keep talking about the means amperage/voltage is induced into a system/circuit, this should be child's play for you.     While solid state components are vulnerable, it is the generators, power lines, and transformers that take the biggest hit. Most circuits which involve solid state components are actually very, very resilient in many situations.   Question 2, Part 1: Why do you suppose that is? I'll let you figure it out, but it is literally the first thing they taught us when we learned what EM attacks are and how they work. You'd better pull out your Google-Fu for this one because it directly ties into question #1.   Question 2, Part 2: What is a solid state component and why specifically are those vulnerable? To get credit for this answer, you're going to have to name 3 solid state components.     Vehicles, on the other hand, cars especially, are not vulnerable to most induced Amperage events.   Question 3: There are several ways to protect your stuff from this kind of event, one of them cars, specifically, take advantage of. What is it, and better yet, what are THEY?   Question 4: Why are older circuits and systems significantly more EMP hard than their modern counterparts?   Searching internet sources is acceptable. Good luck!

LOPPER wrote: OH and I should add that was a direct quote from Major General  Vladimir M. Loborev, Director, Russian Federal Ministry of Defense Central Institute of Physics and Technology  so you can tell him he is wrong. Which I highly doubt.   http:/uclearweaponarchive.orgews/Loborev.txt - http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Loborev.txt</a>     So when is the EMP Commission going to look at your credentials and ask you to join them?

LOL! Too funny! I never said that HE is wrong, I'm saying that YOU are wrong, because you ARE. If you have the two neurons to rub together, answer the questions I posed of you and the reasons you are wrong will become clear to you.

His findings and the post cold war information exchange are actually referenced in the Air Force Avionics lessons on this.

Basically, at this point, you know nothing about which we are talking about and are relying on the expertise of others, which you are incorrectly using to make the comparison between an electric generator and vehicle without the basic grasp of the fact that they are very different.

How many powerlines is your car plugged into? How long is the unshielded wire that connects your car to those powerlines? How do you drive your car around without the skin?

Turboguy wrote: LOPPER wrote: [http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/Articles/Chemtrail%20Research/HEMP%20Powerpoint.pdf - http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/Articles/Chemtrail%20Research/HEMP%20Powerpoint.pdf</a> You read that chemtrail website? Really? Please tell me that you have any credibility whatsoever and that you just googled that and that website came up. This just got God damned priceless. Got Tinfoil?

Actually my second reply has the correct link, that's why I included it and no I don't believe in chemtrails. Now do go on about how you know more about EMP than the experts, the top experts both American and Soviet. Who would a reasonable person believe the experts in that field or a guy that wires planes?

One of the most common questions about electromagnetic pulse is about the effects of EMP on vehicles.  I have resisted writing much about this in the past because so little is known about it.

First, however, because it is a point of so much confusion, it is important to point out that there is no known mechanism by which a solar storm would destroy an automobile, except for making fuel unavailable due to loss of the power grid.  Even the most massive solar storms are not known to contain the fast E1 component, which is the part of a nuclear EMP that can destroy items that are not connected to extremely long lines.

Astronomical gamma ray bursts that produce an huge E1 component have occurred during the history of the Earth, but the extreme rarity of a damaging gamma ray burst means that it is much less likely than a very large asteroid strike.  Also, the stars in this part of the galaxy have settled into their relatively tranquil middle age; and damaging gamma ray bursts are even less likely to occur today than in our planet's prehistoric past.  The only direct EMP dangers to automobiles results from nuclear EMP (and from non-nuclear EMP weapons of very limited range).

The question of EMP damage to automobiles is so complex that it cannot be answered definitely for the reasons discussed below.  The one thing that does have a broad level of agreement among those who have studied the matter is that obtaining fuel after any kind of electromagnetic disaster would be a matter of extreme difficulty.  Any particular vehicle may or may not run, until it runs out of fuel; then it will not run any longer until the fuel production and distribution system can be re-started.

