Please read. Significant change on the site that will affect compatibility [ Dismiss ]
Home » Forum » Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Solar Storm, Coronal Mass Ejection, Electromagnetic Pulse

PotomacBob 🚫

I'm trying to get terminology straight for a story that includes a Carrington Event-type occurrence.
I thought I remembered from an earlier discussion on these forums an assertion that a coronal mass ejection (CME)is completely different from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The assertion, as I recall it, was that a CME is always solar caused and an EMP is always caused by a nuclear weapon - never by a solar event.
I have read other accounts that say a Carrington-type event can cause an EMP on earth by affecting the magnetosphere (is that the right word?)
I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the differences in terms simple enough that even I can understand it.

CB 🚫

@PotomacBob

I think the ejected solar particles induce currents on anything conductive. So, its not a pulse but a sustained surge.

StarFleet Carl 🚫
Updated:

@PotomacBob

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the differences in terms simple enough that even I can understand it.

I can't take credit for this explanation:

An EMP caused by an atomic blast is a higher-frequency pulse, and can cause problems with individual pieces of equipment. If we are hit with an EMP attack, we have plenty of other things to worry about. If you want to protect items, it is easy to shield them with a Faraday Cage.

A large CME [which emanates from the sun] is a low-frequency event. To have an impact on anything, it requires a long "antenna." Our power lines are the perfect antenna for receiving the energy. The big issue is that this can destroy the large transformers. There are no spares of these, and it takes years to get a new one built. There is precedent for concern. In 1859, a large CME caused power surges in telegraph wires strong enough to start fires in the stations. Known as the Carrington Event, it caused minor damage because we really had no electric infrastructure.

In simpler terms, an EMP can fry unprotected equipment, because it's a PULSE, that's in, through, and done. Think of a single spark generated by the flint of the lighter.

The CME supercharges the atmosphere (thus, the Northern lights appearing almost all the way down to where I live today) and fries the living shit out of the global power grid, because it overloads the transformer - which aren't replaceable in those quantities. In a severe enough one, it could even put enough 'power' into the antennas - the wiring - to vaporize that. So, it destroys the electrical infrastructure for the world, and while our cars may still operate, about the only thing left will be the actual power stations, because the distribution grid is FUBAR. Think the flamethrower that cooks everything hooked up to the grid.

We've had this discussion on here multiple times in the past. Search is your friend.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

It's important to note, when considering this, that vaporizing the wiring might (but might not) be the best-case scenario. There are a lot of variables.

If the wiring is vaporized AND the power plant can be shut down quickly, the transformers survive. If it can't be shut down quickly enough, the transformers probably die.

If the transformers die, and the wiring survives, it's entirely possible that just getting transformers won't be enough. The capacitive load of the power distribution network is extremely high, and there aren't nearly enough breakpoints in the network. Bringing up a power plant will just cause it to buckle under the load. Bringing up several won't help, because they'll be out of phase. Right now, we rely on having dozens of plants in phase to bring additional plants into phase.

Based on what I've read, it would take months if not longer to bring the grid back on line even if every bit of infrastructure survived.

Texas, which has its own smaller grid, was apparently minutes from a grid crash during the February 2021 freeze event. Had the grid actually crashed, the estimate was weeks to months before power was restored.

Disclaimer: I am not a power engineer; this is based on what I've read and what I've been told by people who are power engineers.

Remus2 🚫
Updated:

@PotomacBob

The earth has diurnal currents that travel from the poles to the equator on the light side of the planet, then back to the poles on the dark side.

A CME excites particles in the upper atmosphere with the current being transmitted to the ground inducing and strengthening the currents in the ground. The current can be supercharged to the point of burning out electrical grid components. A CME will always do this from the poles.

An EMP or more correctly stated a NEMP (nuclear electromagnetic pulse), can create the same effect as a CME, only it's not dependent on the poles.

If the device is detonated at the correct altitude (just outside the atmosphere, but below the magnetosphere, it causes the magnetosphere to bulge out then flex backwards towards the ground thus inducing a supercharged earth current.

The issue is the ground fields for substations. They get overpowered and reverse the current direction. A ground becomes a positive.

The EMP itself has three primary components.

1. A fast rise time component E1. This comes top down from the blast as it charges atmospheric components in a cascade. The primary effect being killing electronics.

2. Is similar to one, except it's rise time is slower which gives ground fault equipment time to trip before anything fries. It's created as a secondary effect from number 1.

