Points ignition and EMP

Question for the fizzy-cysts and those who know about electronics.
Enquiring minds (well, one, anyway: mine) need to know.

Is electronic ignition proof against a nuclear bomb-generated EMP?

I assume that modern microprocessor-controlled systems aren't but what
about older stuff?

Secondly, is battery & coil points ignition EMP-proof?

 

I think that the one system that's proof against a nuke EMP strike, is a
valve based system. Or, and older type mechanical diesel engine, like
the 300 TDi in the older Land Rovers. All the modern shit has tiny
squares silicon making them run.

 

Do you know something we don`t?


The main problem with EMP is equipment that is connected to lengths of
wiring/metal, where a large current will be induced in such. This is where
your telly or PC will blow up with them being connected to the mains,
antennas, telephone wires and so on. It`s not so much the components in the
equipment being sensitive (excepting your common computer, for example, or
maybe the more modern telly..), it`s the concentration of the surge itself
in the wiring that would ensure that anything working on low-level voltages
will fry. It`s not unreasonable to assume that a battery-powered radio with
it`s antenna retracted would survive, for example.

I imagine that points and coils are safe enough no matter what, but AFAIK
all electronic ignition systems use Field Effect Transistors in the igniter
at least and these are more sensitive than most components. With the bike
frame being large enough to induct such currents, I imagine a decent EMP
would be enough to take them out. One way to help avoid this I suppose would
be to earth the frame if you`re really worried...


Out of interest, valve based stuff is literally bombproof in this respect.
The Ruskies used valves in the avionics of the MiG25, much to the amusement
of the yanks when they found out. A year or so later, they realised
why.....

 

Loz H wrote:

To be honest, I think that it used valves because the Russian
electronics industry was seriously behind the times.

<heroic Commie voice>

"Russian microchips! The biggest microchips in the world!"

</hcv>

ISTR that the 25 was also mainly built of stainless steel - or was that
the 23? Not because it was a particularly good idea, but because,
again, the Russians simply lacked the aircraft alloy technology to make
something bloody fast that didn't melt unless they used S/S.

 

New from DeLorean... The Mig 25.

 

Suspect I'd say. The electronic switches used to discharge the
capacitor into the coil in CDI would probably be subject to stress voltages
from pickup in the plug lead via the coil and would probably suffer
punch-through. For transistor-assisted points ignition, the same would
likely be true for the switching transistor.

Almost; it'd possibly punch-through the capacitor insulation
but so long as that didn't make a dead short (and there's a reasonable
chance the points would be closed at the moment of the pulse anyway) then
it'd still work for a while, until the points wore out through sparking,
albeit at the expense of radiating lots of RFI.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Aluminium wouldn't have been strong enough at the temperatures generated
by air friction at Mach 2.5 and they didn't have the titanium processing
knowledge that was generated by the yanks as part of the 'RS-71'
programme.

Iron alloys have higher strength at temp than aluminium alloys at the
expense of weight.

There's a good (and very readable) book about the Skunk Works that
discusses this (briefly).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...7131/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/026-6774382-0335637

Highly recommended for all aviation/engineering anoraks.

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5584410374

 

"comes with towbar" - attn caravanners...

 

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:49:34 +0100,

if you're that close to the EMP your dead anyway



--
<--ROT13 it
Spam Trap in Header

GS850 Trike

FOR SALE TOUCH SCREEN PC. E MAIL FOR DETAILS

http://borg.no-ip.com

 

Complete and utter bollocks.

Oh, and Borgie - can you do something about those bloody symbols in your
posting name? They have to be stripped out before any reply-to can be
posted.

 

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:19:47 +0100,

Rash generalisation. Get a proper computer and decent newsreader.

 

<> spewed forth
the following...

Not necessarily. Valves don`t really do anything that transistors cannot,
and the russians certainly had those sussed out by then. Also, consider the
problems with powering up a load of valve circuitry. All that extra weight
and extra load upon the electrical system. I don`t think the choice to use
valves was purely for "backwards technology" reasons...

Heh. I remember seeing a pic of a Russian clone of a Intel 8086 CPU, I think
it was. It looked like a bourbon cream biscuit crossed with a spider...

Yep. Hand welded too. They did use titanium in areas of high heat
concentration however.

 

Nope. High altitude airbursts are where it`s at if you want to use EMP as a
weapon. If one was detonated 20 miles or so over the North Sea or Atlantic,
both of which are close enough to knacker up the National Grid, you probably
wouldn`t even notice until you went to turn the telly on.

 

I was thinking more about an EMP from a Nuke not a specific EMP
device.

Reminds me of that story about when the 'West' got a look at the Mig
25 Flogger for the first time and laughed at the 'backwards' valve
technology the Russians had built into it, only to have the pilot
explain that in a nuclear war micro chips would stop working and their
planes would drop from the sky.[1]



[1] Not sure how true that is but it did make a few people think. If
only they knew about Ebay then,



--
<--ROT13 it
Spam Trap in Header

GS850 Trike

FOR SALE TOUCH SCREEN PC. E MAIL FOR DETAILS

http://borg.no-ip.com

 

Just how big is this EMP anyway? Don't many circuits have zeners/surge
arrestors etc. on them anyway, or would these not react quickly
enough?

 

MiG 25 was the Foxbat.

Flogger was the MiG 23.(and 27, oddly)
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..75409../..18748.../..3196./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^' RBR Landmarks: 18 Pts: 305 Miles: 1193

 

FFS, what do you think we're talking about?

<fx: bashes head on keyboard>

..k`zxjfk.`zdfk.hj.k

Do you ever read threads you post in?

 

FFS, what do you think we're talking about?[/QUOTE]


I quote this bit

Nope. High altitude airbursts are where it`s at if you want to use
EMP as a weapon.
No mention of any Nuke

nope there mostly bollox anyway



--
<--ROT13 it
Spam Trap in Header

GS850 Trike

FOR SALE TOUCH SCREEN PC. E MAIL FOR DETAILS

http://borg.no-ip.com

 

What exactly do you think an airburst is? I recall New Scientist
publishing an article about (basically magnetohydrodynamic, IIRC) EMP
devices based on conventional explosives, but for a long time now "airburst"
has meant a nuke exploded at an altitude where there is little primary
damage to the underlying countryside.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".