Any statement concerning the effect of nuclear EMP on vehicles would depend upon details such as how your vehicle is oriented (in other words, which direction it is facing) with respect to the nuclear detonation.  It would also depend upon the height of the detonation, the gamma ray output of the detonation, the distance and azimuth to the detonation, and the local strength of the Earth's magnetic field between your location and the detonation point.

It would also depend upon whether your car is parked outdoors, in a concrete garage, or in a metal garage.  Obviously a metal garage is best, but concrete is slightly conductive and will provide a little bit of protection compared to outdoors.

There have been a number of isolated tests of vehicles in EMP simulators over the years.  The manufacturers of the cars wouldn't even say which cars had been tested, and the cars were usually transported to the EMP simulators in such a way that the make and model was hidden from view.  So we not only don't know the result, we don't even know which cars were tested.  One Ford Taurus was tested on http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/future-weapons-emp-bomb.htm - video by the Discovery Channel, but that was only one particular vehicle; and questions have been raised about the editing of that segment.  (Having spent most of my career working for television stations and related industries, I have learned to be skeptical of television reports, no matter what the source.)  Authoritative reports, however, indicate that some cars do behave like that vehicle.

The U.S. EMP Commission tested a number of cars and trucks.  Although this was the most comprehensive set of tests on vehicles that has been done, those tests were very poorly done because the Commission was financially responsible for the vehicles, but did not have the funding to pay for any of the vehicles they tested.  The vehicles were borrowed from other government agencies (most vehicles came from the Department of Defense); and the vehicles had to be returned to those lending agencies in good condition.

Those vehicles were tested up to the level that some sort of upset occurred, then further testing was stopped on that vehicle.  In most cases, after the initial upset occurred, the vehicle could be restarted.  In most of the remaining cases where the vehicle could not be immediately restarted, a latch-up had occurred in the electronics, and the battery could be momentarily disconnected to "re-boot" the electronics, and the vehicle could then be restarted.  This temporary electronic latch-up failure mode caused by EMP is something that almost never occurs in automobiles during a typical lifetime of operation.

Only one of the vehicles tested (a pickup) could not be restarted after some minor work, and it had to be towed to the shop for repairs.

Very few of the vehicles were tested up to the maximum level of the EMP simulator.  There was considerable disagreement among Commission staff members about how to report on the testing that had been done.  Some EMP Commission staff members believe that the wording of the paragraphs in the EMP Commission's Critical National Infrastructures Report about the effect of EMP on vehicles is quite misleading.

For an excellent audio discussion the testing done by the Commission on automobiles and trucks, listen to http://www.blogtalk.com/empact-/2011/03/23/empact--with-dr-peter-vincent-pry - EMPact America Radio Program number 41, which contains a discussion of this matter between the Chairman of the EMP Commission and a prominent staff member of that Commission.

In particular, the discussion about the testing of vehicles was roughly between the 46 minute and 54 minute marks of this 96-minute program.

---

---

The following quote is the report on the EMP Commission testing of vehicles from pages 115-116 of the EMP Commission Critical National Infrastructures Report:

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.

---

It is important to note that the latest model of car that was tested by the U.S. EMP Commission (as noted in the quotation above) was a 2002 model car.  Since 2002, the number of microprocessors in cars and the reliance on microprocessors in all motor vehicles has increased greatly.  Also, the sensitivity of the electronic circuitry to EMP has increased due to the use of smaller electronic components designed to operate on lower voltages.

Automobile manufacturers have also done EMP testing on their own at the EMP simulator at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.  There was a http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/wuaws/Pages/Electromagneticpulsetesting.aspx - news release from the White Sands Missile Range web site about this testing.  Since that White Sands statement disappears from the web occasionally, I have reproduced it below.