3 E3 the first stage of telluric current charging. It's directly from the blast but separate from the first 2.

4 E3 Heave. The heave part comes on the heels of E3. It's cause is from the magnetosphere heave. Magnetic Flux lines cannot cross. So when the blast bubbles out the magnetosphere, and it pushes back, that push drives energy into the ground creating the same effect as a CME, only it's induced from directly overhead, not from the poles.

That's as simple as I can make it.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob 🚫

@Remus2

Home " Forum " Author Hangout
Forum: Author Hangout
Bottom
Threaded View
8/19/2022, 10:01:58 AM
Solar Storm, Coronal Mass Ejection, Electromagnetic Pulse
PotomacBob
8/18/2022, 8:55:52 PM

I'm trying to get terminology straight for a story that includes a Carrington Event-type occurrence.
I thought I remembered from an earlier discussion on these forums an assertion that a coronal mass ejection (CME)is completely different from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The assertion, as I recall it, was that a CME is always solar caused and an EMP is always caused by a nuclear weapon - never by a solar event.
I have read other accounts that say a Carrington-type event can cause an EMP on earth by affecting the magnetosphere (is that the right word?)
I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the differences in terms simple enough that even I can understand it.
Replies: CB StarFleet Carl Remus2

CB
8/18/2022, 9:48:27 PM

@PotomacBob

I think the ejected solar particles induce currents on anything conductive. So, its not a pulse but a sustained surge.

StarFleet Carl
8/18/2022, 11:06:17 PM
Updated: 8/18/2022, 11:07:05 PM

@PotomacBob

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the differences in terms simple enough that even I can understand it.

I can't take credit for this explanation:

An EMP caused by an atomic blast is a higher-frequency pulse, and can cause problems with individual pieces of equipment. If we are hit with an EMP attack, we have plenty of other things to worry about. If you want to protect items, it is easy to shield them with a Faraday Cage.

A large CME [which emanates from the sun] is a low-frequency event. To have an impact on anything, it requires a long "antenna." Our power lines are the perfect antenna for receiving the energy. The big issue is that this can destroy the large transformers. There are no spares of these, and it takes years to get a new one built. There is precedent for concern. In 1859, a large CME caused power surges in telegraph wires strong enough to start fires in the stations. Known as the Carrington Event, it caused minor damage because we really had no electric infrastructure.

In simpler terms, an EMP can fry unprotected equipment, because it's a PULSE, that's in, through, and done. Think of a single spark generated by the flint of the lighter.

The CME supercharges the atmosphere (thus, the Northern lights appearing almost all the way down to where I live today) and fries the living shit out of the global power grid, because it overloads the transformer - which aren't replaceable in those quantities. In a severe enough one, it could even put enough 'power' into the antennas - the wiring - to vaporize that. So, it destroys the electrical infrastructure for the world, and while our cars may still operate, about the only thing left will be the actual power stations, because the distribution grid is FUBAR. Think the flamethrower that cooks everything hooked up to the grid.

We've had this discussion on here multiple times in the past. Search is your friend.
Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf
8/18/2022, 11:45:40 PM

@StarFleet Carl

It's important to note, when considering this, that vaporizing the wiring might (but might not) be the best-case scenario. There are a lot of variables.

If the wiring is vaporized AND the power plant can be shut down quickly, the transformers survive. If it can't be shut down quickly enough, the transformers probably die.

If the transformers die, and the wiring survives, it's entirely possible that just getting transformers won't be enough. The capacitive load of the power distribution network is extremely high, and there aren't nearly enough breakpoints in the network. Bringing up a power plant will just cause it to buckle under the load. Bringing up several won't help, because they'll be out of phase. Right now, we rely on having dozens of plants in phase to bring additional plants into phase.

Based on what I've read, it would take months if not longer to bring the grid back on line even if every bit of infrastructure survived.

Texas, which has its own smaller grid, was apparently minutes from a grid crash during the February 2021 freeze event. Had the grid actually crashed, the estimate was weeks to months before power was restored.

Disclaimer: I am not a power engineer; this is based on what I've read and what I've been told by people who are power engineers.

Remus2
8/19/2022, 12:12:16 AM
Updated: 8/19/2022, 12:17:52 AM

@PotomacBob

The earth has diurnal currents that travel from the poles to the equator on the light side of the planet, then back to the poles on the dark side.

A CME excites particles in the upper atmosphere with the current being transmitted to the ground inducing and strengthening the currents in the ground. The current can be supercharged to the point of burning out electrical grid components. A CME will always do this from the poles.

