Effects of EMP on LED Lights?
- Thread starter donn
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
- Status
NA8
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,565
Re: LED battlefield survivability
The History Channel had a show on the Sun recently. They were hot and bothered about a huge solar mass ejection scoring a direct hit on Earth's magnetic field. They said it happened once already, before widespread use of transistors. They're afraid it could be the same as an EMP on a global scale.
The History Channel had a show on the Sun recently. They were hot and bothered about a huge solar mass ejection scoring a direct hit on Earth's magnetic field. They said it happened once already, before widespread use of transistors. They're afraid it could be the same as an EMP on a global scale.
Confederate
Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 360
Re: LED battlefield survivability
You can always buy an ammo case and store your flashlights and PDA in it, making sure that they're insulated from direct contact with the steel sides or tops. This also will protect a PDA or cell phone.
Presently, one of the fears by the U.S. is that Iran or some other country would launch a nuclear weapon over the U.S. land mass in an attempt to knock out the computers and drives that keep the economy going. If launched from a small boat and detonated high enough and inland enough, it could indeed fry your cars, computers, flashlights, PDAs, cell phones, as well as just about everything else we rely on for comfort (except firearms, thank goodness). In such a case it would be difficult if not impossible to tell which country had done it. You'd have the equivilant of New Orleans all over a large section of the country.
It's fairly cheap to protect these things, but unfortunately, people don't learn from history. The military hardens its electronics. For the rest of us, though, we'll be in trouble.
You can always buy an ammo case and store your flashlights and PDA in it, making sure that they're insulated from direct contact with the steel sides or tops. This also will protect a PDA or cell phone.
Presently, one of the fears by the U.S. is that Iran or some other country would launch a nuclear weapon over the U.S. land mass in an attempt to knock out the computers and drives that keep the economy going. If launched from a small boat and detonated high enough and inland enough, it could indeed fry your cars, computers, flashlights, PDAs, cell phones, as well as just about everything else we rely on for comfort (except firearms, thank goodness). In such a case it would be difficult if not impossible to tell which country had done it. You'd have the equivilant of New Orleans all over a large section of the country.
It's fairly cheap to protect these things, but unfortunately, people don't learn from history. The military hardens its electronics. For the rest of us, though, we'll be in trouble.
wintermute
Enlightened
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 681
Re: LED battlefield survivability
Way to scare the crap outta everyone early Sundayt morning.
But yeah, I've read up on these kind of scenarios myself. From all of the information I have read over the last decade or so, I think we're at a much greater risk of a dirty bomb attack in a large city then any type of EMP/nuclear attack.
Way to scare the crap outta everyone early Sundayt morning.
But yeah, I've read up on these kind of scenarios myself. From all of the information I have read over the last decade or so, I think we're at a much greater risk of a dirty bomb attack in a large city then any type of EMP/nuclear attack.
Re: LED battlefield survivability
I don't think the cell phone system would survive an EMP attack.
I don't think the cell phone system would survive an EMP attack.
are the effects of EMP (or EMP itself) something noticed in real life, or is this a theoretical concept?
I seem not to get serious infos
:thinking:
and should not most of our precious gear already be safe?
My lights feature an aluminium housing + reflector, my computer has the normal metal housing, ...
(sure, I will get mad, when the internet is off for 3 days, but as long as the power grid runs, so does most of our western life, at least on the short term?
right? wrong?
as above examples show, the genereal public seems to notice how good led lights are for normal power chores, and with every person owning an average quality light, even more will get hooked
I seem not to get serious infos
:thinking:
and should not most of our precious gear already be safe?
My lights feature an aluminium housing + reflector, my computer has the normal metal housing, ...
(sure, I will get mad, when the internet is off for 3 days, but as long as the power grid runs, so does most of our western life, at least on the short term?
right? wrong?
as above examples show, the genereal public seems to notice how good led lights are for normal power chores, and with every person owning an average quality light, even more will get hooked
Last edited:
DM51
Flashaholic
Re: LED battlefield survivability
Power would be one of the first things to go out.
Power would be one of the first things to go out.
Confederate
Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 360
Re: LED battlefield survivability
A protected Faraday box will protect your devices if they're in the box when the attack comes. Notebook computers are not protected and I don't know of any retailer that protects their systems; nor do I know of any car company that is hardening its vehicles. In fact, they're adding even more electronics each year. If such an attack comes, the guy who owns an old '57 Chevy will be doing quite well -- at least until he runs out of gas.