---

Electromagnetic pulse testing Testing at White Sands involves much more than firing rockets and missiles.  In fact, in the past few years, one of the missile range's labs has done considerable testing for the automobile industry. First of all, the military is very concerned about the battlefield survivability of its communications systems, vehicles, computers and other electronically based systems.  If someone were to explode a nuclear bomb in the upper atmosphere, one of the byproducts of the blast is a very powerful electromagnetic pulse covering millions of square miles.  This pulse induces an electrical charge in material which conducts electricity -- like the components of a computer or battle tank. If the pulse is strong enough, the electronic components can be fried or severely damaged.  It is very possible, then, to have such a high altitude nuclear explosion from which personnel will suffer no ill effects but they may be out of business because none of their electronic gear will work. At White Sands, the Nuclear Effects Directorate has the capability to simulate and evaluate the various effects of a nuclear explosion -- including the electromagnetic pulse.  For example, when the Abrams was being developed as the U.S. Army's main battle tank it was put through extensive electromagnetic testing at the missile range.  Its electronic components were protected by various "hardening" techniques during development so they would survive very powerful pulses.  The test and evaluation done at White Sands validated the adequacy of the "hardened" design. Electromagnetic pulses and fields exist in our everyday lives, but are much weaker than the ones found on a battlefield.  For instance, kitchen appliances and televisions produce electromagnetic fields.  Citizen band radios and cellular phones all radiate electromagnetic pulses when they are transmitting.  Even garage door openers emit weak electromagnetic pulses when they are used. These devices can interfere with one another if they get too close to each other.  This is why most airlines do not allow passengers to operate computers, stereos and other electronic devices when the plane is landing and taking off.  The emissions from these electronic devices could interfere with sensitive electronic gear on the airplane. Automakers were concerned about common sources of electromagnetic radiation in relationship to the airbag mechanisms, anti lock brakes, computers, etc. found in most cars today.  For example, they wanted to make sure that a driver's day wasn't ruined because the car's airbag went off in his or her face while going 65 mph just because the guy in the next car dialed up a cellular phone, a trucker used his CB radio or they drove past a radio station. So, the missile range has subjected computer chips and whole cars to all kinds of electromagnetic radiation in order to prove that such devices will not fire unintentionally. When the testing first started several years ago range officials thought it was a good story and asked the automobile companies if the range could invite the news media out.  The answer was a firm, "No." Not only can we not tell you much about the testing, at the request of the companies, but range personnel report the automakers sometimes arrive with their cars wrapped in brown paper so no one can see them.  Apparently some of the cars are advance models and manufacturers don't want anyone to see the new designs until the appropriate time.  Secrecy wears many hats and is certainly no stranger to business. At a time of cuts in the military this commercial testing has been welcome at White Sands and contributes to maintaining the current workforce. (The above release was last modified by the http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/Pages/default.aspx - White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs Office on April 8, 2010.)

 

---

---

Today's automobiles have published standards for electromagnetic shielding, but there is not much consistency in shielding requirements.  You can check http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/auto/auto_emc_standards. - this list from Clemson University for a partial list of the many and varied standards for electromagnetic shielding of automobiles.  Most automobiles and trucks have a similar appearance, at least close enough that we can tell when a object is an automobile or a truck just by looking at it.  When it comes to wiring and electronics, however, the differences are much more striking.  This fact makes generalizations about vehicles and EMP very difficult.  Even if every make and model were tested on one occasion in an EMP simulator, the EMP resistance could be changed dramatically just by moving a wire or by changing the way that a cable is routed.  This makes statements about the EMP resistance of any particular make and model nearly meaningless.  This is why you will not find a listing anywhere of which makes and models of vehicles are EMP resistant.

As I pointed out on another page on this web site, retrofitting an automobile to make it EMP-resistant is a project that would be too difficult and expensive for most people.  For those who want to try, the only authoritative document that I know to be available is one called "EMP Mitigation - Protecting Land Mobile Vehicles from HEMP Threat Environment" which was just published in March, 2011.  To find this document, go to the http://www.protectiongroup.com/ - Protection Technology Group page, then click on the Knowledge Base link at the top of the page.  Scroll down on the Knowledge Base page until you get to the article that you want.  The article specifically applies to military vehicles, but has relevance to commercial vehicles as well.  Note that the part of the referenced article that refers to bonding of "all metallic structures to a single point ground system" is referring to an electrical chassis ground on the vehicle, not to an earth ground.

