Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: EMP theory (was Re: SRII Lethality)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:02:59 EST
In a message dated 97-12-23 20:10:45 EST, you write:

> > EMP exists, and military equipment is hardened against it. A lot of its
> > effects are overrated, except in very special circumstances.
>
> A lot of military equipment was hardended against it, but it really
> has
> more to do with paranoia and the fear that new atomic weapons might
> provide a more powerful pulse. As it is, the electromagnetic pulse
> generated by even a high yeild thermonuclear warhead is negligble at
> best. EMP was more of a theory than a reality, and tests have proven
> that while the pulse does exist it's effects are virtually non-existant.
>

Just a guess, but I think I might be able to explain EMP (this is where all
those quantum courses finally pay off):

I suspect that EMP and TREE (transient radiation effects in electronics)
result from the Compton scattering of gamma photons off of air molecules in
the atmosphere. The resultant photons from this scattering have a wavelength
approximating the scale of electronic components. As a result, the photon
encounters a peculiar LCR network (RF engineers have similar problems like
this when designing electronic components operating in the microwave band).
It's also possible these photons could also cause some destructive resonance
within the component material (similar to the effect a high-pitched opera
singer has on a champagne glass).

Now, the magnitude of this effect depends on the concentration of gamma
photons, which in turn follows the inverse-scale luminescence law (the larger
the radius, the lesser the intensity, but the greater surface area covered per
unit flux). As a result, a ground burst will have a small EMP area of effect
(not enough aerial cross-section for Compton scattering to occur), but the
magnitude will be huge within it. A sky burst will have a larger area of
effect (more aerial surface area), but a smaller overall punch. And an orbital
burst, because of the luminous flux, could have an area that could encompass
the whole continental US, but the magnitude of the effect would probably be so
small as to be negligible.

Just speculation on my part, but it sounds right.

-- Jon
Message no. 2
From: TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject: Re: EMP theory (was Re: SRII Lethality)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:11:18 -0600
JonSzeto wrote:

> I suspect that EMP and TREE (transient radiation effects in electronics)
> result from the Compton scattering of gamma photons off of air molecules in
> the atmosphere. The resultant photons from this scattering have a wavelength
> approximating the scale of electronic components. As a result, the photon
> encounters a peculiar LCR network (RF engineers have similar problems like
> this when designing electronic components operating in the microwave band).
> It's also possible these photons could also cause some destructive resonance
> within the component material (similar to the effect a high-pitched opera
> singer has on a champagne glass).

That is in effect the theory, and for a long time it was held by the
military to be an trueism. However, after a great deal of testing at
both NTS and other facilities, and of course monitoring nuclear events
of the other super powers, it has been discovered that EMP simply does
not have much if any effect on electronics. You will get a pulse, but
it is so weak compared to the power of the explosion itself that any
electronics that would have been affected by the pulse are wiped out by
the detonation. The pulse itself has a similar characteristics to a
magnetic field in this regard - it's power is lessened by the inverse
square of the distance. It loses effect very quickly over any distance
whatsoever.

> Now, the magnitude of this effect depends on the concentration of gamma
> photons, which in turn follows the inverse-scale luminescence law (the larger
> the radius, the lesser the intensity, but the greater surface area covered per
> unit flux). As a result, a ground burst will have a small EMP area of effect
> (not enough aerial cross-section for Compton scattering to occur), but the
> magnitude will be huge within it. A sky burst will have a larger area of
> effect (more aerial surface area), but a smaller overall punch. And an orbital
> burst, because of the luminous flux, could have an area that could encompass
> the whole continental US, but the magnitude of the effect would probably be so
> small as to be negligible.

Yup.. in a nutshell. I had wanted to avoid the more technical aspects
of ionizing radiation and its affect on solid state circuitry, but I
think you have a pretty solid grasp of it.. hehehe

Digger
Message no. 3
From: westln@***.EDU
Subject: Re: EMP theory (was Re: SRII Lethality)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 19:16:39 -0500
It is true that bruteforce takes alot of time ... ALOT ... and I
recon it will do so in the future to even thou computers gets faster
and should be able to crack more the codes and encryption will be
harder and require more time ... But it will work ... a few Fairlight
Exacliburs and your in business :)

The best possible way of hacking ... Social Engineering ... People
talk it is as easy as that and some of them are really really stupid
to and that helps ... :)

Stefan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... HomePage ................... http://www.bugsoft.hik.se/sl11ls/ ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:26:23 PST
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Melee Question
Content-Type: text/plain

>Thanks to losthalo I've been rethinking my views on melee/unarmed
>combat and it's brought up a question.
>
>Can an untrained person counter attack?

According to the rules, yes- default to quickness (+2),no combat
pool (skill needed for test = 0).
An untrained person would be more likely to instinctively go on
"full defense", and likely safer doing so. But a real dirty down
drunken bar brawler, sure, he'll swing at anybody who comes at him,
training or not, bad idea or not.

>
>I can see an untrained person being able to defend themselves.
>But I can't see an untrained/inexperienced person actively
>counter-attacking.

Why not? It need not be a competant or succesful counterattack- could
be as simple as tugging your opponets hair or bitting him as he grabs
you. Niether would work well againsta trainedor armored opponent, and
the rules (defaulting) reflect that.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 18:24:45 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: losthalo <lost

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about EMP theory (was Re: SRII Lethality), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!