In such a scenario, having good flashlights and batteries would be imperative. The 123A batteries have a good shelf life and they can be had at a good price. So adding to your stock every three or four years would be prudent. It also would pay to make a list of things you might need in such an emergency. Produce might come to stop, at least for awhile, as trucks will not work, inventorying and billing will have to be done by hand and so forth.
No, this is not a theoretical concept. I used to work for the Navy, and I've talked to many electrical engineers regarding this problem. In the event of a war, U.S. weapons systems would have to keep working in order to launch an effective counterstrike. While part of the government tells us not to worry, another part is fortifying its own systems.
A protected Faraday box will protect your devices if they're in the box when the attack comes. Notebook computers are not protected and I don't know of any retailer that protects their systems; nor do I know of any car company that is hardening its vehicles. In fact, they're adding even more electronics each year. If such an attack comes, the guy who owns an old '57 Chevy will be doing quite well -- at least until he runs out of gas.
In such a scenario, having good flashlights and batteries would be imperative. The 123A batteries have a good shelf life and they can be had at a good price. So adding to your stock every three or four years would be prudent. It also would pay to make a list of things you might need in such an emergency. Produce might come to stop, at least for awhile, as trucks will not work, inventorying and billing will have to be done by hand and so forth.
Re: LED battlefield survivability
To have a pulse sufficient to affect a "large section of the country", you'd need a high-yield thermonuclear weapon (in the ten megaton range), detonated at very high altitude. If you think that anyone other than U.S. and Russia has such a weapon, you've got to be dreaming.
The amount of circumstances and technologies that would have to come together, in order for someone to launch such an attack, are so vast that it makes such a circumstance unlikely, except for a true first-strike scenario.
But in the latter case, the potential enemy is unlikely to use one of their precious high yield warheads to try and disrupt our economy. It's simply madness that someone would risk annihilation to fry our easily-replaceable (in a long-term sense) electronics. If a terrorist state were to gain possession of an appropriate missile, with a high-yield warhead, they wouldn't detonate it 200km over the east coast, they'd detonate 2km over a city on the east coast.
To have a pulse sufficient to affect a "large section of the country", you'd need a high-yield thermonuclear weapon (in the ten megaton range), detonated at very high altitude. If you think that anyone other than U.S. and Russia has such a weapon, you've got to be dreaming.
The amount of circumstances and technologies that would have to come together, in order for someone to launch such an attack, are so vast that it makes such a circumstance unlikely, except for a true first-strike scenario.
But in the latter case, the potential enemy is unlikely to use one of their precious high yield warheads to try and disrupt our economy. It's simply madness that someone would risk annihilation to fry our easily-replaceable (in a long-term sense) electronics. If a terrorist state were to gain possession of an appropriate missile, with a high-yield warhead, they wouldn't detonate it 200km over the east coast, they'd detonate 2km over a city on the east coast.
Re: LED battlefield survivability
Thank you... it's a pleasure to browse this forum.
Thank you... it's a pleasure to browse this forum.
Re: LED battlefield survivability
Hmmm, talking about nuking, has anyone tried nuking an LED in the microwave? Just wondering.
Hmmm, talking about nuking, has anyone tried nuking an LED in the microwave? Just wondering.
Re: LED battlefield survivability
My friend nukes his old cellphones in the microwave after he gets new ones. He claims it's to make sure no one can ever get the info off of it lol
My friend nukes his old cellphones in the microwave after he gets new ones. He claims it's to make sure no one can ever get the info off of it lol
TorchBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
joema
Flashlight Enthusiast
Re: LED battlefield survivability
In case anybody is interested, this was discussed in detail in this thread: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/105568&highlight=SCUD-D
A few points:
There have been numerous nuclear explosions at high altitude and in space. From these we know a high altitude detonation will NOT cause blast or radiation damage to people on the ground, yet can produce damaging EMP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion
In general an EMP attack would require a fusion (ie, hydrogen) bomb, not a simple fission bomb. Fission bombs of the required yield would be too heavy and require far too much material. Fusion bombs are much more complicated to make and maintain.
Whether an LED flashlight would be affected is hard to state definitively. A high altitude nuclear detonation can impose 50,000 volts per meter to conductors on the ground.
However there are many variables: detonation altitude, yield, distance, conductor (antenna) length, degree of shielding, susceptibility of the electronics to damage, and type of EMP waveform (there are several).