The easiest way to retrofit some EMP protection into an automobile is to use the snap-on ferrite cores described in the http://www.futurescience.com/emp/emp-protection. - EMP Personal Protection Page.  These snap-on ferrite cores can be snapped on over all kinds of unshielded bundles of electrical wiring in an automobile or truck.  You will have to go through the wiring on your automobile thoroughly to determine the size of the snap-on ferrite core that you will need to order.  So this will involve going through an inspection of your car's wiring twice:  once to measure the size of each bundle of wires, and again to install the snap-on ferrite cores after your order arrives.  The snap-on ferrite suppression cores are not a perfect solution.  They will only help to suppress (but not eliminate) fast voltage transients on the bundles of wires that are accessible to you.

I also must re-emphasize the fact that during Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests over Kazakhstan in 1962, rugged diesel generators having no solid state parts were burned out by E1 EMP.  In an important international electromagnetics conference in 1994, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, General Vladimir Loborev delivered an important technical paper in which he stated, "The matter of this phenomenon is that the electrical puncture occurs at the weak point of a system.  Next, the heat puncture is developed at that point, under the action of the power voltage; as a result, the electrical power source is put out of action very often."  This illustrates that even vehicles without an electronic ignition or other electronic components are not immune from EMP.

The main advantage of a well-maintained older vehicle may be that it is likely to be much easier to repair if it does sustain EMP damage.  The Soviet experience is a warning to keep critical electrical spare parts on hand for the older vehicle.  This includes things like ignition coils, mechanical distributors, generators and starting motors.  In particular, any critical item with a coil of wire that is insulated using enamel or a similar substance may be prone to breakdown, and needs to have a replacement part on hand.  Also, as I have said on other pages, a good supply of automotive fuses is also critical.

The worst thing about nuclear EMP and motor vehicles is if you happen to be driving in heavy traffic when it happens.  In this event, simultaneously, a certain percentage of vehicles will stop running (perhaps temporarily), many more drivers will be instantly distracted by strange electrical behavior happening inside of the car, and the traffic lights will abruptly go out or go into a flashing mode.  This instantly creates the worst traffic jam in history in certain localities, and vehicular accidents at some busy intersections are likely to be severe or fatal.  If you have an working motor vehicle in a post-EMP situation, there may not be any clear roads to drive on.

Perhaps the most important question to ask yourself is where you are likely to be going after a nuclear EMP event.  If you live in a fairly secure area, the best choice may be not to go anywhere at all for a very long time.  If you live in a less secure area, and know a more secure location where you can stay, you need to think through as many scenarios as possible in advance of the event.  If you plan to go to the grocery store after the EMP to purchase emergency supplies, it will be too late.  The grocery stores will be closed for a very long time, starting at the instant that the EMP hits and disrupts the inventory control system and the data processing systems that handle payments.  It is also very likely that the electrical power will be out as well.

More important than fuel for your car is fuel for yourself.  If we are unfortunate enough to experience a nuclear EMP attack, many people will starve to death or will die from lack of critical medications while they have a perfectly functioning automobile in their driveway.  When it comes to surviving disasters, it is imperative to calmly think through what is really important.

---

Finally, it would be appropriate here to say something about the effects on vehicles of the real nuclear EMP tests that were done in 1962.  There have been reports of damage to automobiles in both the United States and Soviet high-altitude tests in 1962.  Those reports were all unconfirmed verbal reports, and the verbal reports were made many years after the events.  In addition, problems with the electrical ignition system were one of the most common causes of automobile problems in the early 1960s, so it is impossible to know whether any vehicular problems that occurred at about the same time as the high-altitude nuclear tests were actually related or were just coincidence.  I tend to think that they were just coincidence.  The Soviet military diesel generator problems were definitely related to the nuclear tests, although those diesel generators were probably connected to long external wires during the nuclear tests.  (The Russians have not shared many details about this.)