An EMP or more correctly stated a NEMP (nuclear electromagnetic pulse), can create the same effect as a CME, only it's not dependent on the poles.

If the device is detonated at the correct altitude (just outside the atmosphere, but below the magnetosphere, it causes the magnetosphere to bulge out then flex backwards towards the ground thus inducing a supercharged earth current.

The issue is the ground fields for substations. They get overpowered and reverse the current direction. A ground becomes a positive.

The EMP itself has three primary components.

1. A fast rise time component E1. This comes top down from the blast as it charges atmospheric components in a cascade. The primary effect being killing electronics.

2. Is similar to one, except it's rise time is slower which gives ground fault equipment time to trip before anything fries. It's created as a secondary effect from number 1.

3 E3 the first stage of telluric current charging. It's directly from the blast but separate from the first 2.

4 E3 Heave. The heave part comes on the heels of E3. It's cause is from the magnetosphere heave. Magnetic Flux lines cannot cross. So when the blast bubbles out the magnetosphere, and it pushes back, that push drives energy into the ground creating the same effect as a CME, only it's induced from directly overhead, not from the poles.

That's as simple as I can make it.

Reply to topic

Back to Top
Home | Forum | All Threads by Date Forum Rules | Sync Read to Server | Get Read from Server

Thanks for the explanation. Can a solar event cause an EMP? Was the Carrington Event an EMP?

Replies:   Freyrs_stories  Remus2
Freyrs_stories 🚫

@PotomacBob

Can a solar event cause an EMP? Was the Carrington Event an EMP?

this is sort of a nature of semantics. The Carrington even WAS Electromagnetic but it was NOT a pulse in the strictest sense. Think of this if you will the difference between high and low explosives. Low explosives are most commonly used as propellant charges they send the shell down the barrel. A high explosive is in the shell, it blows up and does the damage. Low explosives burn slower than the speed of sound, High faster that. but they are both explosives.

An EMP and Carrington are both electromagnetic events but they are opposite sides of the coin as it were. The EMP is the high explosive and Carrington the low.

Let's say for example you put high explosive in the charge to send the shell on it's way. Great you just got a shell that will go much further but instead of propelling the shell you blew up the whole damn gun.

Carrington was the result of a large stream of charged particles interacting with the magnetosphere. No just as you can reverse generators and motors, i.e. convert between motion and charge. charges and fields can be reversed.

So a large and extended charge stream hits a magnetic field and you get an action. in this case a charge like electricity hitting a magnetic field induces a new field. this field interacts with a conductor on the ground and produces a new current. all that is happening is Electro-Magnetic energy is flipping between electrical and magnetic. So this 'charge' in the conductive cables of in this case the telegram system overloads the capacity of the system and fires and other destruction occur.

now back to the EMP, in particular an atomic EMP. the explosion releases immense amounts of energy, some of that electro-magnetic. Depending on the type and altitude of the explosion the field of the pulse can be large enough to induce other charges in conductive materials. but it is very intense and very short lived. proper shielding and buffers in modern hardware 'may' prevent catastrophic damage as we now have a much better understanding of this science, gained from decades of atomic experiments and other shall we say less overt means of generation means that depending on scale will show contemporary results. A Carrington event or nuclear EMP may be partially or completely mitigated.

What I am trying to say is that Carrington was a low explosive, it drove a charge through the grid and due to both the nature of the grid and technology and understanding at the time, serious destruction occurred. but contain that charge and like in a gun the result is little damage to the device the explosion occurs in, not going into what happens at the target end. An EMP is a high explosive. Even in the gun damage can occur, unless it is shielded or there are other protections / reinforcements.

CMEs (the cause of the Carrington event are being understood more and more each year, but they are comparatively rare and unpredictable being recorded not predicted. This is a very important distinction as the 'energy' from the CME travels at close to the speed of light there is no way of creating any kind of warning system with current understanding and tech (Helios may make some modifications to this statement). A sufficiently large, concentrated and directed CME may cross the boundary between low and high explosives acting like a combination of the two. The 'pulse' with have the intensity of the high explosive but the generation capacity of the low. A worst case scenario.

Even today electrical systems are built to withstand limited intensity events. Shielding and dampeners cost money so are not universal or impenetrable. A large and long Carrington event could / would send us back to the industrial revolution, only worse as all the knowledge of how to make everything between now and then is either in obscure tomes or digital, retrieving either would take serious time and skill if it was possible at all.

So no the Carrington event was not an EMP but if something similar but larger did happen, the damage would be far far worse than either the event or an EMP (which would bee relativity local), a global EM surge that would damage / destroy the very fabric of modern life.

