http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/

E-BOMB: In the blink of an eye, electromagnetic bombs could throw civilization back 200 years. And terrorists can build them for $400. BY JIM WILSON

Lead illustration by Edwin Herder

The next Pearl Harbor will not announce itself with a searing flash of nuclear light or with the plaintive wails of those dying of Ebola or its genetically engineered twin. You will hear a sharp crack in the distance. By the time you mistakenly identify this sound as an innocent clap of thunder, the civilized world will have become unhinged. Fluorescent lights and television sets will glow eerily bright, despite being turned off. The aroma of ozone mixed with smoldering plastic will seep from outlet covers as electric wires arc and telephone lines melt. Your Palm Pilot and MP3 player will feel warm to the touch, their batteries overloaded. Your computer, and every bit of data on it, will be toast. And then you will notice that the world sounds different too. The background music of civilization, the whirl of internal-combustion engines, will have stopped. Save a few diesels, engines will never start again. You, however, will remain unharmed, as you find yourself thrust backward 200 years, to a time when electricity meant a lightning bolt fracturing the night sky. This is not a hypothetical, son-of-Y2K scenario. It is a realistic assessment of the damage the Pentagon believes could be inflicted by a new generation of weapons--E-bombs.

-- McGuiver's Nightmare (check@it.out), September 25, 2001

Answers

Has Gary North changed his name to Jim Wilson?

-- wazzup with dat (waz @ up .widdat), September 25, 2001.

Teach me for letting my subscribtion run out. Remember old stuff about this but nothing recent. They're job is to get you to buy the mag but PM has a good rep for straight scoop fully referenced. Flint's view of entropy as a weapon looks more formidable doesn't it?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

hasty contractions (luv'em) are my bane. "their job...". May as well make Dennis's Dennis' while I'm at it.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

EMP Weapons: Calling Victor Von Doom

Read and receive enlightenment. Considering that Popular Mechanics (or is it Popular Science?) perpetuated the *myth* about the Gulf War virus, I'm not so sure I'd consider them "reputable" on stuff like this ...

A quote from the Josef K Guide to Tech terminology:

EMP gun: n. Always suspected but never seen, the EMP -- electromagnetic pulse -- weapon is the chupacabra of cyberspace. Accordingly, it is said to be responsible for much nettlesome corporate computer and bank failure, almost always in countries where such things cannot be verified. Usage: Pelham was amused when the overly gullible newspaper reporter published his frank lies about Russian computer programmers knocking over international banks with emp guns made from stolen Radio Shack equipment.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 26, 2001.

Believe the article was about a field weapon Stephen.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

Carlos,

The point of George's continuous work is to uncover the *hysteria* and junk science surrounding these technologies.

Can EMP weapons be built? Of course. The first half of that article isn't so bad, discussing EMP weapons that use high technology. Note that the images show a *bomb* that can be dropped from a plane ... allowing the plane to get a safe distance from the thing before it pops.[g]

The second half of the article is the problem; it interviews the usual kooks (all of whom have been exposed by George in loving detail at one time or another). These remain convinced that someone can build a useful EMP weapon for "$400," in spite of what real scientists, like the guys at Sandia, say.

The key point is that any EMP weapon powerful enough to penetrate the hood of a car or the metal case on a PC will produce enough flux to severely injure or kill the people setting it off, unless they're a LONG, LONG way from it at the time.

(At the very least, if they have any metal fillings in their mouth, or steel pins in the bones from old sports injuries ... use your imagination.[g])

(Again: note the image of the *bomb* being dropped from a speeding plane, which can beet feets and get out of there before it pops.)

Plus, there's just plain bad science in that article. Yes, high frequencies can penetrate a Faraday screen. But the answer is simple: use a solid metal shield. It doesn't even have to be that thick (the hood of a car, the case on a PC). This increases the needed flux by several orders of magnitude ... meaning that the bomb/gun/whatever must be that many times stronger, again putting the people who use it more at risk than those being attacked.

It is also a *fact* that the higher the frequency, the more quickly it attenuates in atmosphere. This is why UHF TV stations are permitted to radiate as much as 5 million watts, where lower-band VHF stations are limited to hundreds of thousands. The article completely ignores that -- OK, so you build an EMP weapon that puts out nanowaves; big deal. The signal will attenuate so rapidly over distance that unless you put out enough energy to cause the plane that dropped the bomb to burst into flames, very little damage will be done to the target.

Power lines are not subject to microwave frequencies, either. The exposed power lines represent very long wavelengths, which translate the low frequencies ...

