SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JBTFD who wrote (23835)12/14/2003 3:25:22 PM
From: MSI  Respond to of 93284
 
Thanks, that's an excellent description. Here's a quote as well, that provides a good clue to one of the military's intents for such weapons

"... Evaluation Force found JSOW to be operationally effective,
operationally suitable and recommended it for fleet release"(http://
www.deepspace4.com/pages/science/emp/empwarheads.htm).
A Lt. General's Congressional testimony on 17 June 1997 also affirms
the adaptability of such devices to take out aircraft: "These weapons
can interfere with the takeoff and landing of planes. They can bring
an airplane down. . . .


Cellphones would be a good indicator, in the 900MHz range.

What happens w. EMP weapons is that an explosion is used to move copper elements at supersonic speeds, which creates the same simple effect as the hand-cranked electric toy generator, but millions of times greater. Given a cone shape, it will direct these millions of harmonics in a direction. The problem with avoiding detection is (a)creating a wave-guide shape through the explosion cycle, which is apparently done pretty well, but also (b)confining the harmonics, which is nearly impossible. After all, you'd have to create an explosive mechanical pulse starting and stopping with nanosecond precision. Using other beam-forming methods such as super-large capacitors, it's easier but not perfect, and requires much larger truck-sized equipment, whereas an explosive version can be shoulder-fired.