I hope that clears things up, I have taken 'liberties' simplifying my arguments but the analogy and I hope point is clear

F.

StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

This is a very important distinction as the 'energy' from the CME travels at close to the speed of light there is no way of creating any kind of warning system with current understanding and tech (Helios may make some modifications to this statement).

Not exactly - the energy from the CME travels at the same speed AS the SME, because it's contained WITHIN the CME itself. As in, the coronal mass.

That's why we had a couple days warning about the northern lights last night, because the Helios satellites saw the CME happen, and astronomers on Earth were warned about it.

The big question that no one asked was - if the CME was huge enough to pose the risk of a Carrington Event, would the electrical companies actually turn stuff off for the amount of time necessary to mitigate the severest risk to infrastructure? I could see that as a double damned situation. They're damned if they do - because someone is GOING to sue them, and damned if they don't - because then the damage could put us back in the steam era for a lot of things.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

There is generally a warning if it's a CME. However, a solar flare happens at the speed of light. By the time the satellite recognized the flare, it's already here.

It takes 8.3 minutes for a flares energy to reach the earth. Solar wind and CME are charged particles at sublight speed. Both can take hours to sometimes days to reach earth.

ETA: The signal from the satellite carrying the warning is still at light speed. Of two cars traveling 100 km an hour in the same direction, the car that got up to speed first will arrive first.

It may not matter if the company knew an event was incoming. The supercharged telluric currents could still enter the various substations and fry the grid sans actual power production.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Remus2

There is generally a warning if it's a CME. However, a solar flare happens at the speed of light. By the time the satellite recognized the flare, it's already here.

It takes 8.3 minutes for a flares energy to reach the earth. Solar wind and CME are charged particles at sublight speed. Both can take hours to sometimes days to reach earth.

Correct, but unless I missed it (which is possible), your comment just now is the first time anyone's mentioned solar flares. Those aren't CMEs. I was referencing a CME, especially one similar to the one that caused the Carrington Event. The solar flare that immediately preceded the Carrington Event was the indication that something wicked this way comes, but in and of itself didn't do much, if any damage at that time.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson, both observed a massive flare prior to the CME. There is no solid evidence regarding which event set off the destructive fall out from the activity.
They observed the CME on the heels of the Flare. A bit over 17 hours later, the Aurora Australis, and the Aurora Borealis flared up.
It's more probable it was the CME, but the flare cannot be discounted.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫
Updated:

@Freyrs_stories

A large and long Carrington event could / would send us back to the industrial revolution, only worse as all the knowledge of how to make everything between now and then is either in obscure tomes or digital, retrieving either would take serious time and skill if it was possible at all.

Replacing many of the technologies of the "Computer Era" c.1990+ would be extremely difficult (if not impossible for decades or more). However, rebuilding back to the "Atomic Era" c.1945 to ~1985 is much more do-able.

Replicating components of the "Computer Era" requires "clean rooms" printed circuits, super conductors, etc. However, to produce many components and complete mechanisms, even the first atomic bombs was done by handcrafting. Mass Production was vital to the Allied (in particular USA) victory in WWII. Don't forget that much of the material produced by the Union c.1860-65, of the UK c.1914-1918 and even in WWII (not to mention Germany) was assembled by hand. (Assisted by assembly lines, hoists, lathes, etc. yet in the end Germany was compelled by limited resources and Allied bombing to function more as small craftshops than industrial mass production.

Components of the Atomic Bombs were handcrafted. Some because they were unique, literally One of a kind. Sometimes, due to the extreme secrecy scientists or technicians had to craft items because they weren't able (allowed) to explain what they needed, so they had to build it themselves.

Guys in their late teens and early 20's sometimes hand crafted "replacement" parts for radars, radios, and other highly technical equipment, at isolated jungle airfields in the middle of the Pacific.

Knowing a Thing has been done, and what you need is a tremendous advantage to the initial discovery. Many of our major breakthroughs were not because someone intended a particular thing, but because they were working on something else, and it didn't work... but then they, or someone else said, Hey! What if we used your thingamajig for to do this Other thing?

The Erie Canal, steam engines, and the Wright Flyer were all crafted from hand using components at hand.

Then there are books such as: THE WAY THINGS WORK An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Technology

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967. Ninth Printing. Hardcover

There is a series of books with the same title, but a different author, published in the mid-80's and revised in the 90's and 21st century. Millions of such books exist, often owned by individuals who have interest in various such technologies.