Anyway. In sum, my argument isn't that these things couldn't be built by the military; they could. My argument is with the contention that they could throw us "back 200 years," or even worse, that they could be developed by people in a garage on a budget. Ridiculous.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 26, 2001.

An EMP gun? This doesn't make any sense to me. EMP effects come at high altitudes. A 'gun' cannot launch a weapon to 50 miles altitude, at least not one for a few hundred bucks, even if the technology is here to do this. Weird science.

Agree with you Stephen. If it were possible, it would only hurt a few chips, no big deal.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 26, 2001.

I defer.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

"EMP effects come at high altitudes."

Huh??

Maria, this is manly stuff. Since you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, please return to your knitting.

-- (woman's place is in @ kitchen.), September 26, 2001.

I believe Maria is thinking about EMP effects from nuclear weapons, which *are* set off at high altitudes. (If you set 'em off at ground level, well, you'd just have a large bangie-thingie.[g])

Maria,

The "guns" in question supposedly focus electromagnetic energy, releasing it in brief, sharp pulses that *imitate* the airburst/nuclear effect, but in a controlled and targetable manner.

And therein lies the problems, which all boil to one of the oldest rules of all: you can't cheat the laws of physics. No shielding is 100% perfect ... so think about this, ya'll (not just you, Maria).

I mean, think about this.

OK, I'm going to build an EMP gun that's strong enough to penetrate the sheet metal on a car. OK? OK.

NOW: what are you gonna shield the *GUN* with so that it doesn't cook YOU ... ?

Hmmmm.

("I think we've blown our $400 budget, boss!")

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 26, 2001.

Lead.

-- helen (i@get.a.cookie), September 26, 2001.

Poole Fool,

That problem can be alleviated several ways. Such a device can be designed to be directional, the pulse going out only in the desired direction. Also, a lead shield would probably work, or it could be activated by remote.

-- (please@join.maria), September 26, 2001.

please,

Uh ... of COURSE you have to focus the beam. (Duh.) The question is HOW you're going to focus it.

(For under $400 in your little Terrorist's Shop Of Horrors, remember?)

Magnetic coils? You're going to end up putting more energy in the coils than in the original emission. You can't cheat physics.

Metal shielding? (By the way, lead is a horrible choice for radio frequencies; ferrous metals are better.)

Do you want your metal shield to be absorptive or reflective, or both (and if so, in what proportions? This is actually a very important question; I'll let you explain WHY).

Now, the "activated by remote" thing sounds do-able, but you still haven't explained how you're going to get enough energy into this thing to do any real harm ...

("Hmmm, what's that giant cable doing out there?")

... PLUS make it small enough to sneak into range without anyone noticing ...

("Hold still, enemy, I getting ready to EMP you!")

... PLUS design it to be remote controlled ... and so on ... and -- once again, drum roll, please! -- build it for FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS.

These are not idle questions and are WHY people like the guys at Sandia -- who should certainly know -- say that "basement/hacker" EMP weapons are an "urban legend."

You will not find a single reputable physicist who would say that something like this could be done by a basement hacker on a budget.

Not one.

If you are so convinced it can be done, show me one. Not a wierdo gadget that'll make watches run fast, but one that could do the type of damage postulated by the kooks in that article.

(Which, I will remind you, spoke of throwing us back "200 years ...")

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 27, 2001.

You will not find a single reputable physicist who would say that something like this could be done by a basement hacker on a budget.

You're full of shit.

Home-mad e radio frequency weapon

Two home-made weapons capable of frying electronics and crashing computers have been demonstrated at the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.

The tests were requested by the US government, to determine whether cheap but effective radio wave weapons could be made with little technical know-how.

"The message here is that any number of groups in the US or other countries can do just this, relatively easily and at relatively low cost," says Mike Powell of Schriner Engineering in Ridgecrest, California, where the weapons were made.

The US Department of Defense fears that terrorist groups could use radio frequency weapons to disable commercial or military computers, or even bring down aeroplanes.

The weapons were cobbled together using electronics available from high street stores, catalogues or over the Internet. Based on basic radio transmitters, the weapons were designed to pump out extremely short but powerful pulses of electromagnetic radio waves.

These pulses can induce circuit-burning currents in electronic devices, essentially frying them. At lower powers, they can disrupt electronics and wipe out stored data.

-- Peanut (Gallery@ApologizeNow.com), September 27, 2001.

Found a peanut, found a peanut, found a PEANUT just now ...

(Sung to the tune of "Oh, Clementine;" do you know it? The next verse is, "it was rotten, it was rotten ..." [g])

1. Re your bold print: the Pentagon has been singing this tune since the 1962 tests involving nukes. It's an old song, as George points out ... did you even bother to read his article?