Since we know that EMP can punch through electrical insulation, especially on things like motor and generator windings when they are connected to external wiring, it is certainly plausible that damage could occur on vehicular electrical systems even if the vehicle contains no solid-state electronics.  The plausibility of this sort of damage in a future EMP is higher when one realizes that the EMP field strengths that were experienced in populated areas in the 1962 tests were only 10 to 20 percent of what could be experienced with known nuclear weapons.

In particular, in the United States Starfish Prime event in 1962, the maximum electric field pulse experienced in Hawaii was in the range of 5,000 to 5,600 volts per meter.  The worst EMP effects of the Soviet tests over Kazakhstan were about 7,500 volts per meter in the area where problems were actually documented.  The EMP may have been as high as 10,000 volts per meter in un-monitored areas of Kazakhstan, but not any higher.  We know that it is possible to rather easily generate 50,000 volts per meter with an old second-generation nuclear weapon of the proper design.  There are reports that may be possible to make nuclear weapons that will push beyond this 50,000 volts per meter limit.

An EMP of 50,000 volts per meter would undoubtedly damage some cars, both with and without solid-state electronics.  What percentage of vehicles would be damaged, and which particular vehicles would be damaged, is something that even the best EMP experts can only make guesses about.  The total available data is just too limited, and the number of variables are huge.

LOPPER wrote: Turboguy wrote: LOPPER wrote: [http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/Articles/Chemtrail%20Research/HEMP%20Powerpoint.pdf - http://www.chemtrailplanet.com/Articles/Chemtrail%20Research/HEMP%20Powerpoint.pdf</a> You read that chemtrail website? Really? Please tell me that you have any credibility whatsoever and that you just googled that and that website came up. This just got God damned priceless. Got Tinfoil? Actually my second reply has the correct link, that's why I included it and no I don't believe in chemtrails. Now do go on about how you know more about EMP than the experts, the top experts both American and Soviet. Who would a reasonable person believe the experts in that field or a guy that wires planes?

All the wall of text you posted inadvertently proved my point, thanks.

You're right, I'm just that avionics guy that has to do the whole EMP hardness game every day and does it for a living.

Again, you're grasping at straws because you know nothing about it.

Seriously, post another wall of text.

You keep squealing that all cars are boned after EMP and I keep telling you that, no, you're wrong. Then you post a wall of text that LITERALLY proved me correct.

Please continue.

I think we need a moderator function here or tool.

http://www.blogtalk.com/empact-/2011/03/23/empact--with-dr-peter-vincent-pry - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/empact-radio/2011/03/23/empact-radio-with-dr-peter-vincent-pryListen from about the 47 minute mark to about the 54 minute mark they go over why the EMP vehicle testing by the EMP commission was skewed and limited in it's scope in relation to a real world EMP event. This is a discussion between Dr. Graham who chaired the EMP Commission for eight years and is widely considered to be the free world's foremost EXPERT on electromagnetic pulse and other EMP commission members who are also EXPERTS as far as EMP and it's effects are concerned.

Ok guys, just talked to my Safe guy he just replaced a safe that burned up in the Colorado Springs fire. The guy that purchased it like Turbo is a EMP specialist he purchased a digital safe similar to mine. He confirmed Turbo's thinking that the safe is a faraday cage and that there is not enough wire to attract a fry mode of an EMP.

So I am not going to a dial. That being said, who predicts that a Flair aka EMP from the sun is going to hit?

Like the Safe guy said they can predict a solar EMP so just leave your safe unlocked when it is to hit. I can store my guns in my other dial safes until the date passes. Dang I just don't trust do I!

Iowa102 wrote: Turboguy, your last post seems to be attacking the messenger rather than the message. Are you sure that you are not confusing your opinion with fact? That "wall of text" seems to boil down to the fact that we don't know how vehicles would be effected by EMP because the issue has not been adequately tested. Whether or not vehicles would still run for a while most gas stations will not be pumping fuel without electricity.

