Chemical explosion electromagnetic pulse

[FrankM]

Every chemical explosion produces a broadband electromagnetic (EM) pulse (EMP). A Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) report states, "The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a chemical explosion is well established." However, it is difficult to find reports that identify the intensities in the various spectral ranges.

 

A Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) report states, "In the brief instant of a high-exlosive detonaton, some remarkable events take place: the shock wave produces pressure up to 500,000 times that of Earth's atmosphere, the detonation wave travels as fast as 10 kilometers per second, temperatures can sore to 5,500 kelvins, and power approaches 20 billion watts per square centimeter."

 

I haven't been able to find a report that discusses the effect a chemical explosion EMP has on the human body. To remedy this deficiency, I have prepared a paper titled, "The Electromagnetic Cause of Shell Shock."

http://vixra.org/pdf/1502.0196v2.pdf

[MigL]

I could be wrong, but, EMR from a chemical explosion, no matter how large, is not ionizing radiation, as it involves electron level jumping ( bonds breaking/forming ).

An EMP disables electronic equipment by ionizing and 'driving out' electrons from circuits and batteries.

[FrankM]

You do not have to have ionizing radiation to damage body tissue.

[MigL]

Agreed, I'm thinking only of nuclear EM pulses or EM pulse weapons.

[John Cuthber]

At 5000 K the typical energies are about half an electron volt.

High enough to mess up a building, but not really into the range of ionizing radiation.

You might just get some UV if you are lucky.

Also, the human body isn't very susceptible to em fields

[Enthalpy]

At 5000 K the typical energies are about half an electron volt. [...]

 

Sure, but out of equilibrium, some less then obvious mechanisms can produce photons that carry much more than kT.The Sun's corona produces X rays despite the chromosphere has only 6,000K. Or lightning bolts: they make X and gamma rays while the ionization channel has a few 1,000K even for the electrons. In both cases, more energy is available somewhere and converts through other means - but non-thermal energy is available in an explosion too, like the wavefront that carries many kJ in few degrees of freedom. So I'm wary of thermodynamical arguments against.

[...] Also, the human body isn't very susceptible to em fields

 

Agreed again with the "not very". Transcranial magnetic stimulation exploits this limited susceptibility; I'm convinced that EMP weapons exist to act on the human nervous system (neutralize it temporarily, provoque convulsions and so on); and a direct EM effect of lightning on the nervous system is to my eyes a good explanation to people smashed against walls while surrounding objects haven't moved.

 

But sure, if a regular explosion had such effects, they would be known already.

[John Cuthber]

Here's an Xray picture of an explosion

http://www2.l-3com.com/ati/img/redesign/flash_x-ray/Copper.jpg

it isn't fogged.

So there can't be much Xray emission from the explosion.

[FrankM]

[....]Also, the human body isn't very susceptible to em fields

The FCC Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) regulations are there to limit the human body to EM radiation. The damage to mammalian brains noted in ref.(11) of my vixra.org paper indicates it doesn't take much EM power to cause damage. I would like to know how much of the 20 billion watts per centimeters noted in the LLNL report is within the spectral range of the GSM phones.

[....]Agreed again with the "not very". Transcranial magnetic stimulation exploits this limited susceptibility; I'm convinced that EMP weapons exist to act on the human nervous system (neutralize it temporarily, provoque convulsions and so on); and a direct EM effect of lightning on the nervous system is to my eyes a good explanation to people smashed against walls while surrounding objects haven't moved.

 

But sure, if a regular explosion had such effects, they would be known already.

 

What is known in specific technical circles may not be known outside these groups. I suspect those involved in nuclear non-proliferation detection know a lot about the EM spectral characteristics of chemical explosions, but their info is not publicly available.

[John Cuthber]

The FCC Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) regulations are there to limit the human body to EM radiation. The damage to mammalian brains noted in ref.(11) of my vixra.org paper indicates it doesn't take much EM power to cause damage. I would like to know how much of the 20 billion watts per centimeters noted in the LLNL report is within the spectral range of the GSM phones.

 

What is known in specific technical circles may not be known outside these groups. I suspect those involved in nuclear non-proliferation detection know a lot about the EM spectral characteristics of chemical explosions, but their info is not publicly available.