Whether the LED flashlight has a plastic or metal body is probably a factor. Also whether it's a simple direct-drive flashlight, a regulated light, or a microprocessor-controlled light could make a difference.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp/toc.htm
From a tactical standpoint, an EMP attack seems unlikely. As already stated, it's likely no small power would waste a nuke on EMP. Given a limited arsenal, they are too valuable as a direct weapon to squander on EMP. If delivered by missile, the trajectory also gives an unmistakable "return address" to the launcher, which would have dire consequences.
Of course a larger power like Russia or the U.S. could use dedicated EMP nukes. The most effective way would NOT be an ICBM launch, but concealing several in low orbital satellites and doing a coordinated surprise detonation as a disruptive prelude to a full-scale nuclear attack. In that case there would be major EMP damage. However whether flashlights worked in the 20 min interval between the EMP detonation and full-scale attack would probably be immaterial for most people.
In case anybody is interested, this was discussed in detail in this thread: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/105568&highlight=SCUD-D
A few points:
There have been numerous nuclear explosions at high altitude and in space. From these we know a high altitude detonation will NOT cause blast or radiation damage to people on the ground, yet can produce damaging EMP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_nuclear_explosion
In general an EMP attack would require a fusion (ie, hydrogen) bomb, not a simple fission bomb. Fission bombs of the required yield would be too heavy and require far too much material. Fusion bombs are much more complicated to make and maintain.
Whether an LED flashlight would be affected is hard to state definitively. A high altitude nuclear detonation can impose 50,000 volts per meter to conductors on the ground.
However there are many variables: detonation altitude, yield, distance, conductor (antenna) length, degree of shielding, susceptibility of the electronics to damage, and type of EMP waveform (there are several).
Whether the LED flashlight has a plastic or metal body is probably a factor. Also whether it's a simple direct-drive flashlight, a regulated light, or a microprocessor-controlled light could make a difference.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp/toc.htm
From a tactical standpoint, an EMP attack seems unlikely. As already stated, it's likely no small power would waste a nuke on EMP. Given a limited arsenal, they are too valuable as a direct weapon to squander on EMP. If delivered by missile, the trajectory also gives an unmistakable "return address" to the launcher, which would have dire consequences.
Of course a larger power like Russia or the U.S. could use dedicated EMP nukes. The most effective way would NOT be an ICBM launch, but concealing several in low orbital satellites and doing a coordinated surprise detonation as a disruptive prelude to a full-scale nuclear attack. In that case there would be major EMP damage. However whether flashlights worked in the 20 min interval between the EMP detonation and full-scale attack would probably be immaterial for most people.
LightJaguar
Enlightened
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 321
Re: LED battlefield survivability
well, aside from IR compatibility if you look at performance from the "runtime perspective" if LEDs were retrofitted for military gear [visible for visible, infrared for infrared] imagine the savings in batteries
cheaper? you think weapon lights are cheaper? refer to the surefire page...granted surefire sells weapon lights cheaper than its consumer line but I don't see how you would justify a 3 digit price as cheap
:thinking:[/quote]
Well it seems like SureFire marketing has gotten the better of you. As a fomer U.S Armed Forces personnel I can assure you that not everyone in the military runs around with SureFires. As a matter of fact I never saw a SureFire while in the Military. I worked along with Marines, the Army plus Navy personnel. The best light that I recall seeing was some Brinkman flashlight. The incans that I was refering to are the green ones that are common in the military and the cheap 2 D plastic ones. If my best buddy (a US Marine) deploys again I will supply him with some quality lights and batteries.
well, aside from IR compatibility if you look at performance from the "runtime perspective" if LEDs were retrofitted for military gear [visible for visible, infrared for infrared] imagine the savings in batteries
cheaper? you think weapon lights are cheaper? refer to the surefire page...granted surefire sells weapon lights cheaper than its consumer line but I don't see how you would justify a 3 digit price as cheap
:thinking:[/quote]Well it seems like SureFire marketing has gotten the better of you. As a fomer U.S Armed Forces personnel I can assure you that not everyone in the military runs around with SureFires. As a matter of fact I never saw a SureFire while in the Military. I worked along with Marines, the Army plus Navy personnel. The best light that I recall seeing was some Brinkman flashlight. The incans that I was refering to are the green ones that are common in the military and the cheap 2 D plastic ones. If my best buddy (a US Marine) deploys again I will supply him with some quality lights and batteries.
peacefuljeffrey
Newly Enlightened
Re: LED battlefield survivability
As much as I would like to think that's what our reaction would be, something tells me that we have enough pansies in high places that we'd be admonished, "Now- now don't go off all angry and do something you might regret!"