Many such books, as well as the knowledge to use an old automobile alternator with a "small" windmill to generate electrical power, or how to fix a pump, etc. seem to be more common in rural areas. The urban areas where so many count upon "On Time Delivery" and don't have a weeks worth of food, nor a medical kit to treat survivable injuries worse than a "paper cut" are all too common.

The ability to rebuild to an 1860's or even 1950's level of technology, at least on a limited-local scale is quite possible.

Replies:   irvmull
irvmull 🚫

@Paladin_HGWT

The knowledge is there in written form, and widely distributed, as you say.

The skills to utilize that knowledge may be fading away.
People who are capable of this type of craftsmanship are getting old.

The decline in IQ is well-documented, and with it, the ability to learn. (~3 IQ points per decade since 1975)

I think you're right about this being possible on a limited and local scale. I do have to wonder how many people would just give up and not even try. That attitude of helplessness seems to be growing more and more prevalent recently.

Noted, however - "Country folks can survive" ain't just a line in a song.

Replies:   Remus2  Dominions Son
Remus2 🚫

@irvmull

The decline in IQ is well-documented, and with it, the ability to learn. (~3 IQ points per decade since 1975)

Do you happen to have a source for that information?
I'm not doubting you, just looking to read up on it.

Dominions Son 🚫

@irvmull

The decline in IQ is well-documented, and with it,

IQ is defined such that 100 represents the current average always. Given that, such a decline is likely not possible.

Replies:   irvmull
irvmull 🚫

@Dominions Son

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iq-rates-are-dropping-many-developed-countries-doesn-t-bode-ncna1008576

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/04/29/technology-is-on-the-rise-while-iq-is-on-the-decline/?sh=42c03efbb103

https://time.com/5311672/iq-scores-decline-environment/

https://slate.com/technology/2018/09/iq-scores-going-down-research-flynn-effect.html

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-iq-scores-1970s.html

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190709-has-humanity-reached-peak-intelligence

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/31048/20210506/getting-smarter-iq-test-scores-now-higher-level-intelligence-declining.htm

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@irvmull

Again, IQ scores are determined not by raw test scores, but relative to the average for a given cohort. The average IQ score is always 100 even if the average raw test scores change drastically.

It's possible that those articles demonstrate a change in basic intelligence, but in IQ scores? No.

The average IQ score is 100 and will always be 100 no mater what, because that is how it is defined.

Replies:   irvmull  helmut_meukel
irvmull 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

You know that you are just parsing words, as well as misquoting me.

I didn't say the average was changing. I said there was a decline in IQ, which is supported by the referenced articles.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@irvmull

I didn't say the average was changing. I said there was a decline in IQ

IQ is not equivalent to intelligence in the way you are using it. IQ is something more specific.

You claim that you didn't say that the average was changing but that there was a decline in IQ.

But IQ is defined based on an average. Even if intelligence was on decline, official IQ scores based on actual IQ tests would not show a decline.

Most of the articles you cited pull the same bait and switch. They talk about IQ changing but then talk about measures that are not IQ tests.

The reality is that raw intelligence is not terribly well defined and we really don't have good measures of it.

Replies:   irvmull
irvmull 🚫

@Dominions Son

Perhaps you'd like to submit a paper to the National Academy of Sciences to explain why they are wrong in their conclusions.

I hope your academic qualifications are superior to theirs. That's important when you accuse scientists of pulling a "bait and switch".

helmut_meukel 🚫

@Dominions Son

The average IQ score is 100 and will always be 100 no mater what, because that is how it is defined.

How is this average defined? Average of what? How many test results to compute the average and how are the tested selected? (are mentally challenged and geniuses excluded for determining the "average"?)
Would some native English speaker taking IQ tests in Canada, England, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Afrika and the US get significant different IQs caused by locally computed averages? Even between different parts of the US?
How comparable are results over decades?

HM.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

How is this average defined? Average of what?

It depends somewhat on which IQ test you take.

https://www.mensa.org/iq/what-iq

IQ is a type of standard score that indicates how far above, or how far below, his/her peer group an individual stands in mental ability. The peer group score is an IQ of 100; this is obtained by applying the same test to huge numbers of people from all socio-economic strata of society, and taking the average.

The term 'IQ' was coined in 1912 by the psychologist William Stern in relation to the German term Intelligenzquotient. At that time, IQ was represented as a ratio of mental age to chronological age x 100. So, if an individual of 10 years of age had a mental age of 10, their IQ would be 100. However, if their mental age was greater than their chronological age (e.g., 12 rather than 10), their IQ would be 120. Similarly, if their mental age was lower than their chronological age, their IQ would be lower than 100.

