Talk:Electromagnetic pulse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BMROD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

About Popular Culture and Fiction references

I deleted a reference to a specific movie using EMP weapons. Putting fictional and popular culture items in the main EMP articles has historically been a very serious problem in Wikipedia. The Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture article was created specifically to stop this problem and so that there would be an appropriate place for EMP popular culture references. The main benefit of the Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture article was intended to be to keep fictional references to electromagnetic pulse from getting in to the main scientific articles on Electromagnetic pulse and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. There needs to be a clear separation between the scientific and technical aspects of electromagnetic pulse and the very large amounts of fictional and popular culture references to electromagnetic pulse. The separation of the real and fictional aspects of this important phenomenon has been very difficult in Wikipedia throughout the years. X5dna (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC).

Completely agree that no specific instances be mentioned here. I'm just wondering whether this Electromagnetic pulse article should briefly mention the issue of incorrect treatment, which is discussed more fully in the lead of Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. We could just add the second and third paragraphs of the lead to the Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture article, along with the references. I would like to shorten those paragraphs for their inclusion in this article, but I'm not sure exactly how to do that. A sentence should probably be added saying something to the effect that "Numerous instances of the use of electromagnetic pulse in fiction are listed in the Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture article" in order to discourage others from adding specific instances to this article. X5dna (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a go, feel free to improve it. I don't think the warnings are needed in the article text, but I added an html comment to the page source. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not clear about this

It says "when refuelling an aircraft the fuel nozzle is always connected to the aircraft to discharge any static before refuelling begins." Surely connecting the fuel nozzle would be necessary anyway for fuelling to occur . Does it mean "An earth connection needs to be made." This is my experience though admittedly some forty years ago,. 2.28.250.130 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Had a good bash at the whole section. Any better? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

NNEMP Weapons

This section seems to imply that not only these weapons exist, but that they have been successfully been used by terrorists. However, the sources in this section seem to be either speculative or tangentially-related.While I don't profess to have any knowledge on the subject, claims like "The effect of small e-bombs has proven to be sufficient for certain terrorist or military operations. Examples of such operations include the destruction of electronic control systems critical to the operation of many ground vehicles and aircraft" should be directly sourced. The only link that seems as though it would point to a valid source is dead. A quick trip around the internet ends with statements like "The United States most likely has EMP weapons in its arsenal, but it's not clear in what form.". Other articles, such as one in Popular Science, point out the possibility of such devices, but not any evidence of them actually existing, much less having been used by terrorists. It might be prudent to remove the portions of this section not concerning EMP simulators. Just my 2 cents...Sheriffjt (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick look suggests that there seems to be verifiable research relevant to NNEMP generation. Assuming any military deployment would most likely be secret, verification of any actual weapon might be difficult. So yes, unless documentary evidence exists, this section should be told in a "proposed weapon" frame of mind. But rather than remove the present material, I'd suggest it would be better to edit it down and/or fact-tag problem statements. As for the simulators, I would not necessarily expect them to be dedicated to NNEMP weapons effects alone, so I have created a new section for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

On 22 October 2012, Boeing released a press release http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/10/bds_champ_10_22_12.html, and video that explained conventional EMP weapons as follows:

Boeing and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., successfully tested the Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) during a flight over the Utah Test and Training Range..... During the test, the CHAMP missile navigated a pre-programmed flight plan and emitted bursts of high-powered energy, effectively knocking out the target's data and electronic subsystems. CHAMP allows for selective high-frequency radio wave strikes against numerous targets during a single mission.

Here is your verifiable research relevant to NNEMP BernardZ (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Immobilizing vehicles

Can this use be mentioned ? See E2V RF Safe-Stop for immobilizing vehicles KVDP (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear from the linked promotional page whether this is an EMP technology or a more prolonged EM signal effect, so in a word, no. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Boeing E-4 and USS-Estocin images - relevancy?