We'd have people telling us that the ones who did the attack on us don't represent all of their kind, so it's not fair to kill innocents to get at them, or to judge their group as a whole based on the actions of "a few". :sick2:
I think, sadly, that we would not be able to count on the "unleash hell" type of response from the defanged U.S. military. :sigh: Not with the mealy-mouthed pansies we have in power today. It is often said that if it were up to the people who run the show nowadays, we wouldn't have had a prayer of winning WWII. I believe them.
As much as I would like to think that's what our reaction would be, something tells me that we have enough pansies in high places that we'd be admonished, "Now- now don't go off all angry and do something you might regret!"
We'd have people telling us that the ones who did the attack on us don't represent all of their kind, so it's not fair to kill innocents to get at them, or to judge their group as a whole based on the actions of "a few". :sick2:
I think, sadly, that we would not be able to count on the "unleash hell" type of response from the defanged U.S. military. :sigh: Not with the mealy-mouthed pansies we have in power today. It is often said that if it were up to the people who run the show nowadays, we wouldn't have had a prayer of winning WWII. I believe them.
SheikRattleEnroll
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2
Re: LED battlefield survivability
I don't think Iraq is a result of people saying "don't go off all angry and do something you might regret", it's exactly the opposite. Someone said "We have no proof these people did anything to us, but let's attack them and start a second war, split our military in half, then if we win let's try and build a new country out of the rubble with the taxes our people pay." Osama Bin Laden said the goal of his strategy was to bankrupt America. We've played right into his hands so far with that. And people want to start more wars in the middle east and bankrupt our country further! They're so afraid of a handful of people that they're willing to destroy our entire nation to get them.
The people in power had plenty of desire to "unleash hell" and that's the problem. We defeated Germany and Japan quicker than a handful of untrained uneducated unequipped Iraqis. Plainly spoken, we acted without thinking and developing a viable strategy.
As far as your views on killing innocent people, the war on terror is a war against a tactic, namely that of terrorism, which is the killing of innocent people to achieve a military objective. Is that what you want us to be, terrorists? And if everyone thinks it's ok to judge a religious group based on the actions of a few this earth will be reduced to a lake of fire in no time.
I agree we wouldn't have won WWII if the people in power now were in power then. We'd be fighting a never ending war of attrition against an abstract ideal instead of concentrating on the real threat of Germany and Japan.
I don't think Iraq is a result of people saying "don't go off all angry and do something you might regret", it's exactly the opposite. Someone said "We have no proof these people did anything to us, but let's attack them and start a second war, split our military in half, then if we win let's try and build a new country out of the rubble with the taxes our people pay." Osama Bin Laden said the goal of his strategy was to bankrupt America. We've played right into his hands so far with that. And people want to start more wars in the middle east and bankrupt our country further! They're so afraid of a handful of people that they're willing to destroy our entire nation to get them.
The people in power had plenty of desire to "unleash hell" and that's the problem. We defeated Germany and Japan quicker than a handful of untrained uneducated unequipped Iraqis. Plainly spoken, we acted without thinking and developing a viable strategy.
As far as your views on killing innocent people, the war on terror is a war against a tactic, namely that of terrorism, which is the killing of innocent people to achieve a military objective. Is that what you want us to be, terrorists? And if everyone thinks it's ok to judge a religious group based on the actions of a few this earth will be reduced to a lake of fire in no time.
I agree we wouldn't have won WWII if the people in power now were in power then. We'd be fighting a never ending war of attrition against an abstract ideal instead of concentrating on the real threat of Germany and Japan.
Last edited:
DM51
Flashaholic
Re: LED battlefield survivability
I can think of quite a few things to say about that nonsense, but I will confine myself to pointing out that it is off-topic, having absolutely nothing whatever to do with the title of the thread.
SheikRattleEnroll
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2
Re: LED battlefield survivability
You're right and I apologize, but so was the post I was responding to. I didn't bring up Iraq, WWII, the current leadership of America and the American military, the validity of killing civilians to attain military objectives, the ability of the current leadership to handle a war like WWII, etc. I just responded to all those points, so don't just complain to me for thread crapping, there were at least two guilty parties here, and cutting up my post just makes three.
You're right and I apologize, but so was the post I was responding to. I didn't bring up Iraq, WWII, the current leadership of America and the American military, the validity of killing civilians to attain military objectives, the ability of the current leadership to handle a war like WWII, etc. I just responded to all those points, so don't just complain to me for thread crapping, there were at least two guilty parties here, and cutting up my post just makes three.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
A 1970s Soviet flashlight gets a remake!
- Latest: whiteshepherd
