What ever happened to...

[kYdizzle]

it is energy, electromagnetic radiation. that transformer thing you know is the result of enormous amounts of electricity passing through a relatively small yet conductive metal piece. this causes the metal to emit magnetic waves, coupled with the small size of the metal (small for the amount of current passing through it), generate the EMP.

[lav_coyote25]

ok lets all get on the same page here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse  plus more from google...    >:(


like this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energ ... cy_weapons

[NullVoid]

you are correct, i did not know what i was talking about... WAIT.
i just realized that, ok, an EMP feild wont work, BUT firing EMP generating bullets into a VTOL WILL WORK. because you are gaurenteed to hit a able or puncture the sheilding.

how bout this, each upgrade to the gun damage makes it more likely to instakill. against a normal VTOL it is always 100% instakill on a hit. also, VTOL's get an upgrade that adds shielding, one time upgrade. tthe upgrade reduces kill chance to 30% per hit, then u add 15% for each weapon upgrade.so against unshielded, hit is a gaurenteed instakill. against shielded, worst is 30% chance, best is 75% instakill chance.probably would fire like a light cannon at air targets...

[Chojun]

Today shielding exists against EM Pulses.  The only thing that can't be defended against afaik are EM Blasts from nuclear weapons.

[Giel]

Today shielding exists against EM Pulses. The only thing that can't be defended against afaik are EM Blasts from nuclear weapons.

Sure it can. A faraday cage with enough mass of metal per volume of contained space (read: a room with very thick metal walls) should do the trick of keeping even EM fields caused by nuclear blasts out.

[lav_coyote25]

yes !!  its called a mountain...like the one the Norad people hide under.... ;D

[kYdizzle]

well, in the year 2100, i would think that they would be able to use directed energy weapons, so they could theoretically generate an EMP in a very narrow beam, like the size of a VTOL perhaps

[NullVoid]

hmm interesting points.

but i repeat, EMP generating projectiles are still effective, because the physical bullet will pierce the anti EMP shielding. look at my last post, and look at the definition of emp, note that it can effect something through cables, so even with shielding, its difficult to completely protect against. especially when you punch through the shielding with a bullet.

[Chojun]

I would imagine that effective shielding would degauss the bullet, unless you're thinking that the bullet would generate an EM Pulse upon impact.

Sure it can. A faraday cage with enough mass of metal per volume of contained space (read: a room with very thick metal walls) should do the trick of keeping even EM fields caused by nuclear blasts out.

Well I do know that nuclear reactors employ ~3m thick walls of iron followed by more in cement, and even then they can't shield certain forms of EM Radiation, although it DOES shield the kind of harmful radiations that would fry VLSI circuits.  Anyway, I'll have my people get with your people and we'll start slapping faraday cages on some units.

BTW wouldn't a VTOL with 3m of armor plating be called a tank? 

[NullVoid]

BLEEP! precisely. fully effective sheilding for a VTOL would be 1. expensive and 2. too heavy for flight

[kage]

indeed, even without a faraday cage, hardened electronics are by no means a new idea, nor ineffective (just really damned expensive -- often 5x the cost).  not only have electronics been created to resist the effects of an invasive pulse, but also there are even standards for levels of electronic espionage protection (like clamping a device to the outside of a cable and sniffing the data going through it). most nuclear weapons are fairly small yield, with most military interest historically having been in light nuclear artillery, which probably would have had far fewer environmental consequences than widespread application of pesticides and other chemicals like ddt.  with few exceptions, nuclear warfare on the whole has been enormously overstated in the minds of the average person, largely due to misrepresentation by media, and general ignorance of the underlying science, though in the case of large yield devices (like those found in icbm's), then i'd agree with chojun: very few hardened electronic devices could continue to operate within 20 km of an airburst, and within 400 km, most normal cheap electronics would be temporarily compromised.  however, thermonukes are very popular this time of year, and produce only a fraction of the em output that other devices would.

also keep in mind that humans (and other animals) are hardened electronic devices: do you ever wonder why people within 200 km from the blast zone of a nuclear explosion don't all become instantly catatonic, to be followed by mass-amnesia?

[themousemaster]

also keep in mind that humans (and other animals) are hardened electronic devices: do you ever wonder why people within 200 km from the blast zone of a nuclear explosion don't all become instantly catatonic, to be followed by mass-amnesia?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a KM is just over 1/2 a mile... placing 200KM at around... 120-130 miles?

Exactly what yield of weapon are we talking here that's going to have said effect in the 130 mile range?

[Chojun]

also keep in mind that humans (and other animals) are hardened electronic devices: do you ever wonder why people within 200 km from the blast zone of a nuclear explosion don't all become instantly catatonic, to be followed by mass-amnesia?

Yes, given the nature of our electro-chemical circuitry and extremely low-voltage wiring.

[NullVoid]

the lower the voltage, the harder it is to disrupt. thats cause the disruption can deflect off of the electrons in the current, multiplying. more current = more disruption. human circutry is so low voltage, EMP is useless at that low level. same with animals. only electronics have the voltage to be disrupted. im not sure excatly if its how i described, but the effect is correct.

[Giel]

the lower the voltage, the harder it is to disrupt.

Actually it is the reverse. The lower the voltage the larger the relative influence of the distortion on the signal.

thats cause the disruption can deflect off of the electrons in the current, multiplying.

Erm, ..., not sure what physics teacher you have had. But I suggest you tell your school they might look for one that knows what he's talking about.

more current = more disruption. human circutry is so low voltage, EMP is useless at that low level. same with animals. only electronics have the voltage to be disrupted. im not sure excatly if its how i described, but the effect is correct.

Well actually it is a _lot_ more simple.

The EM field simply causes induction on whatever wires are present (actually not the field, but the introduction of the field). It is the potential difference introduced by this induction that _is_ the distorting signal.

Then the higher the amplitude of the EM field (i.e. the stronger the EM-field) the higher the absolute voltage difference introduced into your electrical system. The amount of voltage difference (the distorting voltage) introduced is directly related to the amplitude of the EM field though, also this introduced difference is entirely unrelated to the voltage already present on the electrical system.

By example this effectively means that a wire on which a voltage of 10V is already for example present +5V will be introduced, making the effective potential difference be 15V. While with the same EM field on another wire on which 5V is already present the same +5V will be introduced, making the effective voltage be 10V. As you can see in the first case the signal error is only 50%, while in the second case it is 100%. This effectively means that a lower voltage can be disrupted more easily than a higher voltage (on a relative scale).