As they stand now, these images are not well tied-in to the article. It is not even clear what they have to do to with the article. I assume these are craft which have had their electronic systems hardened to withstand a nuclear EMP, but this is not clear. Someone who knows more about these two craft should rewrite the captions to make their notability to the article clear. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

These are really photographs of EMP test rigs, the vehicles are just there for show. I have edited the captions to make this clearer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In fiction and popular culture

This is just to clarify that the section on In fiction and popular culture is not there to be filled with expanded material of personal choice - it provides a link to the appropriate article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about nuclear EMP

There are several matters of confusion regarding the discussion of nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

One is confusion over the terms "primary" and "secondary" in the usage of the terms here. Nuclear EMP is usually regarded as a fully secondary effect since it occurs outside of the weapon. Very little of the nuclear EMP is generated inside of the weapon. Nearly all of it is due to the interaction of gamma radiation with air.

Also, there is no exception that has ever been made to the fact that optical and ionizing radiation are excluded in the use of the term "electromagnetic pulse." In one sense, if you are subject to a bright flashbulb going off nearby, that is a pulse of electromagnetic energy, but the term is never used that way. A flashbulb going off in your face is not called an electromagnetic pulse attack (even though it is a pulse of electromagnetic energy).

Ever since Enrico Fermi first pointed out that EMP would be a problem with nuclear weapons, he was referring mainly to a pulse of radio waves. In fact, during the early years of nuclear testing, the British referred to nuclear EMP as radioflash, which is a much more accurate descriptive term.

From Fermi's first description, on down to the present day, nuclear EMP still refers only to electromagnetic radiation at lower frequencies than infrared.

Long before Fermi's warning about EMP, scientists commonly knew that a nuclear explosion would be accompanied by an extremely intense flash of light and by a large pulse of ionizing radiation. I have never seen a case where the bright visible light flash and the pulse of ionizing radiation were called "electromagnetic pulse."

The term nuclear "electromagnetic pulse" has always been used to describe either a radio pulse (radioflash) or the geomagnetic disturbance that accompanies a nuclear explosion. This definition has been put into concrete form in the official definitions of E1, E2 and E3.

Also, once the official definitions of E1, E2 and E3 are accepted, nuclear electromagnetic pulse does not contain higher frequencies than are common in many non-nuclear EMP weapons.

The highest frequency components of both current nuclear EMP weapons and the newest non-nuclear EMP weapons are both in documents currently classified as secret. For this reason, it is best that nothing be said about this subject in the article, since unclassified references are not currently possible.

I believe that some public domain images exist illustrating both low-altitude and high-altitude nuclear EMP generation mechanisms. I will try to dig this out over the next few days. Any illustrations that I can find should help to alleviate the confusion. X5dna (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be better worded but I disagree about the underlying mistakes. For example the article does in fact already say that optical and ionizing radiations are not regarded as "EMP", but I agree it could be made clearer. Even in space where there is no air a nuclear explosion can create a significant and damaging EMP nearby. This is treated in the article as the "primary" EMP and has been suggested as a main damage mechanism for anti-satellite nuclear weapons. Any atmospheric effect is treated as "secondary". For low-level detonation the physical blast is usually regarded as the main damage mechanism, with thermo-to-ionizing flash and EMP as less important. Only the NEMP-optimised weapon aims to trump the blast with its EMP, either in space as just described, where there essentially isn't one, or at high altitude as an HEMP where the blast dissipates. But yes, it can be difficult to know what one can and can't say without being arrested. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In the "Frequency ranges" section of the current article, it says, "The highest frequencies are present in Nuclear EMP (NEMP) bursts. These continue up into the optical and ionizing ranges." This last sentence seems to contradict an earlier sentence in that paragraph. Also, many references state that the current generation of non-nuclear EMP weapons contain higher radio frequency components than what is produced by nuclear EMP. Devices as old as the vircator are known to be able to do this.