When current IQ tests were developed, the average score of the norming sample was defined as IQ 100; and standard deviation (a statistical concept that describes average dispersion) up or down was defined as, for example, 16 or 24 IQ points greater or less than 100. Mensa admits individuals who score in the top 2% of the population, and they accept many different tests, as long as they have been standardised and normed, and approved by professional psychologists' associations. Two of the most well-known IQ tests are 'Stanford-Binet' and 'Cattell' (explained in more detail below). In practice, qualifying for Mensa in the top 2% means scoring 132 or more in the Stanford-Binet test, or 148 or more in the Cattell equivalent.

As I understand it, they take new norming samples on a regular basis.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@Dominions Son

The peer group score is an IQ of 100; this is obtained by applying the same test to huge numbers of people from all socio-economic strata of society, and taking the average.

The US population is about 331 millions.
Huge numbers from all socio-economic strata? For me this would be a test group of about 300,000, 1‰ of the population.
I bet there are parts of this "strata" who will refuse to cooperate with the test creators. Street gangs come to mind, but also some religious groups.

I regard the whole IQ tests as pseudo science. Not quite on the level of Astrology but not far off.

HM.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

I regard the whole IQ tests as pseudo science. Not quite on the level of Astrology but not far off.

I actually agree with this. As I said we don't have a good definition of intelligence, much less a good definition of it.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin 🚫

@Dominions Son

Particularly in British English, when you get in line to do something, like to ride a bus, you Que up, or maybe Cue or queue.
"Definition of Que
Quebec
Is it que, queue, or q?
One of our persistent—and more puzzling—lookups is for the word que, which is entered in our dictionary (capitalized) as an abbreviation for Quebec. Qué is also a Spanish word that means "what." That is not, however, the word that many people are looking for when they look up que in our dictionary. Que is homophonous with a number of other words, most of which have wildly different spellings and meanings. One of the words that people are looking for when they look up que is queue, a word that means "line" (as in, "We waited in the ticket queue.") Sometimes people are looking for the homonym cue, or "a signal to start or do something" ("The lights just went out—that's my cue to start the movie."). Very occasionally, people look up que for coup, a word that refers to a violent and sudden overthrow or takeover of a government ("reports on the latest coup attempt"). And if you're looking for the phonetic spelling of the letter q, try again: that's cue. "

So I Q means I stand in line.

Remus2 🚫

@helmut_meukel

I regard the whole IQ tests as pseudo science. Not quite on the level of Astrology but not far off.

Personally, I regard it as simply bullshit.
I've taken the test in my youth and as part of a security clearance battery of test.
The Stanford-Binet version 3 was the first one. For that one, there was no mention of my racial background. The score wasn't bad at all, but a later test (by ten years) showed a bump of thirty points to the positive. There was obviously a problem. The only difference between the two was, for the second test, they refused to allow the test without mention of racial background. If it were not needed for a security evaluation, I'd told them to fuck themselves.

I've never heard an explanation that I consider valid for that. How did the inclusion of my racial background have any bearing on the score?

Remus2 🚫

@PotomacBob

Can a solar event cause an EMP? Was the Carrington Event an EMP?

Short answers are no and no.

A Carrington event is an amorphous term for a number of solar based influences on earth. Solar wind, CME, Solar flare etc.

An EMP as most think of it is man made.

It's more than semantics as well. Primarily because an EMP can happen anywhere on the earth and be considered a top down effect.
A solar based charge can only come from the poles.

If the earth is ever hit with a solar event strong enough to be top down, it's very unlikely anyone will be left to argue the difference.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@PotomacBob

Is there a refractory period after a coronal mass emission? ;-)

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son  joyR
Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Is there a refractory period after a coronal mass emission?

Do you have a refractory period after you emit mass from your "corona"?

joyR 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Is there a refractory period after a coronal mass emission? ;-)

Bugger refractory.

CME occurs fucking fast*, the very definition of acute premature ejaculation..!!

And NO, shining UV on your semen and exclaiming "how's that for the northern lights" isn't going to impress anyone, unless you splattered the entire ceiling, then maybe.

:)

*Edited because apparently humour HAS to be factual.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫

@joyR

CME occurs at the speed of light

No CME occurs at the speed of light. A CME contains matter. It cannot reach the speed of light as a result. So says E=Mc^2
A solar flare does occur at light speed.

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In