Those regulations refer to long duration exposure not the few microseconds that an explosion lasts.

Did you not understand that?

 

Re "What is known in specific technical circles may not be known outside these groups. I suspect those involved in nuclear non-proliferation detection know a lot about the EM spectral characteristics of chemical explosions, but their info is not publicly available."

I will ask around when I get back to work.

However the physics makes your idea impossible anyway.

Edited April 8, 2015 by John Cuthber

[FrankM]

I know what the SAR regulations pertain to. I also know that a brief exposure to a very high intensity EM source will do the same damage that a lower power source would do in a longer time period.

Just what part of physics makes my idea impossible?

[Enthalpy]

Here's an Xray picture of an explosion

http://www2.l-3com.com/ati/img/redesign/flash_x-ray/Copper.jpg

it isn't fogged.

So there can't be much Xray emission from the explosion.

 

Yes. I prefer that to the thermo argument. You know, even the Z-machine team was surprized by the X-ray power they obtained, which exceeded the prediction based on matter compression, and didn't relate as expected with the matter's atomic number.

[...] I would like to know how much of the 20 billion watts per centimeters noted in the LLNL report is within the spectral range of the GSM phones.

[...] I suspect those involved in nuclear non-proliferation detection know a lot about the EM spectral characteristics of chemical explosions [...]

 

I'd have a better feeling about your attempt if you had checked any harmful proportion, or asked for it, before writing a paper.

 

About non-proliferation detectors: there are so many chemical explosions all the time, especially from weapons! Probably not the best way to detect the triggering of a nuclear explosion. Do you have better reasons to "suspect" it, or does it only serve your argument?

 

Chemical explosions and electronic devices have been around for so long now, in hands of varied people and groups, that I can't imagine a microwave burst passing unnoticed.

[John Cuthber]

I know what the SAR regulations pertain to. I also know that a brief exposure to a very high intensity EM source will do the same damage that a lower power source would do in a longer time period.

Just what part of physics makes my idea impossible?

OK, for a start, we know it's not a very high intensity em emission because we don't get lots of radio interference every time people let off fireworks.

Also, there is no credible mechanism to couple energy from the explosion into the EM radiation (apart from the obvious- it gets hot)

 

You are not going to be take seriously here unless you have a credible mechanism or actual evidence of damage (not easily explained away as a blast effect).

Ideally you want both; currently you have neither.

[Moontanman]

Non nuclear EMP is used by the military to knock out electronics. I am not sure if it has any effect on humans.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

 

The range of NNEMP weapons (non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse bombs) is much less than nuclear EMP. Nearly all NNEMP devices used as weapons require chemical explosives as their initial energy source, producing only 10⁻⁶ (one millionth) the energy of nuclear explosives of similar weight.^[6] The electromagnetic pulse from NNEMP weapons must come from within the weapon, while nuclear weapons generate EMP as a secondary effect.^[7] These facts limit the range of NNEMP weapons, but allow finer target discrimination. 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.^[8]

The concept of the explosively pumped flux compression generator for generating a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse was conceived as early as 1951 by Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union,^[9] but nations kept work on non-nuclear EMP classified until similar ideas emerged in other nations.

 

[Enthalpy]

There is hugely more in an EMP weapon than the chemical explosive. Namely, all the electromagnetic part: the "flux compressor" (search keywords). Without it, no EM pulse.

[FrankM]

 

OK, for a start, we know it's not a very high intensity em emission because we don't get lots of radio interference every time people let off fireworks.

Also, there is no credible mechanism to couple energy from the explosion into the EM radiation (apart from the obvious- it gets hot)

 

You are not going to be take seriously here unless you have a credible mechanism or actual evidence of damage (not easily explained away as a blast effect).

Ideally you want both; currently you have neither.

 

 

Now that you mention it, I have never watched fireworks reasonably close where I had an AM radio turned on and it was not tuned to a station. For those that can get fireworks anytime, you can determine if there is a sharp static response when a fireworks goes off; the sound of the fireworks will be delayed depending upon distance. It would be desirable to have enough distance between the fireworks explosion and the radio to be able to note the static in the radio before before hearing the fireworks sound.