Some of your other claims are only available in the classified literature so far as I know, but I do not know all of the possible references. In 1987, U.S. nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor did claim in a Scientific American article that nuclear EMP can be produced internally from a special kind of "third generation" thermonuclear warhead, but provided no information about how this might be done. X5dna (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What I have suggested is all gathered from open sources over the years, though in most cases the specific source is long forgotten. Anyway, I have edited the article to try and address your concerns. If you still don't like it, feel free to revert back and/or to continue discussing the issues here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article is fine after the latest changes that you've made. The main problem is that nuclear weapon effects are so complex that (unless you are doing a very long article on the subject) if you say too much, the information inevitably becomes misleading. It becomes misleading mainly if you are trying to oversimplify a very complex subject.

I have been recently reviewing some of the early writings on potential anti-satellite weapons using nuclear weapons. One idea during the 1980s was to use nuclear explosives to pump a pulsed x-ray beam at a targeted satellite. As far as I can determine, this never worked out (after doing some underground testing to try out the concept). Earlier ideas for the use of nuclear explosions for anti-satellite weapons had too many unintended effects, such as producing a very large EMP at ground level or causing temporary artificial radiation belts that could threaten the lives of astronauts or damage friendly satellites.

One real-world indication of the dangers was the fact that, although Walter Schirra's space flight in 1962 exposed him to minimal radiation, NASA and the Air Force reported that if he had flown higher than 400 miles, he would have been inside of the artificial radiation belt caused by the Starfish Prime nuclear explosion 4 months earlier, and such a higher altitude could easily have exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation. This was according to actual data obtained by an Air Force satellite. See http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4001/p3b.htm X5dna (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes the debris from a conventional warhead seem quite tame, really. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electromagnetic pulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.empactamerica.org/solar_emp.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetic pulse page errors

