It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the magnetic war how the use of organic transistors and procesors will integrate into military techn

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
EMP is now old news but its uses and development are a large threat cloaking EMP is a big issue like when england developed radar the ability to opperate under emp is massive.
EMP accosiated weapon deployments SEMP SurfaceEMP and HEMP High altitudeEMP,

Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse deploment can happen under SEMP or HEMP but leaves alot of victims not going to go mutch further there.. HAARP is another administraion of emp using HEMP..

china has put some cash openly into EMP devices with so called "assassin’s mace" emp deployment there's words going around they want to stop us carriers from porting in Taiwan. not cool kind of sucks when UXV Combatant "battleship" is meant to be built in 9 years a fully droned not "manned" battle ship.

i really want this thread to be about organic processor's and the ability of weapons to perform under emp whats the point of having the most badass military when your scram jet engines ignited by lasers wont fire, your metal storm guns wont fire your drones don't work. let alone the civilian and corporate entites have no power.

the real question is can plastic and organic semiconductors work under EMP




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Nope, organics will fail the same as their silicone counterparts.

The military have ways of dealing with EMP in their planes, etc...

The systems I've seen have modules containing computers which can be removed and replaced mid-flight by the pilot allowing systems to be restarted.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
They'll have to use a forcefield/shield of some electromagnetic type to block the bursts. Organic processors are in their infancy, literally in their conception, but still as they are integrated with electronics they will fall victim to EMP bursts. The only real solution is to negate the effects of the electromagnetic wave by producing another electromagnetic wave to cancel the other one out.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Or unless you created a radiation belt around you to absorb the high energy particles and then merely deflect the energy...or send it back at them.

That's how Earth deals with it.

So could you create a radiation belt around an automated aircraft carrier? Forcefield....

Yes. Supposedly the Nazi's were working on mercury at high temperatures pumped around a device and it was nuclear powered for zero gravity flight. Such a device would enable a radiation belt around you of high energy particles from the extreme magnetic fields.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The reality here is that when you create an EMP, physics and our laws of thermodynamics assume that you can also create an anti-EMP. For the sake of this thread, we will call it an EMS, or Electro-Magnetic Sink. Harnessing these laws will not deflect, but negate the pusle. All that is required to trigger the device is an early warning system that operates fast enough to detect and react. If that technology is unavailable, though in theory all that is required is a device to relay when it goes offline (one-time use device that has a single monitored component vulnerable to EMP that is connected to the body of the device that sends a signal in the event the device goes offline).



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


slightly off topic I know, but seeing that EMP and HAARP has been drawn into this discussion, just my few words.

The reality of EMP is not really that big a deal. Any well-shielded device can survive EMP, it is the wires that leads in/out of it that acts as antennas and conduct the EMP inside. It is not impossible to design electronic systems that can survive EMP, heck, the avionics industry has had to design EMP-proof avionics for a long time now. (just Google standards like DO-160D, etc), and that is NOT even the highest standards there are. (If you had to purchase electronic devices for an airplane, ever wondered why it is so damn expensive?, ask any designer of DO-106D qualified avionics, and he/she will tell you that a huge part of those costs goes into the protection circuitry) Gamma-rays are more of a threat to electronics, and that can be overcome too, at a huge cost.

If you want the modern world to be totally EMP-proof, there is one solution, go back to vacuum-valves, or maybe DNA-computers



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

The reality of EMP is not really that big a deal. Any well-shielded device can survive EMP, it is the wires that leads in/out of it that acts as antennas and conduct the EMP inside. It is not impossible to design electronic systems that can survive EMP, heck, the avionics industry has had to design EMP-proof avionics for a long time now. (just Google standards like DO-160D, etc), and that is NOT even the highest standards there are. (If you had to purchase electronic devices for an airplane, ever wondered why it is so damn expensive?, ask any designer of DO-106D qualified avionics, and he/she will tell you that a huge part of those costs goes into the protection circuitry) Gamma-rays are more of a threat to electronics, and that can be overcome too, at a huge cost.

If you want the modern world to be totally EMP-proof, there is one solution, go back to vacuum-valves, or maybe DNA-computers



You are 100% wrong. Even EMP proofing used today in the military and avionics is not 100% impervious.

Military equipment is designed to be resistant (not impervious) to EMP, but realistic tests are difficult to conduct and EMP protection rests on attention to detail. Minor changes in design, incorrect maintenance procedures, poorly fitting parts, loose debris, moisture, and ordinary dirt can cause elaborate EMP protections to be totally circumvented.

Your ignorance on the topic only tells me that you are speaking about subject matter you are not informed on. I suggest you take the time to research a topic before throwing in an erroneous contribution.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


OK, then, please tell me how many dB's of isolation you need, or just the Electric strength/m and at what frequency your EMP weapons give off, some references, and then I'll redo my maths.

the following link is much more realistic about EMP in my mind, but mind you, we don't all work with the latest EMP weapons. OK, I know it points to a radio-ham link, but from my experience, some radio-amateurs know a lot more about these subjects than highly-qualified engineers

www.qsl.net...
www.qsl.net...

The following link also points you to MIL-STD 188-125-2.
www.everyspec.com...

www.wbdg.org...

www.everyspec.com...
If you know better than that my friend, then you are a lot more qualified than me, and I will keep my silence.

and one more thing, once I had to test one of my designs for a very demanding customer, and when I came to the testing-facility, their head engineer asked me : "Whoever gave you those specs???", and when I answered him, he just shooked his head, and said "Well, if any human were ever exposed to these levels, he would be dead"... After many tries, in which the testing house blew up their equipment (10MW magnetrons beaming into my equipment from 1m away), we finally managed to get the required field strength, and my equipment survived. That small conversation made me realise just how ridiculous some of these EMP-specs are.



edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: added more links

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

If you know better than that my friend, then you are a lot more qualified than me, and I will keep my silence.



edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)


As far as NEMP goes, a single E1 will generate over 6 megawatts per square mile. Furthermore, the military has the capability to create what scientists call a "Super EMP", which releases it's gamma radiation nearly instantaneously, and the numbers per square mile are classified.

Also,


Although vacuum tubes are far more resistant to EMP than solid state devices, other components in vacuum tube circuitry can be damaged by EMP. Vacuum tube equipment actually was damaged in 1962 nuclear EMP testing. Also, the solid state PRC-77 VHF manpackable 2-way radio survived extensive EMP testing. The earlier PRC-25, nearly identical except for a vacuum tube final amplification stage, had been tested in EMP simulators but was not certified to remain fully functional.

Source : en.wikipedia.org...



I will only discuss things that are OSI on this matter, but I can tell you that I am experienced enough to say you are wrong. I'm not calling you a charlatan, just misinformed.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The problem with vacuum tubes are that they have very high impedances, so eventually the coils and capacitors would break-through, but that can also be overcome, once you know what to design for. That is the problem with designing for EMP, you design according to specifications, and you trust that the person wanting EMP-proof equipment has better knowledge in that field than you. I can overdesign to such an extent that nobody can afford it anymore, but if you don't have any humans surviving the EMP, what is the point???



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join