 

The LANL report cited in my report discussed the mechanism that creates an EMP. It is the motion of charges particles, electrons and ions, that create EM waves. Oddly, the LANL report did not mention the role of ions, and a chemical explosion has an abundance of both charged particles. The Russian report cited the range of EM emissions detected from an explosion.

 

I was unaware that Andrei Sakharov worked on producing a chemical explosion EMP; his contribution is not noted in the Russian report. The Russian report cited a 1940 paper by a Russian seismologist that detected EM emissions from an explosion; the first citation in the Russian paper.

 

The actual brain damage caused by an explosion is identified in the 3rd reference in my vixra paper. The John Hopkins pathologists did not identify how the explosion caused the unique honeycomb pattern; that is the focus of my paper.

[John Cuthber]

I guess that LANL report explained what creates the EMP from a nuke.

The gamma rays scatter the electrons leading to a charge separation.

In a chemical explosion there are no gammas and thus no emp.

[Acme]

If an EMP causes the honeycomb pattern damage in brains, then it seems reasonable that people struck by lightning ought to exhibit the same symptom. Do they? I think not. Once again we can safely put away our tin foil hats.

[FrankM]

 

If an EMP causes the honeycomb pattern damage in brains, then it seems reasonable that people struck by lightning ought to exhibit the same symptom. Do they? I think not. Once again we can safely put away our tin foil hats.

 

 

There is a difference between the massive current flow produced by a lightning strike and that produced by am EMP. The current produced by a lightning strike is non-selective, it damages many different structures. I am sure there are pathology reports you can read to see the type of damage a lightning strike causes. Think electrocution. The damage produced by an EMP is frequency selective and there will be no obvious entry and exit points.

[John Cuthber]

Frank,

Do you realise that you haven't put forward any sensible mechanism for creating any EMP and you haven't put forward a mechanism for it to cause the sort of damage seen (even if it was produced)?

 

The "honeycomb" pattern they talk about has a scale of roughly a tenth or a hundredth of a millimetre.

Em radiation with that wavelength simply doesn't penetrate human tissue.

[MigL]

I think maybe, you're using a different definition of an EMP than the rest of us are , Frank.

Could you please give us your definition, in terms of effects on electron mobility, so we are all on the same page ?

Edited April 17, 2015 by MigL

[FrankM]

 

I think maybe, you're using a different definition of an EMP than the rest of us are , Frank.

Could you please give us your definition, in terms of effects on electron mobility, so we are all on the same page ?

 

 

The researchers haven't reached a consensus as to the mechanism that creates the broadband EMP. The researchers know that it is the motion of charged particles that create an EM wave; this is the way it is done in a wire antenna. The LANL paper referenced in my paper presents several theories as to what is causing the charged particle motion. The process is complicated by the double EMP noted by several researchers. Even though there is an abundance of ions produced by a chemical explosion, I see no mention of their motion and contribution to the EMP.

 

A researcher published a paper in an IEEE publication in 2010 that identified the spectral characteristics of airborne explosive EMPs, this to assist in designing EMP protection for aerospace electronics.

Measurement of electromagnetic pulses produced in a chemical explosion

 

Unfortunately, the bulk of IEEE publications require a fee to read.

[Enthalpy]

[...] Once again we can safely put away our tin foil hats.

 

Thanks for the link...

Unfortunately, Wiki's article is nonsense, written by people too weak on electromagnetics, which in addition would like to appear on the science's side.

 

Up to now, science has only established effects on the brains by the electric field, not by the magnetic one. For instance the transcranial magnetic stimulation works through the electric field induced by the varying vector potential A.

 

Though, E and B, H are not rigidly linked. Only in a plane wave, which is seldom the case near a tin foil. Especially not for longer wavelengths. Near a conductor, the E field drops sharply, while B and H do not need to; it depends on the wavelength versus the distance to the shield. This is known as the "impedance mismatch" of a shield.

 

The extreme case is a DC field, where an arbitrarily thin metal sheet perfectly blocks the electric field and lets the magnetic field pass perfectly - and this, despite the skin depth is unlimited in DC.