Nothing relevant to a Wikipedia article offered

The electromagnetic pulse article has fundamental errors on what it shows an electromagnetic energy can do This error is under the topic titled "General characteristics" Then "Energy" Per Maxwell's accepted statement on what electromagnetism he states that electromagnetism must contain both an electric field and a magnetic field as they both work together to produce electromagnetic radiation. This is why he uses the word Electromagnetism as a single combined word stating both electric and magnetic fields. The error on this page under "electromagnetism" and "energy" it claims that this can be transferred in 4 ways. These include individually 1. Electric field and 2. Magnetic field. Per Maxwell's clear rule they can not be transferred individually. The correction in the article would be reduced by one and combining one and two. and reduce the claim of how many ways to two not stating otherwise. This error is wrongly used as facts in other ariticles with regard to Nuclear tests and in false claim on what makes a dangerous electromagnetic pulse that might damage the US power grid.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe correctly describes how EMPs transfer energy. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC) There is no error in the section you highlight. You just need to read the next sentence; "A pulse of any one form of electromagnetic energy will always be accompanied by the other forms". Then, as any practitioner will tell you; "however in a typical pulse one form will dominate," and there is a varied array of equipment designs depending on which dominant mode one is working with. The dominant mode of course relates to such matters as frequency, near- vs. far-field and the relative conductivity/permittivity/permeability of different mediums. But there, someone familiar with Maxwell's equations will surely know that already. The main thing is to read the list in context and not as a standalone statement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) This "Electromagnetic Pulse" page should be dropped because it is wrong and is used to mislead the public on what is electromagnetizm; also on how it is transferred. my correction sites the specific Maxwell statement on how the combined word is defined. An example of its misuse is found in the technical reports about the high elevation nuclear tests titled "Operations Hardtack" and in particular the reports on the detonation titled "TEAK". In those technical reports radio blackouts were caused by clouds of free electrons and other fallout. Thus this page is wrongly used to generate national hysteria about supposed electromagnetic pulse. As per atomic science all atoms contain nuclei and electrons which make up an electromagnetic foundation to transfer energy. Free electrons are not electromagnetic as clearly shown in Maxwell's statement. They may comprise the element of "Electric" but not even Electric Field" as they are free. One can find that "Fee Electrons" are the primary substance of lightning. Fee electrons are not in any electric or electronic systems. All electrical wiring is comprised of atoms which contain both electrons and nuclei providing the basis for electromagnetic functions of energy transfer. Conclude as the Operation Hardtack and detonation TEAK demonstrate a cloud of free electrons can cause radio blackouts and were the primary issue not an electromagnetic pulse. To use other commentary that has nothing to do with Maxwell's specific definition of the word electromagnetic is outside of this issue and does not support anything.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC) First, as a wikipedian who has, by clicking the Edit tab, accepted our terms and conditions thereby joining our community, you are required to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing us of deliberately misleading the public is unacceptable. Wholly ignoring my reply does not help matters either. I gave it politely, seriously and in good faith and I expect you to take note of it and respond likewise. For further clarification, I revised your edit more because of poor-quality writing than anything else. Once you feel able to hold a calm and polite dialogue with us as moral and intellectual equals, by all means do so. Meanwhile, please also familiarise yourself with our policy on reliable sourcing, which we tend to insist on - Guy did not draw your attention to it so that you could ignore it. If you can provide adequate citations from documents which directly support your claims, then we will be willing to consider your claims seriously, but until then we are obliged not to, that is the Wikipedia way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Sir, or Steelpillow does not appear to be a name. However we expect you to be more scientific about this matter. So as not to contribute to US hysteria. I am assisting Wikipedia with correcting the errors on the "Electromagnetic Pulse" page which has errors that should be unacceptable. I am using my correct name and have supplied my credentials to Wikipedia. Restarting I stated that per Maxwell and his equations electromagenetizm must contain both an electric field and a magnetic field. They work together is why Maxwell use the lexicaly combined words of Electeric and magnetic. One can find references anywhere. A simple reference to Maxwell's lexicaly combined word is already in the Oxford dictionary c 1998 on page 263 find the word Electromagnetic defined as having both an electrical and magnetic character or Another key reference the the definition of electromagnetism can be found on the wikipedia page defining "Electromagnetic Field" Artwork is shown stating both together and later defines that """ The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field """. These quotes sited are good references and clearly show that this page that defines the possibility of a electromagnetism that energy can be transferred is clearly wrong. Then we have the Wikipedia reports I sited that need correct are found in the page " Operation Hardack 1" and in that report we find the high altitude detonation report called TEAK. Those of course are outlines but they note an EMP. However Scientific reports sited in those reports state that there was radio signal black outs that were caused by clouds of free electrons. Of course I stated the history in those reports and the science that free electrons are not electromagnetic. Also the sitations I just supplied show that an electromagnetic pulse would not be in the form of free electrons. I am interested to know that actual name of the individual or company that supplied this page Electromagnetic Pulse". Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Ad hominem denigration of my name here and suggestions of unscientific hysteria are unacceptable. If you wish to engage our support and advice in how to "assist" us, you will have to do better than persistently insult the first one of us you meet. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Sir excuse me if steelpillow is your real name of which I would prefer to know. You have not answered my clear scientific statements and narrative or citations. Thus again the page 'Electromagnetic Pulse" You simply go around without an answer and insult my meaning. The page "Electromagnetic pulse" is still in error scientifically and should be shut down as it has been used wrongly to spread hysteria across America about a dreaded ( but false) Electromagnetic pulse. I will need to pursue this objective in higher levelDr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC) If you wish to know my real name, click the link in my signature. I will not attend to the content issues unless and until your behavioural issues are sorted. Sadly, the administrative deletion of your user page for persistent self-promotion does not give me confidence. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Sir steelpillow you have not answered one of my scientific statements, or citations, or commentary about the errors in this page "Electomagnetic pulse" You only point fingers at me. then you claim my factual request for you to be more scientific and answer my facts you suggest a threat to me. I stated the issues of this page "Electromagnetic pulse" have caused hysteria across the the USA. This is a matter of national security and I expect you to answer the science questions and not point fingers at me. As suggested in my last note It appears you will not be helpful in solving the problem of the science of this page and I will need to bring it further up the line. We must be finished with this part of the conversation. Surely do not threaten me further.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Dr. Ronald Cutburth, if you wish to "bring it further up the line", the proper place to start is at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Again, nobody cares what either of you think. (They don't care what I think either.) I have already asked once "Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe correctly describes how EMPs transfer energy". If you are not willing to provide citations backing up your claims, neither of you will be allowed to make any unsourced edits to this article. I don't know how I can make this any more clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, nobody is exempt from our house rules. Thank you for making it clear that the playing field is a level one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you Guy Macon. I will go to "WP:RS" > I will do that after making citations and explanations how an electromagnetic pulse transfers energy. I will draw reference to electromagnetic circuits-as I noted above atoms contain both electrons and nuclei as shown in atomic theory. Thus they transfer electrical energy. An electromagnetic pulse in or from an electrical circuit can be caused by a short circuit or fault in the circuit. In electrical contracting per the National electric code, an electrical power connection to a home or business or through external transformers must be rated or proved the circuit can handle some kind of circuit failure which causes an electrical "Pulse". This would be an electromagnetic pulse. As I have an electrical contract business find http://www.ampspower.com . Secondly the question also fits to the issue of whether a nuclear explosion can produce an electromagnetic pulse which I will show it can not. I will need to go find my specific references to cite. Be back in a day or two. Thank you again Guy Macon for your advice.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Please note that I wrote if you wish to "bring it further up the line". The expected result of you attempting to do that is you being told to return to this page and provide references. That's how we resolve disagreements on Wikipedia; by following the sources. One other small thing. could you please click on "show preview" instead of "save changes" and edit your responses so that they look like everyone else's before saving them? We have a help page at Help:Using talk pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC) The article on the nuclear electromagnetic pulse cites some references which might prove useful, though I have never yet come across one which says that it is a contradiction in terms. I might mention that in the past I have worked as an electromagnetics test engineer specialising in EMP testing, within the defence industry, so I too have seen a few. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Politely speaking I have challenged the "Nuclear Magnetic Pulse" as having not sufficient scientific evidence. We should need to lean up this basis article to finish the other. I challenged the NEMP as follows. This page Nuclear electromagnetic pulse page has errors that need correcting or the page should be dropped. One key issue is much of the commentary is not supported with specific scientific references. It notes an article by Los Alamos National Lab with is not used for its science reference just that it exists As it claims the page "Electromagnetic Pulse" page as a scientific reference and that page is under challenge for its claims this page Nuclear electromagnetic Pulse is not a final accurate claim of the topic, specifically it has not confirmed in science that a nuclear magnetic pulse can be achieved.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC) In citing references The public may wish to know my PhD. , doctorate is in Management of Engineering science Operations. My Ph.d. dissertation includes the evaluation of over 200 science research programs being conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Lab LLNL. They are the US primary Nuclear weapons steward. I published my dissertation and it can be found on my web site http://www.lovefromthesea.com find the side column of Books-in-print, along with other published technical papers. I produced 9 issued patents on Laser optic mount hardware for other things and their Laser Isotope Separation program. I have a reference letter for the lab co director who assisted me in my program. As lasers are electromagnetic energy they are produced by electromagnetic electrical circuits. If one shuts off the switch and the electromagnetic energy is shut off the laser shuts down. There have been attempts at producing Pulsed lasers with limited success. This provides reference but does not cover the key issues. There are pulsed power in electrical circuits that apply but reference is needed. They demonstrate that pulsing must stay in the (electromagnetic) wiring. As sir steelpillow cited his work on EMP testing, that is not a science reference and I would need to evaluate its results in acheived patents, or science sitations. I have reference that I am qualified to evaluate research.