This is an issue that I have to be acutely aware of as it is a large part of my job to know how air vehicles are affected by EMP. I have to go to the EM hardness examination center once every two years with one of our aircraft and we run it through, starting with TDR'ing all the radio wires specifically looking for any openings, and ending with the aircraft beneath the EM transmitter.

In playing with the tester, we've stuck all kinds of items beneath during the live fire EM tests just to see if they work afterwards, including cars. They worked after taking pretty significant whacks. Cell phones, RFID's, and strangely enough, coffeemakers are kaput afterwards.

I could literally explain to him until I am blue in the face that induced amperage is directly proportional to antenna length, and he'd find a way to misconstrue that too. I could remind him that the specific reason that damage occurs to generators and transformers is from shorting the windings to each other, ruining generators, and potentially causing the power transformers to boil, and again, he'll squeal something about someone disagreeing with me.

Lastly, I can tell him again and again that a car's skin acts as an efficient faraday cage protecting the coil, alternator, and multi conductor wires from damage, and again, somehow, I'm wrong.

And then when I say that I've been doing this job for eighteen years, I'm not an electrical engineer enough.

a car's skin acts as an efficient faraday cage protecting the coil, alternator, and multi conductor wires from damage...

What make/model car do you drive that the electrical system is isolated (insulated?) from the car's skin (body)? Isn't that used as a ground?

With all these experts why should we worry about anything!!! If there such experts why are there any problems?? I need another beer

Lopper wrote: It's all the EMP EXPERTS, their numerous EMP reports and EMP testing that are disagreeing with you. But I know I know you know more about EMP than the EMP commission because you wire planes. Right.  Let me ask you this which source would any rational person pick and trust as far as information relating to EMP and it's effects ,the EMP commission which includes the top experts in the field of EMP or a layperson who wires planes? OK enough said.

*SIGH* No, they're not. You think they are because you have a cursory knowledge of even the most basic electronic fundamentals at most.

While wiring planes is part of my job, the vast majority is Avionics. That includes, navigation and communication radios, Radar, Flight director, autopilot, instruments, etc and I've been doing it probably for as long as you've been alive. I'm not exactly a layperson when it comes to not only EMP, but electronics as a whole.

You don't even know why you think I'm wrong, and I think I'm just feeding an idiot troll. 

If I'm soooooo wrong, just answer the questions. Hell, EMAIL the questions to the EMP commission! Most of the Professors will be more than happy to answer a respectful email.

This article and video should suffice to show that indeed EMP does effect vehicles. Obviously EMP does effect the electronics in vehicles or the US Air force would not be interested in this vehicle stopping EMP device.

LOPPER wrote:  What was the highest kV/m level the EMP testing unit you used could produce? 50 kV/m or at best 100 KV/M

50 kV/m was the highest extent we went to. That's realistically as high as the experts believe we might be subjected to in an actual attack. Whether it could go higher or not, I don't know. I wasn't exactly manning the booth, I was busy screwing up electronic stuff.

Lopper wrote:  I'll wager and what level would actual HEMP event most likely be at? Second generation weapons produce 50,000 kV/m. So are you really trying to tell people that the testing you did at the lower kV/m levels would produce the same results at 50,000 kV/m levels and that their vehicles would be fine in the event of a real world EMP strike? Really?

Please provide a source for this claim. If a real electronics person said this, I'd be surprised. 50,000 kV/m isn't said that way. That's 50MV/m, as in Megavolts. If a weapon actually created this level of induced voltage, it could very well instantly kill everything beneath it. 50 MEGAvolts far surpasses the resistance of your skin. When last I checked my resistance from thumb to thumb was on the order of ten Meg-Ohms. (Ohm's law is E=IR, or in this case, I=E/R) You've just induced about five amps in everything and we all fried like rotisserie chicken!  If you heard this somewhere, I believe someone mis-spoke that one.

Second generation EMP is capable of only up to 50kV/m.  Even the Kazakhstan tests the Russians toyed with produced maybe 7500 v/m. While that would be absolutely catastrophic to infrastructure (We agree on that much I think) it is well beneath the threshold of significant vehicle damage.