 

Because of that, the argument of the electric skin depth compared to the foil's thickness is nonsense. At lower frequencies, thin metal blocks the electric field. At higher frequencies it suffices anyway.

 

For the same reason, the argument of the AM radio receiver is nonsense too. The receiver catches the magnetic field rather than the electric one. The magnetic field is received through a thin metal foil (...especially if the contacts with the baseplate are imperfect!) but this proves nothing about the electric field.

 

An alternate way to understand it is that in near field, waves are not plane, nor do they have the corresponding E/H fixed ratio. A shield superimposes (phase reversed approximately) its own field to the source's one, and while the source may be far hence create a plane field, a shield smaller than a quarter wavelength certainly doesn't make a plane wave locally, so its E/H isn't the usual ratio, and it can subtract accurately E but not H.

 

I'm a bit fed up with people who don't have the necessary knowledge but dare to make strong and often insulting claims against electromagnetic weapons just as if these didn't exist. One example is given there, this one only lets the target person hear clicks according to the report, but would be easy (=has been done) to adapt to any sound, and was developed half a century ago (50 years, 5 decades) by the US army:

http://www.slavery.org.uk/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf

it's about time to wake up. Science is skepticism aided by knowledge, it's not blind denial nor group effects.

[John Cuthber]

  

 

The researchers haven't reached a consensus as to the mechanism that creates the broadband EMP. The researchers know that it is the motion of charged particles that create an EM wave; this is the way it is done in a wire antenna. The LANL paper referenced in my paper presents several theories as to what is causing the charged particle motion. The process is complicated by the double EMP noted by several researchers. Even though there is an abundance of ions produced by a chemical explosion, I see no mention of their motion and contribution to the EMP.

 

A researcher published a paper in an IEEE publication in 2010 that identified the spectral characteristics of airborne explosive EMPs, this to assist in designing EMP protection for aerospace electronics.

Measurement of electromagnetic pulses produced in a chemical explosion

 

Unfortunately, the bulk of IEEE publications require a fee to read.

You can read the abstract for free.

It says

"For mild linear shaped charges, width of pulses is about microsecond, and the amplitude may exceed 100 V/m. The results can be referenced for the design of electromagnetic pulse protection for aerospace electronics."

And for comparison

"Typical electric field strengths measured near household appliances

(at a distance of 30 cm)

(From: Federal Office for Radiation Safety, Germany 1999)

Electric appliance Electric field strength (V/m)

Stereo receiver 180

Iron 120

Refrigerator 120

Mixer 100

Toaster 80

Hair dryer 80

Colour TV 60

Coffee machine 60

Vacuum cleaner 50

Electric oven 8

Light bulb 5

Guideline limit value 5000

 

from

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index3.html

Edited April 20, 2015 by John Cuthber

[FrankM]

There is a 2014 paper out of LLNL

 

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=50035

 

The Introduction cites a 2005 Russian study and they note a conclusion from that study. "In 2004 Adushkin and Soloviev studied the generation of electric and magnetic fields from above ground, surface and underground explosions [5]; Academician Adushkin concluded that the actual mechanism of RF generation was not known."

 

I want to see the EM power levels at various spectral ranges, but the LLNL study does not provide this information.

 

[greese007]

This reminds me of stuff I have been reading about pulsed electromagnetic fields. Known in the trade as PEMF, mostly used for inducing rapid bone repair in racehorses. No good theories about why it works, but it is widely used because it works. Another case of experiment leading theory.

 

Now I see PEMF being advertised by chiropracters, massage therapists, etc. These are not the most renowned of scientists, but they seem to be onto something which requires more investigation.

 

One paper I read described the biological effects of high electric fields applied for ultra-short time periods. With a rapidly rising EM pulse, polarization of the cell walls can occur, leading to increased porosity of the cell wall... allowing transfer of ions not typically allowed through the lipid wall. For example, transfer of medications from the bloodstream. Adjusing rise-time and voltage can tune the cellular porosity to particular ions.

 

This part sounds like science, to me. My doubt arises about the penetration depth of externally-applied PEMF fields. Can you really direct a high-energy pulse into deep tissue?