2. Are you inherently dishonest? Let's quote the second half of the article, shall we?

The smaller of the two prototypes did not work, but the larger device - which could fit inside a car, according to Powell - crashed computers, destroyed data, and disrupted the functioning of medical systems from 10 metres away.

(Ooooo! TEN WHOLE METERS! And they sure went to a lot of trouble, I could do almost the same thing with a souped-up AC bulk eraser ...)

But this is just the first indication of what the weapons could be capable of, says Powell. "The prototypes were being run at relatively low power," he says. "You would not have to modify these prototypes very much to produce a device capable of bringing down a plane."

However, defence against radio frequency attacks is not impossible, says Randy Bernard, also at Schriner Engineering. Metal screens around sensitive electronics are just one way electromagnetic pulses can be deflected, he says.

... which is about what I said, isn't it?

Hint: Look at the title of this thread: "How to build a civilization destroying EMP bomb for less than$400." That's what I was addressing.

No point in repeating myself. If you wish to terrify yourself with ghosts, go right ahead. I can't stop you.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 27, 2001.

Thanks Stephen for clearing that up. The only "civilization destroying EMP bombs" come with nukes while the directed energy stuff still couldn't cost $400 bucks and couldn't come close to "civilization destroying". Just goes to show how far off this article really is.

I always found it extremely funny when hollywood depicts EMP going off and buildings exploding, windows blowing out, fires errupting. LOL And the actors' lines include brillant prose on the 'bad' effects of EMP. What really gets me is that the public, like the troll who thinks I belong in the kitchen, buys it! too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 27, 2001.

By the way, Peanut ... you STILL didn't answer my question. Find me one reputable physicist who believes that you could build a civilization-busting EMP weapon for $400.

(Before you roast yourself again, re-read the question carefully. Several times.)

(It's OK if your lips move; no one's watching.)

Maria,

*I* could build one that could do considerable damage, but it would require a nuclear power plant for power, cables the size of tree trunks to connect the power to the machine, superconductors with liquid air cooling, and a WEE bit more than $400.

Or, I could use one of the bomb methods mentioned in the article. But once again, it would be rather large and conspicuous and would cost a TAD more than $400.

Nor could I build either in my basement.

Look: there are plenty of things to be worried about. Terrorists are likely to hijack other planes, trains and autos to blow things up. They are likely to disrupt our communications, they could poison water supplies, all sorts of stuff.

But this EMP crap is one thing that they WILL NOT do, not until they have (at least the equivalent of) nuclear capability and delivery systems that can place the weapon at high altitudes.

You can't cheat the laws of physics.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 27, 2001.

"What really gets me is that the public, like the troll who thinks I belong in the kitchen, buys it! too funny!"

Huuuh???

Maria, I'm sorry to say that are suffering from brain damage.

You're statement about an EMP only being effective at high altitudes was ridiculous, an illustration of your utter ignorance and stupidity.

Whether they are activated from above the atmosphere, at ground level, or even underwater, the effects of an EMP are dependent on the intensity of the pulse.

How you came to the conclusion that I believe everything I see in the movies is beyond me, just another illustration of your brain damage I guess.

-- take it back (maria is too stupid @ for. kitchen work), September 27, 2001.

The article doesn't claim for a civilisation destroying weapon tobe possible at $400. It claims that emp weapons can wipe out civilization.

And the most basic of which can be made at 400. (it doesn't say anything about the 400 dollar one being capable of destroying the world though).

Which is true.

The implementation of superconductors in EMP technology is fairly new, and that should have been the real 'news' presented in the article:

http://www.superconductors.org/emp-bomb.htm

The ideas people have about EMP being big and cumbersome no longer applies to superconductors, and the magnetic fields generated by a superconductor would be tremendous compared to conventional emp weapsons. heres a news article about an IRA emp bomb being able to be placed in a briefcase:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/28/161114.shtml

No, you wouldn't need cables running to a powerstation at all. And yes remote control is very possible.

Channeling the pulse may be a problem, but y would you need to? its like saying 'you can't channel a nuclear blast therefore its not a ideal weapon'...

Also, the article itself is dense with quotes from professionals (eg. physicists) about the potential capabilities: "The pulse that emerges makes a lightning bolt seem like a flashbulb by comparison"

Civilisation killer, or just temporary disabler of small electronics, either way its scary enough. Think about it.

-- Chris C (sapp@optushome.com.au), November 14, 2001.

http://www.infowar.com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i8.html-ssi

these guys sound pretty serious about the capabilities of an emp attack.

-- Chris (sapp@optushome.com.au), November 14, 2001.