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC) I have deleted a long discourse. Talk pages are not the place to build proposed article content. May I suggest that you create your own user page at say User:Dr. Ronald Cutburth/sandbox and build your proposed new material there. To create it, simply click on the red link I just gave you. If you want to re-use the material I have deleted, it may still be found in the talk page history (click the View history tab above this page and browse to your old edit). If you cannot figure how to do that, let me know and I'll copy it across for you. However, I feel bound to warn you that if it does not meet our customary standards it will not be accepted into the main encyclopedic article space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC) User:Dr. Ronald Cutburth, I find it hard to reconcile your claim to be a PhD with your apparent inability to follow simple instructions. (Example one: "One other small thing. could you please click on 'show preview' instead of 'save changes' and edit your responses so that they look like everyone else's before saving them? We have a help page at Help:Using talk pages. Thanks!" Example two: "Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe correctly describes how EMPs transfer energy."). Please explain, in detail, why you ignored those two requests. Be advised that continued refusal to provide a citation to a reliable source when asked is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:IDHT behavioral guideline, and that if you persist in this behavior you are likely to end up being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC) I am also having trouble reconciling your claims to be an expert with the pseudoscientific claims you make on your website. For example you claim "The brain can process information and produce a thought in one nanosecond or less. This is about one thousanths[sic] of one second."[1] It contains a glaring math error (it is the millisecond that is a thousandth of a second, not the nanosecond) and directly violates everything we know about the speed of the brain (See Nerve conduction velocity and Mental chronometry). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC) This just keeps getting better and better. Engineering Scientist Ronald Cutburth -- Nano Thermite AND Nano RDX Destroyed the World Trade Center Towers, FBI official letter --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Guy Macon you chose wrong to search for and assume my publishing company is designed as a scientific paper in any way. Then you state there are " pseudoscientific claims" which is in error. My publishing company is designed to promote education. For this I write of interesting topics that support knowledge growth ideas;But its not intended to be place for technical scientific papers. Example in the front page I am encouraging people to seek more knowledge I wrote "A knowledge explosion is eminent" which of course there can be no such science as a knowledge explosion. As your assumption is not scientific You deleted points I make in the topic of a " Electromagnetic Pulse" and say I did not do as you ask. I provided a factual brief on where an electromagnetic pulse is to be found namely in a closed electrical circuit. Its not that I didn't answer but you assume I must give you an answer that does not exist outside of an electrical circuit. I provided a technical citation of Electromagnetic field with its definition which demonstrates the current use of an electromagnetic pulse for a nuclear weapon which in fact So I see it will be difficult to explain science when you are not referring to science in or about may publishing company page. In addition you claimed " I violated all the laws of science on sensors but do not include anything about the brain nerve speed. You thus also assume all of the sensors in your list apply to brain speed, which is another error. Another key issue is with regard to the density of brain cells and their connections which cause an acceleration of functional brain speed. Were you to read my Ph.D. dissertation you would find there is other science involved that is not in your cited list. When you wish to use wrongful choices as a means to challenge my scientific presentation, and summarily using wrong points Its doubtful I would be allowed to improve knowledge here by that means. I may need to go over your head. But first you site science which provides electromagnetic pulse by means of a smooth continuous electromagnetic field exists outside of an electrical circuit. I posteted above reference to my dissertation program where I reviewed more than 200 research programs of Lawrence Livermore National Lab and accomplished that successfully and subequently received my Ph.d. Thus my view on citation and review of science topics is advanced. Oh then on the one point I did try to first place my note on the "Show Preview" then pushed the button "Save Changes". I will need to review what is wrong on that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe correctly describes how EMPs transfer energy. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Enough, already. This PoV editor will never come good, let's be (cruel to be) kind and stop trying to pretend to them they ever will. Dr. Cutburth, there is a place in the world for you but I would suggest to you that Wikipedia is not it. I would advise you to waste no more time over us. Of course, if your thesis is ever published by a peer-reviewed journal, then that would make us think again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which some editors of this page have been involved. The thread is Dr. Ronald Cutburth. Your input at ANI is very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Circular references - Examples of "incorrect depictions of EMP weapons" missing both here and in the "Electromagnetic_pulse_in_popular_culture" page

Twice in this page there are vague references to how incorrect the public understanding of EMP is, but no specific examples are given, just a reference to a US military video that is not available to the public and a suggestion to read about it on the Electromagnetic_pulse_in_popular_culture page. That page also just states the same thing with the same reference and then suggest you go back to this page to "read direct quotations from the Oak Ridge report". So curious readers wanting to know more just get pushed around in circles without learning anything. 83.248.232.5 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The quotations from the Oak Ridge National Laboratories report are on a different page. There is a separate page on Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. The quotation is in the Common Misconceptions section. See Nuclear electromagnetic pulse#Common misconceptions. X5dna (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Another editor deleted the quotation in question today, so I'm afraid that this linkage broken and is a bit of a mess. It is likely to remain so until EMP gets out of the news. In the meantime, the Appendix on EMP Myths in the Oak Ridge/Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report from 2010 is at the end of the report at https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/cybersecurity/ferc_meta-r-320.pdf Perhaps this short Appendix on EMP Myths can eventually be added as a footnote to one of the EMP articles. X5dna (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

TABULATION of Frequency ranges of EMP Types

The article indicates that EMP energy may be transferred in any of four forms (all four forms of which will accompany one another). However, the article does NOT provide some form of tabulation of the Frequencies/Wavelengths associated with the various types of EMPs (ie: the Spectral characteristics of the EMP energy). Such a tabulation should indicate whether susceptiable EMP Frequencies co-incide with congested parts of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. There would seem to be a difference between EMP signals that cause temporary effects (ie: temporary interference) and EMP signals that cause actual hardware damage (EMP can also possibly cause software damage either deliberately or inadvertently). I think that tabulating the duration of the effects of the interference would be good also. I doubt very much that this has not already been done in some publication.

Summary: I think a tabulated summary of the various types of EMP would be a good idea - especially if some people can't read through the whole of the article, and understand everything it says (at least, a tabulation would be a speed way of summarising the data). The Headings of the Table would be: TYPE-OF-EMP, FREQUENCY RANGE associated with EMP, WAVELENGTH, INTENSITY at ground ZERO, INTENSITY at a certain distance from ground zero (perhaps an approximate Mathematical Function indicating intensity variation with distance), Mechanism of Inteference, Mechanism of Damage (when damage is caused), Material&Material Thickness / Method used for attenuation.

Perhaps requesting such a table is asking for more than what is possible... ASavantDude (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The potential disruption or damage depends on a large set of interrelated factors, including the specific threat scenario. A single, unified table is not a suitable medium to illustrate this complexity. Even multiple tables can address only a selection of possible scenarios. Much of the detail is (or certainly used to be) classified and unavailable to Wikipedia. A general discussion of the type currently given here is probably about the best we can do, with some specific topics such as Electrostatic discharge and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse being expanded on in their own articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

NEMP is conventionally divided into three phases, E1,E2, E3, that are basically frequency dependent. These frequency distinctions are very broad but relevant to phenomena encompassing many orders of magnitude variation from about 10^-10 s to 10^2 s. Here's an article that covers quite a bit of this: Gombosi, T. I., D. N. Baker, A. Balogh, P. J. Erickson, J. D. Huba, and L. J. Lanzerotti, Anthropogenic space weather, Space Sci. Rev., 212(3-4), 985-1039, doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0357-5, 2017. Attic Salt (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see that this is already discussed in Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

US centric intro

Is the United States really the only country that could be subjected to and has to care about EMPs? That line should probably either be generalized or moved somewhere else in the article 213.94.17.186 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

these EMP (electromagnetic pulses) are hating people health-wise for some unknown reason

... could anyone please tell others also, what the health-wise setup hate reason against people's health situation is about? --2001:16B8:57E5:3F00:39EB:2F53:19BD:F5FF (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

are DECT and other EMP standards using devices still considered safe to use by means of distinguishability from EMP weapons such as HAARP and also nukes?

... also what exact frequencies do nukes give off, if its known to science? So that we refrain from using these frequencies for our important critis electronics!

Can anyone say FOR SURE, if distinguishability-wise, DECT and the likes can be still safely in any further use by normal nonillegal wifis enthusiasts and also by nukes and HAARP opposers?

Also, how about smart meters? What ones are okay here? What ones are no longer okay? --2001:16B8:57E5:3F00:39EB:2F53:19BD:F5FF (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)