I think it comes down to the skin depth (something radio enthusiasts are quite familiar with) of the metal the enclosure is made of and what frequencies will hit it. Depending on the source of the EMP, there will be different frequency components invloved. With your smoker situation there, I would say the devices you currently have in it are small enough that none of them will act as efficient antennas below 100MHz. The question then becomes whether or not you have enough metal (thicker than the RF skin depth) at the frequencies of concern (>100MHz) so to prevent RF penetration. As for the screw holes, I wouldn't personally worry about that. Again, speaking as a radio enthusiast, radio reflectors are often made of things with holes. The important part is whether or not the holes are smaller than 1/100 or so of a wavelength at the highest strong frequency component anticipated and how much the insulated joints overlap each other (like painted surfaces bolted together acting as capacitors like the grill handle to painted metal). A spectrum analyzer would tell you that your microwave oven door, with all its holes, leaks RF (like crazy lol), but that mesh is reflecting most of the signal to keep it in the oven. Those holes/gaps will be of little consequence as those gaps are micrometer sized and what does sneak through will be heavily attenuated. Most of what leaks out of a microwave oven doesn't come from the holes in the window screen, it follows the metal surface and escapes around the door openings by the plastic parts as the insulated (painted) metal to metal closeness makes a poor capacitor at these places. Without a capacitive seal around the door, the cavity surface can act as a transmission line and RF can leave around the door opening. I'm rambling....I have seen this type of arguments before. I would need a good source to be convinced, it does not seem to be correct if I apply my cnowkedge in physics. But I am open for the possubility.
I have seen this type of arguments before. I would need a good source to be convinced, it does not seem to be correct if I apply my cnowkedge in physics. But I am open for the possubility.
The references I've seen about Nuclear EMPs not affecting disconnected devices were talking about atmospheric Nuclear EMP tests (NEMP), such as the 1958 Teak Test, which was detonated at an altitude of 77 km. That was an atmospheric detonation, not a true HEMP. (The atmosphere goes out to 85 km). With an atmospheric detonation, the E1 component is mostly generated by the device itself, and at an altitude of 77 km, it's too far away from the surface to have any significant E1 component at ground zero.Its a electronic inverter I am afraid, its full of semi-conductors. A powerfull HEMP though, does only attack the devices connected to the electric grid. At least a few miles from ground zero. At least thats what I read so far.
The references I've seen about Nuclear EMPs not affecting disconnected devices were talking about atmospheric Nuclear EMP tests (NEMP), such as the 1958 Teak Test, which was detonated at an altitude of 77 km. That was an atmospheric detonation, not a true HEMP. (The atmosphere goes out to 85 km). With an atmospheric detonation, the E1 component is mostly generated by the device itself, and at an altitude of 77 km, it's too far away from the surface to have any significant E1 component at ground zero.
Two things regarding the E1 component...Wavelengths of the E1 component are in the range of 1 micron to .3 mm. There are plenty of circuits in every integrated circuit that can act as antennae for wavelengths in that range.
I will do that and I am open to to the fact that I could be wrong about the effects of HEMP-bombsCheck your sources, and then check their sources. Not saying I don't believe you, actually I do because I think I have seen the same sources, but when I check where they got their info from, it wasn't from a true HEMP test it was from an atmospheric test.
Enter your email address to join: