I have just excised a 'darling' from my story but I'd be interested to know what proportion of non-American readers would have understood the reference.
Do you understand the context of "Gibbs' Rule Number 39" without having to look it up?
Thanks,
AJ
Nope. The only Gibbs I know that are famous are a singing group of brothers.
Wiki search on Gibbs' rules come up with nothing that seems relevant.
Gibbs' Rule Number 39
Oz: Only that portion that watches NCIS and takes notes, I would guess. Maybe the ratio is the same within the US as without.
Only that portion that watches NCIS and takes notes,
Also, a lot would depend on which season and which episode, because I don't think all of it was broadcast down here. I do know a lot of people only watched the first few seasons before giving up on it.
Also, a lot would depend on which season and which episode, because I don't think all of it was broadcast down here. I do know a lot of people only watched the first few seasons before giving up on it.
Even for those who keep up with the American series (and typically, foreign nations are at least several seasons behind), Gibb's rules are only given to explain a particular situation. The assumption is that Gibbs has a bunch of rules, but they're only referenced when needed.
Thus, even as an American who has watched every frickin' episode, I have NO clue what Rule 39 is!
Do you understand the context of "Gibbs' Rule Number 39" without having to look it up?
While I did not understand the context, having not memorized Gibbs' rules, I seem to recall that somebody would usually say what the rule is when the number is mentioned.
It seems to be a mandatory cliche in long-running US TV crime dramas that, every so often, the grizzled lead detective says "There's no such thing as a coincidence." thereby enabling the eye-candy underlings to solve the case.
Gibbs was the first example I found when searching, and his rule numbering just added to the seductive darlingness :(
AJ
It also reminds me of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition from Star Trek DS9.
I just had to go and google that. Sadly, as far as I know, DS9 never made it to UK network TV so I've never had a chance to watch it :(
AJ
DS9 never made it to UK network TV
No loss really. Boldly staying exactly where they were was not exactly riveting.
No loss really. Boldly staying exactly where they were was not exactly riveting.
Which is why they started going places! :-) And there were some very good story lines (though I could have done without Sisko being some kind of deity).
No loss really. Boldly staying exactly where they were was not exactly riveting.
Actually having storylines rather than just planet-of-hats-of-the-week was pleasant, though.
Oh, and, as an American, I had no clue what this Gibbs thing was about.
My recommendation is, if you aren't writing fanfiction of (evidently) NCIS, don't reference it.
And if you are writing fanfiction, take the training wheels off and write some original fiction.
My recommendation is, if you aren't writing fanfiction of (evidently) NCIS, don't reference it.
I assume that was aimed at me. FWIW, as I said in the original post, the darling is already dead ;)
AJ
the darling is already dead
Has the team from NCIS showed up to investigate the crime scene?
Has the team from NCIS showed up to investigate the crime scene?
Some Female Body Inspector types probably turned up and then went about the rest of their day.
Nothing to investigate, I've already confessed.
I've been advised to plead insanity because I did it to satisfy the voices in my head, among them Stephen King's. :)
AJ
I've been advised to plead insanity because I did it to satisfy the voices in my head, among them Stephen King's. :)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
And if you are writing fanfiction, take the training wheels off and write some original fiction.
'NCIS: Antartica', or 'NCIS: The Bering Straight', or, for a historical piece, 'NCIS: The Panama Canal'. Maybe even: 'NCIS: 20,000 leagues under and not a sunny beach to be seen 'cept on video'.
'NCIS: Antartica', or 'NCIS: The Bering Straight', or, for a historical piece, 'NCIS: The Panama Canal'. Maybe even: 'NCIS: 20,000 leagues under and not a sunny beach to be seen 'cept on video'.
I'll sign up for NCIS: Antarctica! :-)
I'll sign up for NCIS: Antarctica! :-)
I'd like to sign up Trump and Hillary Clinton to be part of NCIS Antarctica. They can do all the on-location scenes.
I'd like to sign up Trump and Hillary Clinton to be part of NCIS Antarctica. They can do all the on-location scenes.
It wouldn't be that severe a punishment, as the temperatures, at least this year, are 35 degrees higher than the last hundred years (Guardian: Scientists Alarmed by 'Crazy' Temperature Rises) Things, they ain't what they used to be anymore.
as the temperatures, at least this year, are 35 degrees higher than the last hundred years
Um - that would be the Arctic, not the Antarctic. They are as far away from each other as it is possible to get on this plant, equatorial bulge ignored.
Aside from being the arctic, rather than the Antarctic, the article at the Guardian manages to contradict itself. In the text of the article, it says 35 degrees above average, but the caption on the temperature graph with the article says up to 20 degrees c above normal.
And for all that, even 35 degrees above normal would still leave the majority of the Arctic with temperatures well below freezing for at least 10 months out of the year.
35 degrees
Perhaps the 35 was supposed to be Fahrenheit, which is the same as a 20 Celsius change? If not then perhaps it was the difference between Siberia and the Arctic? I know some parts of Siberia are within the Arctic circle, but not all that much of it. And 6.1 degrees above freezing for 10 days at the 'wrong' time of year just 440 miles from the pole does tend to contradict the majority still freezing notion. Still, time will unavoidably tell. Here's hoping both the Chicken Littles and the Ostriches are not correct, and that the truth lies somewhere in between. That would be nasty enough.
I know some parts of Siberia are within the Arctic circle, but not all that much of it. And 6.1 degrees above freezing for 10 days at the 'wrong' time of year just 440 miles from the pole does tend to contradict the majority still freezing notion.
You didn't bother to look at the annual temperature chart included with the Guardian article did you?
The 2018 temps that are 20 degrees C above normal peak at -10 degrees C. The 1958-2002 averages for the period covered by the 2018 temps in the chart are at or below -30 degrees C.
You didn't bother to look at the annual temperature char
Well, yes I did actually. I don't see how it contradicts the 6.1C assertion. The graph is for daily mean temperatures for the whole arctic region after all. It would only take three quarters of the region to be -15.4C for the other quarter to be 6.1C. Not a stretch I would have thought.
The 2018 temps that are 20 degrees C above normal peak at -10 degrees C. The 1958-2002 averages for the period covered by the 2018 temps in the chart are at or below -30 degrees C.
The point wasn't that the Artic isn't cold, but that, if significant portions of the Artic are above freezing for the coldest parts of winter, then it implies there's something significant occurring. The poles don't have to turn tropical for a majority of the Artic's ice to melt. It's worrisome, whether there are exceptions or not.
The point wasn't that the Artic isn't cold, but that, if significant portions of the Artic are above freezing for the coldest parts of winter, then it implies there's something significant occurring.
But that's the problem, while Arctic temperatures were above normal, there were no significant parts of the Arctic that were above freezing during the coldest parts of the winter.
Perhaps the 35 was supposed to be Fahrenheit
Probably. The Guardian is a British newspaper. It's also a hotbed of climate alarmism and fearmongering.
It's not uncommon for temporary freak temperatures in one part of the world to be offset elsewhere. The idle speculation about the loss of the polar vortex is a direct analogue of their speculation about the stopping of the Gulf Stream. Climate changes over decades, not a few weeks.
AJ
Climate changes over decades, not a few weeks.
No way! I saw this movie on TV once where it changed overnight! :-)
No way! I saw this movie on TV once where it changed overnight! :-)
If it was the same programme then I would not call it a movie but scientific statement (or a joke but it was not April 1st).
The context was the then upcoming end of a Mayan cycle and what it could mean for the world.
"They" had discovered in an Andean glacier trees still bearing their leaves which suggested that the formation of the glacier was very sudden. Moreover that sudden glaciation had occurred at the start of the current 3000+ year cycle
a hotbed of climate alarmism and fearmongering
The guardian does tend to report climate change positively, but this phenomenon was not fabricated by the Guardian, unlike other rags of note.
Many others have reported the original source(s) and have interpreted them accordingly. I suppose they could all be Communist Democrats, but I doubt it.
Sadly, research stations in the Antarctic are also now reporting a similar but smaller jump.
I love the line out of "The Battle of Britain" where Air Chief Marshal Dowding says, "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week!"
It's the same with global warming. If the climate skeptics are right there is nothing to worry about. If they are wrong we are all rooted. It is way to late for any opinions to matter. The die is cast. We await the outcome.
but this phenomenon was not fabricated by the Guardian, unlike other rags of note.
No, it's not fabricated, however, they are rather exaggerating what it means.
This site has temperature graphs for the arctic by year: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
A number of recent years, (2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) show a similar pattern, with the early part of the year showing much warmer than average (but still well below freezing) temperatures, but it doesn't carry through to the part of the year where the arctic normally gets above freezing.
By that point, if the pattern holds, the summer peak temperatures will be at or below average.
Be sure to take a look at their graph for 2018, because the temperatures have already fallen back to average levels.
A number of recent years, (2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) show a similar pattern
An interesting set of curves. Nice find.
As you note, the trend since 2008 is what is disturbing though, where the average temperatures in the coldest period are increased significantly, even with the occasional falls back to the long term curve. Also, this year showed a peak in the cold period well above anything prior.
To my eye, the graphs are showing a real and significant increase in cold period average temperatures since 2008. But like I said before, we are just moving the deck chairs around :-)
I wonder if there is anything similar for sea temperatures. That might be more revealing.
To my eye, the graphs are showing a real and significant increase in cold period average
True, but as long as the cold period temperatures remain well below freezing, so what?
as long as the cold period temperatures remain well below freezing, so what?
The temperatures on the graphs are averages. As has already been reported, some parts of the arctic have been above freezing for 'extended' periods during the higher than historical average low temperatures.
As the averages become higher, so do the extent and periods of above zero locations, during what should be the coldest times.
As more of the arctic experiences longer periods above zero, the surface in those places changes, and reflects less heat. Over time this will likely create a warming feedback.
The temperatures we are talking about are surface air temperatures, they do not directly show any temperature change trends for the ground, the ice or the ocean. Recent observations in Siberia show 'permafrost' is no longer 'perma' in many places. This alone has secondary greenhouse outcomes.
So I guess my concern would be that the 'unprecedented' warming of Arctic areas could well be the canary.
I remember when I was young that my Geography teacher (because climate was then part of Geography rather than Religion) told us to visit a glacier while we could because they were all slowly melting away, as that's what they did outside ice-ages. He should have mentioned the poles too!
A more recent report claimed that if the Siberian permafrost ever thawed, we'd re-release the black plague from victims who died then were frozen there.
AJ
A more recent report claimed that if the Siberian permafrost ever thawed, we'd re-release the black plague from victims who died then were frozen there.
Researchers have already dug them up, hoping to research the cause of the original black plague and other the flu that killed so many during WWI. So far, they haven't discovered anything particularly significant. The Black Plague killed so many largely because of the horrific health of Europeans at the time, and the lack of basic sanitation. It doesn't take a killer disease to kill people, all it takes is a mild virus under the right circumstances to cause tremendous damage.
because climate was then part of Geography rather than Religion
ROFLOL
re-release the black plague from victims who died then were frozen there
Can't see that myself. No vector :-)
I still try to apply the common sense test to all the pronouncements, and not just on climate change. It's a wonderful filter. But I won't dismiss something out of hand on religious grounds.
I remember when I was young that my Geography teacher (because climate was then part of Geography rather than Religion) told us to visit a glacier while we could because they were all slowly melting away, as that's what they did outside ice-ages. He should have mentioned the poles too!
My first job was to do a survey to update a 1903 map which included a glacier and an icecap. After 60 years we couldn't find the glacier and trying to measure the flow of ice off the icecap was difficult - tens of metres per day!!!!
A more recent report claimed that if the Siberian permafrost ever thawed, we'd re-release the black plague from victims who died then were frozen there.
I don't know about plague but under the permafrost and especially frozen lakes is a huge amount of methane from the decomposition of vegetable matter. If/when released that would have a serious effect on the climate.
So I guess my concern would be that the 'unprecedented' warming of Arctic areas could well be the canary.
Whoever described that as "unprecedented" is wrong. The arctic used to extend to southern Britain - certainly as far south as AJ, me and close to London. We are no longer under an icefield - the melting results from a very considerable warming.
Whoever described that as "unprecedented" is wrong.
Hence the quotes. It's all relative. If you want to take the long view, then there is no unprecedented weather for the planet. All the way from molten lump to snowball has happened at some time. We just weren't there to suffer it.
All that doesn't help when thinking about threats to sustaining something like our current level of civilisation.
Oh, and the Arctic is defined as 66.33deg and higher, isn't it?
If you want to take the long view, then there is no unprecedented weather for the planet.
They've found skeletal remains of tropical dinosaurs off the coast of Northern Scotland, which is pretty close to the Arctic Circle ;)
AJ
They've found skeletal remains of tropical dinosaurs off the coast of Northern Scotland, which is pretty close to the Arctic Circle ;)
So? The crustal plates float and the continents drift. At one point there was only a single supercontinent. Antarctica was tucked up against India between Africa & Australia, and South America was up against the West Coast of Africa. The climate, and especially the longitude, where dinosaur fossils were laid down has little to do with where they will be found today.
The crustal plates float and the continents drift
The bit of crust that is now Scotland has been at roughly the same latitude for the past 250 million years, the beginning of dinosaurs being around, so it would have been climate, not placement, that gave the 'tropical' feel.
That was the conclusion of the scientists who found the remains - that Scotland was once tropical.
We like to impose an anthropological viewpoint on the planet's history, with climate etc before Homo sapiens evolved being of little importance. But just as Britain has been buried under tons of ice many times, it's been tropical several times too.
AJ
We like to impose an anthropological viewpoint on the planet's history
Well yes, and probably reasonably given that it is what impacts us that is important to us first.
The global warming debate isn't about whether the climate has changed much in geological time, but how much it has/will change in our time.
Our 'civilization' at its current level requires a very narrow sweet spot of climate to avoid catastrophic damage.
We live and have built in places that cannot survive even the mildest sea level rise.
We have bloated our population to a point where even a slight falloff in food production will result in mass starvation and the inevitable conflicts that will follow.
The spread of tropical pests and diseases into latitudes further from the equator will challenge our immune systems and our health systems.
These are just a sample of the impacts we will see.
I am certain humanity will survive any global warming event, regardless of how severe it is, but if it is as severe as it is shaping up to be, we might become a tiny shredded remnant of what we are now.
So saying there have been extreme climate changes before isn't informing the debate. There has been NOTHING like the sustained planet wide temperature rises we are seeing now since before we started building cities.
There is no prior art to inform us about how it will impact us. Of course it is speculation. It has to be. I just try to take notice of the rational speculation that isn't based on either Chicken Little or ostriches.
The global warming debate isn't about whether the climate has changed much in geological time, but how much it has/will change in our time.
I agree with most of your post but, IMO, the debate is as much about whether we're causing it (and how) as whether it is happening at all.
I don't believe the current warm period is particularly unusual. As I've said before, in Roman times the UK was a valued wine producer so it must have been warmer than even today. The problem is we still don't have reliable temperature readings for much of the planet's surface and many of those we do have only go back two or three decades.
Should we be panicking? I don't know.
AJ
The problem is we still don't have reliable temperature readings for much of the planet's surface and many of those we do have only go back two or three decades.
I suggest that the reason for the lack of such information is that research only started in ernest comparatively recently. My understanding is that some important sources of information are from core samples and from tree rings. Generally the costs have to be justified in advance for funding to be approved
The problem is we still don't have reliable temperature readings for much of the planet's surface and many of those we do have only go back two or three decades.
Actually, there are maritime record logs that cover most of the world and they go back over a thousand years. It just takes a long time and a lot of effort to gather it together in a modern computer, but it's being done, and a lot has already been done. The work done to date contradicts a lot of the climate change due to human cause proponents, so it rarely gets mentioned. But there are some mentions:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-climate-change-theories.html
www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/99442183/scientists-using-ship-log-data-to-reveal-more-about-the-future-climate
Actually, there are maritime record logs
Which are plagued by problems with poor measurement techniques, measurement errors, recording errors and inconsistent recording of data.
Which are plagued by problems with poor measurement techniques, measurement errors, recording errors and inconsistent recording of data.
Go tell that to the trained naval officers, which is where many of the logs come from.
Should we be panicking?
Nope. Wouldn't do us any good if we did. Panicking infers a last minute response/effort. Last minute strategies won't work for climate change. The cause to effect lag is just too long.
The issue is not so much the value of the temperature rise as it is the rate of rise. So far as science can tell us, it seems the rate of our current rise is orders of magnitude faster than anything in human history. From this it might be extrapolated that its high value will be well up there too.
I am certain humanity will survive any global warming event,
Exactly. People always confuse humanity with civilization. If I'm remembering the numbers right, large urban cities are never more than three days from entering starvation mode. That's why I'm honestly not worried so much about climate change or global warming or global cooling so much as I fear a massive solar flare or an EMP event.
Oceans rise, we can move the people somewhere else. It's happened in the past, it can happen in the future. Same thing if things get colder.
But you zap the electronics and fry the power grid, or you pop off half a dozen airburst EMP nukes such that you destroy all the vehicles ... welcome to mass chaos. You want to not enjoy thinking of things, go read 'One Second After' by William Fortschen.
Modern civilization is a precarious and precious thing.
But you zap the electronics and fry the power grid, or you pop off half a dozen airburst EMP nukes such that you destroy all the vehicles
Provided you have enough spare fuses on hand, any vehicles should be fine. The strength of the current generated by an EMP in any given wire is dependent on the length of the wire.
Anything turned off and not connected to the power grid is unlikely to suffer permanent damage.
Anything turned off and not connected to the power grid is unlikely to suffer permanent damage.
How many electronic devices are usually disconnected from the power grid when not in use? Most modern electronic devices that are 'turned off' are still using power.
How many electronic devices are usually disconnected from the power grid when not in use?
Anything that runs on disposable batteries.
Most mobile devices that use rechargeable batteries.
Only a tiny fraction of vehicles are ever plugged into the power grid.
Anything that runs on disposable batteries.
Most mobile devices that use rechargeable batteries.
A majority of mobile devices which are used daily use rechargeable batteries and are plugged in when not in use.
Only a tiny fraction of vehicles are ever plugged into the power grid.
While most vehicles are not plugged into the power grid, any vehicle with a computer system has constant power to the computer, making it susceptible to EMP.
making it susceptible to EMP
Folk tend to forget about a vehicle's greatest EMP vulnerability.
Notwithstanding partial Faraday cages created by metal bodies, any vehicle with an exposed radio aerial will be fried by an EMP. The voltage gradient induced into the aerial will flash over in the radio. Most radios have a connection to the same circuits the ECU has, whether connected to the battery at the time or not.
While most vehicles are not plugged into the power grid, any vehicle with a computer system has constant power to the computer, making it susceptible to EMP.
True, but is there enough wire in the car to generate a strong enough surge to actually fry the electronics as opposed to merely disrupting operation and blowing the fuses? Personally I tend to doubt it.
True, but is there enough wire in the car to generate a strong enough surge to actually fry the electronics as opposed to merely disrupting operation and blowing the fuses? Personally I tend to doubt it.
You would be surprised how little it takes to fry a vehicle's computer. While working in a car plant years ago, there was an issue of computer failures resulting from one of the workers choice of underwear generating a static charge. The static discharge was frying the computers.
While working in a car plant years ago, there was an issue of computer failures resulting from one of the workers choice of underwear generating a static charge. The static discharge was frying the computers.
I can believe that. (I also spent 15 years working at a car plant.)
There's a reason WHY when you take your PC apart you're supposed to ground yourself and wear a grounding wristband. Just that simple electrical charge can fry your PC.
The 'Faraday Cage' that is a car body is not a perfect insulator from the outside. You have glass windows that only block a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. You have a satellite antenna or radio antenna reaching up. And even though the car may be turned off, with modern cars unless the battery is physically disconnected, just like your instant on TV, there is ALWAYS at least a little drain on the battery from the internal monitoring systems. Which means the computers can and probably will be fried even if the car is turned off.
What you're doing is confusing a simple overload (which can cause a fuse to blow) with the actual power of an EMP strike. It's the same thing that happens with an actual lightning strike and why a 'surge' suppressor on your home PC is a good idea but may not be enough.
If you're in the U.S., your wall outlets are putting out 120 Volts AC. Many other parts of the world it's 240 VAC. Your car is running off of a 12 Volt DC system. Let's say you have a 20 amp fuse. It takes a finite time for that fuse to blow. If the load on the circuit or the voltage makes it heat up too quickly, then the fuse vaporizes and destroys itself, protecting the component behind it. But we're talking about a voltage input on a vehicle that is still 12 volts (or 24, 36, or 48, depending upon the vehicle.) And if you apply a large enough voltage over a (relatively speaking) long period of time, the fuse WILL blow and protect what's behind it.
Now put a 50,000 volt (or more) charge into that circuit over the span of less than a microsecond. The fuse won't have time to blow before the voltage has gone beyond it's protection. Oh, it'll still probably end up blowing, just too late to protect what it was supposed to.
Same thing happens in your home with your electronics if the pole outside takes a direct lightning strike. You suddenly dump 100 million volts into the line - that's going to vaporize the power line running from the pole to the house. But because it happens so quickly - before the wire is actually destroyed, it transfers that power into your home. Now your surge suppressor is great for handling typical power fluctuations from the power plant, and it might actually take a power surge of, say, 500,000 volts - if it's given enough time to respond. That's why they're great for dealing with strikes far enough away, because the amount of power that actually makes to you if the hit is a couple of miles away is considerably. If it's a direct hit, you're still going to see every piece of electronics in your home get fried.
And that's what makes the EMP so dangerous - you can be half a mile from a lightning bolt hitting and other than hearing a loud noise, the actual atmosphere makes a good insulator for keeping things contained. With the gamma ray flash from a nuke, there isn't anything to help.
(Side note - my military specialty was Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare. We didn't get too much into the EMP effects from high altitude air bursts (which are the most dangerous ones for destroying the electrical systems), we were mostly concerned with fallout patterns, NBC-1 reports, and dealing with casualties from ground bursts. We did touch upon it a little, with training about preparing if we actually got a nuclear attack warning.)
Now put a 50,000 volt (or more) charge into that circuit over the span of less than a microsecond.
It's not the voltage that matters, it's the amps. There is a reason why fuses are rated in amps, not volts.
You can hit a living person with 50,000 or even 500,000 volts at just 1 milli-amp and it isn't going to do any real damage.
A lighting strike is not comparable to an EMP. With a lighting strike, both the voltage and amperage are generated externally to the system hit.
With an EMP induced current, the strength of the current will depend on the length of the conductor hit as much or even more than it is on the raw strength of the EMP.
Again, I am rather skeptical that there is enough wire in a car to get anywhere near the numbers you mentioned.
Yes, the power grid will see massive surges from an EMP, but there are hundreds if not thousands of miles of wire hit all at once to generate those surges.
There is a reason why fuses are rated in amps, not volts.
Fuses are current sensitive devices, but you can't have a current without a voltage, and the higher the voltage, the higher the current.
Most people outside the game don't understand that fuses are not intended to protect equipment. They are intended to protect the wiring. A fuse rating is predicated on what current the wiring behind it will tolerate continuously. Because of this they are typically quite slow to act and not much use against high dv/dt induction.
Most also don't understand that a fuse rating is the current at which it will NOT blow. Testing I have done has shown that heat actuated fuses (like car fuses) will rarely blow below 150% of the rating, and will often not blow until the current reaches 250% of the fuse's rating.
I am rather skeptical that there is enough wire in a car to get anywhere near the numbers you mentioned.
A mild EMP can generate a field of 25KV/m. That sort of field strength will easily induce enough voltage in car wiring to do significant damage.
That sort of field strength will easily induce enough voltage in car wiring to do significant damage.
My comment above was based upon a 50KV/m field. Which is the whole point regarding vehicle electronics. The way so many of the systems are designed on modern vehicles, if you screw up ONE system, even if the rest aren't damaged, it can trigger a fault code in the other computers that prevent the car from operating.
A modern car typically has about a MILE of wire inside it. Think about what an alternator is - two groups of really long wire. Battery sends the initial current, creating the electromagnetic field that allows the coil to start working. You fry the alternator - or just simply blow the voltage regulator - and your car is toast. If it IS running, you may be able to keep it running for a while when an alternator quits working (had that happen to a pickup truck while halfway across the Lake Ponchatrain bridge) but then once the battery is dead, because it has no more charge and no way to recharge it - you're done.
what does "50KV/m field" mean?
It means a voltage gradient of 50,000 volts for every meter, that is, if you were able to measure the voltage between any two points in the field of influence a meter apart, the measurement would be 50,000 volts. And yes, it's a lot.
PotomacBob, the following may help to put Zom and Starfleet Carl's posts in perspective:
1. Voltage is also known as ElectroMotive Force (EMF) and Current is the movement of free electrons. When a Direct Current (DC) voltage from something like a battery is applied across a resistance, the free electrons in the material between the positive and negative sides of the battery begin to move. The negative terminal repels the free electrons and the positive side attracts them; thus, the free electrons flow from negative to positive.
The relationship between DC voltage, current, and resistance is defined by the formula – 1 volt is equal to 1 ampere of current flowing through 1 Ohm of resistance. Think of it as 1 Volt of EMF will result in 1 ampere of free electrons flowing through a DC resistance of 1 Ohm. [NOTE: For DC voltages, the effects of impedance (i.e. resistance to a change in current flow) on DC current are present, but ignored since they are only present when the voltage is first applied.]
The effects of an Alternating Current (AC) voltage applied across a resistance is similar in nature, but there are a few differences. First, the polarity of the voltage applied to each end of the resistance repetitively changes from positive to negative and then from negative to positive. For AC voltages, the DC resistance is present and fixed, and the inductive and capacitive impedances are attempting to prevent a change in the amount of current flowing through the resistance. Therefore the effects of impedance must be added to the DC resistance. These impedances are variable resistances rather than fixed resistances. The impedance and DC resistance cannot be simply added mathematically because of the phase relationship of the AC voltage and AC current. [NOTE: the sum of adding the vectors of an impedance and a DC resistance is referred to as a reactance.]
2. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) can be a DC or AC waveform and the waveform will induce either a DC or an AC voltage. There are a number of things that can create an EMP, but what most of us typically think of is a nuclear explosion. An electromagnetic pulse is usually very short in duration, generally far less than a tenth of a second.
An EMP can contain enough energy to induce an EMF of 50,000 Volts, which is a very high voltage, across 1 meter of wire. A meter of wire generally has less than a tenth of an Ohm of DC resistance, and a small amount of inductive impedance. So assuming the reactance results in a tenth of an Ohm of resistance, the above formal implies that the voltage would induce a current of 500,000 Amperes. The voltage would be applied across the wire virtually instantaneously, but the impedance would resist an instantaneous current. The result is the current would rapidly increase from 0 Amperes at an extremely high rate. The current would create heat and the heat would melt the wire before the current ever reached 500,000 Amperes. Basically, a car's wiring harness would become a bunch of melted wires if subjected to a strong EMP. I get the image of the engine compartment bathed in a shower of molten metal droplets.
3. The cars electronics would be damaged by even a weak EMP. Most Integrated Circuits (ICs) are designed to operate using a power source of less than 20 volts and they are easily damaged by excessive levels of voltage. Some ICs are exceptionally sensitive to electrostatic discharge and they can be damaged by as little as 30 volts. Under the proper conditions, your body can easily build up a static charge of over 35,000 volts.
Once an IC is mounted onto a circuit card, the risk of damage due to static discharge decreases significantly, but the risk is still there. Damage to the ICs in an electronic device is usually caused by a person touching the device's connectors when they have a very strong static charge. I'm speaking of the static charge you build up by walking across a rug, so you can imagine what the EMP from something like a bolt of lightning or nuclear explosion might do to a car's electronics.
There are a number of things that can create an EMP, but what most of us typically think of is a nuclear explosion. An electromagnetic pulse is usually very short in duration, generally far less than a tenth of a second.
An EMP can contain enough energy to induce an EMF of 50,000 Volts, which is a very high voltage, across 1 meter of wire.
Again, going back to a nuclear blast, that would be 50,000 volts/m at what distance from the blast.
I don't believe that it is possible, that there would be no attenuation over distance. And I would expect that attenuation to be quite rapid as the initial energy that when into the EMP would be more or less evenly spread across the surface of a rapidly expanding sphere
Every time you double the distance from the EMP source, the energy density should drop by a factor of 4.
I don't believe that it is possible, that there would be no attenuation over distance.
We never said there wouldn't be attenuation. Keep in mind you're talking about something that moves at, literally, the speed of light, though. But in the one real world test that we have for evidence, in 1962, a 1.4 megaton bomb was detonated at 250 miles altitude over the Pacific Ocean. The calculated figure for the damage caused on the island of Hawaii was 5,600 V/m - volts per meter of wire - at a distance of 900 miles with the peak voltage occurring at 97 microseconds after detonation.
At that distance, approximately 300 streetlights blew their fuses, hundreds of burglar alarms went off, power lines went dead, and thousands of circuit breakers tripped, disrupting electrical power across most of the islands. In addition, about 1/3 of all low earth orbit satellites sustained electrical damage, even at a distance of 10,000 miles from the actual blast, due to the radiation traveling around the Van Allen belts and ultimately were destroyed by it.
Two reasons this wasn't more severe are simple. As you noted, the inverse cube law does apply. Second is there wasn't much chance for actual reflected energy to do damage. Most of the devices intended to measure the blast were actually destroyed because it was more powerful than anticipated.
And you can see why - you pop an airburst the same size 250 miles up over Kansas City. The effects of that single bomb would be felt all over the country. Now again in looking at that map, take your compass, put the point on Kansas City, the pencil point on Chicago, and draw a circle. If 900 miles was 6 KV/m, then 450 miles is 24 KV/m. (Again, factor of 4.) Indianapolis, Nashville, Memphis, Jackson, Little Rock, Dallas / Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Denver, Minneapolis ... no ground damage at all. But St. Louis, Des Moines, Wichita, and many more take a 96 KV/m hit. (It would take 4 total airbursts to take out the entire continental U.S.)
For those of you down under, an airburst over the middle of NSW takes out everything on the coast from Brisbane to Adelaide. An airburst of Nagoya, Japan, takes out almost the entire island. An airburst over Liverpool takes out all of the UK and Ireland.
Oh, and that's assuming the 1.4 megaton bomb, and takes 9 of them. Our biggest bomb we currently stock is 1.2 megatons, so it may take 12 - 15 of them to cover the same territory. We have about 600 of them. Isn't that a reassuring thought?
Sounds like the same test July 9, 1962. Although our sources' numbers differ slightly.
Sounds like the same test July 9, 1962. Although our sources' numbers differ slightly.
Same test. Instead of just using the Quora answer, I actually did a bunch more digging into the reference articles. I'm enough of a nerd that I spent almost 3 hours last night reading some of the available background information, including a rather fascinating piece that dug into the actual physical construction of the street lights that blew, their wiring gauges, the electrical capabilities of the island of Hawaii, and such.
The 5,600 KV/m figure is calculated from the effects of the damage that actually occurred, and I suspect the 6,000 KV/m figure is simply a rounding notation. Most of the sensors that were closer to Johnston Island were destroyed because of how strong the EMP burst actually was, which was considerably more than they expected.
We never said there wouldn't be attenuation.
Yet you never mention at what distance, which is vitally important, when talking about field strength. Ignoring distance is effectively ignoring the issue of attenuation.
Yet you never mention at what distance, which is vitally important, when talking about field strength.
Since it seemed like your argument was that an EMP couldn't produce that much field strength in the first place, and we're also talking about a radius from the source of about 400 MILES where the EMP field is in 50,000 KV/m, distance didn't seem to be that relevant. Especially when the other items we were considering like lightning strikes, where the distances where field strength matters are measured in a few feet or a few yards.
It really doesn't matter a whole lot whether you're 200 miles from the source or 300 miles from the source, since there's no direct physical damage directly caused by the explosion. Everything electronic within an area of about 64,000 square miles is toast, and many things within an area of 250,000 square miles are hurting.
Since it seemed like your argument was that an EMP couldn't produce that much field strength in the first place, and we're also talking about a radius from the source of about 400 MILES where the EMP field is in 50,000 KV/m, distance didn't seem to be that relevant.
It wasn't an argument at all, simply an expression of personal skepticism.
You mentioned a field strength with no citation and no mention of distance/attenuation. That did more to give me the impression that you were talking out of your ass than that you had any real knowledge of what you were talking about.
You mentioned a field strength with no citation and no mention of distance/attenuation.
I'll give you credit for that one, it is my fault for not mentioning distance in the first place. Unfortunately, I really do know a bit about this stuff, since that's what I used to 'play' with when I was in the military. And I tend to take shortcuts at times, assuming that everyone knows my references without me taking the time to explain them.
I've been told in the past that I'm a generalist, not a specialist. I do have some things that I know basically everything there is to know about, but those topics are limited. I do try to know at least a little bit about everything possible. In this, I blame Robert Heinlein and his Lazarus Long quote, reading it when I was young and impressionable.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
No argument from me for most of that DS. I just used the numbers given, but . . .
The Starfish Prime test conducted by the US used a 1.4 megaton nuclear device that was detonated about 250 miles above a point 19 miles from Johnston Island. The EMP strength in Hawaii, 2500 km away, was estimated at 6 kV/m. I suspect that value was calculated from measurements taken closer to Johnston Island.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-an-EMP-wave-caused-by-a-nuclear-explosion
The EMP strength of that event at 625 km, a quarter of the distance, would have been about 96 kV/m, so 50 kV/m is not unrealistic.
It's not the voltage that matters, it's the amps. There is a reason why fuses are rated in amps, not volts.
You can hit a living person with 50,000 or even 500,000 volts at just 1 milli-amp and it isn't going to do any real damage.
Agreed (with a minor reservation). In the office building where I worked the carpets caused static - they said it was about 20000volts which caused the spark when you touched a door handle.
However one susceptible person (not one of our staff) touched the plate beside the lift push and was thrown across the lobby - perhaps 15 feet. He was shocked (both ways!) but otherwise unhurt. Tests showed that it had to have been static.
In the office building where I worked the carpets caused static - they said it was about 20000volts which caused the spark when you touched a door handle.
In circumstances I have been unable to identify, I get a nasty static shock from my car door handle :(
AJ
In circumstances I have been unable to identify
Shoes? Synthetic tyres? Dry dusty wind?
Shoes? Synthetic tyres? Dry dusty wind?
Warm/hot and dry weather may be a factor. It's happened once or twice inside my garage so I don't think wind is a factor. I have no idea what the tyres are made from - I assumed it was rubber but I guess I'm about to learn otherwise. Footwear varied, from leather shoes to synthetic trainers.
AJ
In circumstances I have been unable to identify, I get a nasty static shock from my car door handle :(
Generally, this results more from what you are wearing generating the static charge during dry periods. I have a couple of coats that are guaranteed to give me a shock at the door. :p
In circumstances I have been unable to identify, I get a nasty static shock from my car door handle :(
What frequently happens is the person slides across the car seat and as their pants rub across the seat material a static charge builds up.
I have rubbed dryer sheets on the seats of a car that had a bad problem with generating static electricity with my normal outfit.
Look up Triboelectric effect for more details on that type of static electricity buildup.
You just have a shocking personality.
How electrifying!
Okay, seriously though - if the circumstances are able to be replicated, I'd consider taking a Sunday afternoon and just see if you CAN get shocked and then do some process of elimination. While the tires themselves have a rubber compound on the outside, what is the inside made of? Steel belts.
What MAY be happening is that the car itself has generated the charge from driving it and somehow or other when you got out, you didn't ground it. (I'm thinking of air blowing across the car causing this.) Then when you walk up to the car, it's not the charge coming from you, it's that you're grounding the charge that built up in the car.
Another thing if it happened a LOT could be an electrical fault in a door. Power window or power door lock wires inside the door panel has insulation rubbed off it and it's making intermittent contact with the physical metal door lock mechanism inside the door, giving you the occasional zap.
Another thing if it happened a LOT could be an electrical fault in a door.
When a person approaches their car, they typically touch the door. The tires insulate the car body, so an electrical short to the chassis could be anywhere in the car. However, that would yield a consistent shock, so I would lean toward static.
I recall walking across a concrete floor on a low humidity day and getting a shock when I touched a water fountain. Perhaps something like is causing Awnlee's problem.
The tires insulate the car body
Not always from static discharge. High carbon content or low synthetic content tyres bleed off static charges relatively quickly.
I liked the little grounding straps I saw on cars when I was in the UK. They were bolted to the car and, when the vehicle was stopped, touched the ground. When the vehicle was in motion, the strap was light enough that the air-flow would lift it up, keeping it from wearing down from friction.
I liked the little grounding straps I saw on cars when I was in the UK
They were used here and other places too. Unfortunately, they were marketed as remediation for car sickness, which they didn't help at all, so they just faded away. They can still be purchased, but you don't see many of them.
Provided you have enough spare fuses on hand, any vehicles should be fine.
Not sure that is true.
The damage done by EMPs is via induced voltages. Currents are secondary as a result of those voltages.
By the time any fuses blow (usually slowly), the damage has already been done to sensitive electronics like vehicle ECUs, which are notoriously poorly protected from over-voltage, anyway.
If you want to go preppy, take a car with points and a carby. An EMP won't stop him :-)
Provided you have enough spare fuses on hand, any vehicles should be fine.
Clarification on my phrase, all the vehicles. An older car using a carb and limited electronics should be fine. A modern car in an underground garage protected by multiple levels of concrete or inside a full enclosed metal box that acts like a Faraday cage, should be fine.
Anything sitting out in the open that's relatively new (as in, made since 2005 or so), is fucked. At best, you're going to lose all or most of the electronics, and at worst, you now have a paperweight.
Keep in mind that the laboratory tests on EMP were only done on older cars (2002 and older) and they didn't expose them to a strong enough burst to actually hurt them beyond the vehicles being repairable.
Oceans rise, we can move the people somewhere else. It's happened in the past, it can happen in the future
I'd like to see the evidence for that.
New Orleans is a typical place where lots of folk have been moved before, but that was 'temporary' and short term. Predictions are for 500,000 needing permanent relocation in New Orleans alone. Where? How?
It's not like they can be spread out over the US. There will be plenty of other cities having their own problems.
Remember that this will be permanent, so stadiums and relief centers won't cut it.
Predictions are for 500,000 needing permanent relocation in New Orleans alone. Where? How?
Pffff, a tiny little country like the UK takes in about half that number of immigrants per year. The US should find it easy.
AJ
Well I was joking. Presumably if sea levels rose appreciably, far more cities than just New Orleans would be affected on the Eastern seaboard alone. But more importantly, what would happen to NCIS New Orleans? ;)
AJ
Predictions are for 500,000 needing permanent relocation in New Orleans alone. Where? How?
It's not like they can be spread out over the US. There will be plenty of other cities having their own problems.
Why can't they be spread out? There's a lot of empty land out here. I didn't say it was going to be easy. But in a permanent relocation, Idaho may need more potato pickers, Oklahoma and Texas can use oil field workers. If you want to be a victim, then stay put and drown. If you want to survive, then move your butt and find something to do.
If you want to be a victim, then stay put and drown. If you want to survive, then move your butt and find something to do.
I get the Libertarian view on reactive responsibilities, but it seems incongruous to me that individuals should be held responsible for their own welfare after an unnatural catastrophic event they had no possible influence in avoiding or mitigating.
I also get that life was not meant to be fair, but was it actually meant to be tuned to the benefit of self-serving assholes?
The Bonobos had it right until the Chimpanzee DNA took over.
we can move the people somewhere else. It's happened in the past, it can happen in the future
I'd like to see the evidence for that.
The USA emptied Christmas Island for its own use because it was convenient. I am pretty sure Diego Garcia was emptied for the same reason.
ISTR that some Pacific islands had to be emptied when the seas rose
The USA emptied Christmas Island for its own use because it was convenient.
No. Christmas Island is Australian territory and it had a population of ~1800 as of 2016. It was invaded by Japan during WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island
You may be thinking of Bikini Atoll which the US used for nuclear testing.
I am pretty sure Diego Garcia was emptied for the same reason.
Diego Garcia used to be a UK colony. The UK and the US working together forced off the existing population in the 1960s so the US could establish a military base there. The base is still in use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
ISTR that some Pacific islands had to be emptied when the seas rose
Coral Atolls tend to rise with the seas, if left on their own, as the reef grows upward as the water rises.
The problem for the Tuvalu Islands isn't rising seas. They have mined the coral atolls are made of for use as building material causing serious land subsidence.
Venice Italy's main problem is land subsidence rather than rising seas. The floor of the bay the city was built on is relatively young sediment and it's still settling causing the bottom of the bay under the buildings to sink as the sediment packs tighter together.
Oceans rise, we can move the people somewhere else.
I believe you mean "empires fall".
Oh, and the Arctic is defined as 66.33deg and higher, isn't it?
Our base was at 67.133deg North and I was working at 67.288deg North.
Bearing in mind that this was the side of an icecap a day's march from anything except a wild reindeer I loved Google's advice tonight:
DELAYS
Light traffic in this area
No known road disruptions. Traffic incidents will show up here.
What's with those guys?
A number of recent years, (2009, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) show a similar pattern, with the early part of the year showing much warmer than average (but still well below freezing) temperatures, but it doesn't carry through to the part of the year where the arctic normally gets above freezing.
That falls in line with most observations about climate change. While the average temperatures are rising, the most noticeable changes are the upper air currents, meaning cold area are suddenly warmer, warm area are suddenly cooler, the winters are sometimes warmer, and the summers are cooler. Oh, and we're having more extreme storms in most major bodies of water.
Something is going on, but you can't discount the changes based of contrary isolated statistics.
By that point, if the pattern holds, the summer peak temperatures will be at or below average.
If nothing else, it provides excellent fodder for sci-fi stories. Almost as good as Sharknados!
Oh, and we're having more extreme storms in most major bodies of water.
Not True. The measure of overall hurricane intensity is called ACE (accumulated cyclone energy). There is no increasing trend in ACE, in fact, if there is any trend at all, annual ACE is declining.
The guardian does tend to report climate change positively, but this phenomenon was not fabricated by the Guardian, unlike other rags of note.
The guardian has a specific target readership - middle class readers who are affluent in time and money. With few worries in their readership's personal lives, the guardian tries to compensate by fearmongering.
Most UK rags are actually very good about not fabricating stories. On the rare occasions they do, they're very quickly and publicly exposed.
AJ
Brexit begs to differ.
The UK news landscape is one of the vilest pit I have ever seen. Blatant lies that either never get rescinded or only after several days in a little corner of the paper.
the shit the daily mail and sun pull would have them lose their license in most of the other European countries.
I don't think there's any doubt which side of the political spectrum you support.
I vary my newspaper diet in the hope of getting a balanced view. I don't find the daily mail or sun any worse than the daily mirror or guardian - they're all very partisan in their reporting.
AJ
With few worries in their readership's personal lives, the guardian tries to compensate by fearmongering
I don't read the graniaud but on another forum there is a man who quotes his letters apparently published by that newspaper. He makes Stalin look like a benevolent favourite rightwing auntie.
Apparently I was at the same school at the same time but I didn't know him, thank goodness.
The guardian has a specific target readership - middle class readers who are affluent in time and money. With few worries in their readership's personal lives, the guardian tries to compensate by fearmongering.
I only used the Guardian as a reference because it was the first result of my Google search. I saw it had a link to the actual statistics, and figured the numbers would speak louder than the source.
The guardian is pretty good at referencing sources, but you have to be careful because sometimes it's very selective. But the latter applies to all newspaper sources. Caveat emptor.
AJ
'NCIS: Antartica', or 'NCIS: The Bering Straight', or, for a historical piece, 'NCIS: The Panama Canal'.
Science Fiction future vesrion: 'NCIS: Sea of Tranquility'.
I just had to go and google that. Sadly, as far as I know, DS9 never made it to UK network TV so I've never had a chance to watch it :(
They were actually introduced with the Ferengi back in The Next Generation, where several of "the rules" had been invoked or otherwise mentioned prior to DS9 becoming even a pilot.
Naturally, with DS9 having multiple Ferengi as part of the regular cast, they saw a lot more "fleshing out" over there.
I don't remember when/where/how, but IIRC, it had been established previous to DS9 that the Ferengi didn't allow their women to wear clothes, it was even one of their rules as I recall. Probably a much earlier TNG episode where there probably was a comment made by a Ferengi about the women being dressed.
Probably a much earlier TNG episode where there probably was a comment made by a Ferengi about the women being dressed.
As I recall, it came up in the very first TNG episode involving the Ferengi.
It was early enough in the series that Tasha Yar was still the Security Chief, so between Tasha and Diana Troy, there were two women on the Enterprise bridge crew, plus their Chief Medical Officer was also a woman.
So there were at least 2 if not 3 female Star Fleet officers involved in the Enterprise D's first encounter with the Ferengi.
"Gibbs' Rule Number 39"
I assume you believe Americans would know what that means. I'm American and I don't.
As a non-American, I was hoping you'd say whether you were familiar with the context. I guess too many spoilers have since been posted ;)
AJ
You guessed correctly. After the source of your reference became obvious, I thought it more important to support your decision to murder this ignoble object of your affection.
Do you understand the context of "Gibbs' Rule Number 39" without having to look it up?
As an American, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"Gibbs' Rule Number 39"
I know what a Gibbs slap is, but even as an American, I don't know what that is, by that name.
Having actually looked it up, though, it fits within some of my own religious beliefs, which are founded upon the readings of Deepak Chopra, Neale Donald Walsh, and of Asatru.
"Gibbs' Rule Number 39"
For those who do not know, here is Gibbs' Rule #39: from Season 7 Episode 21 'Obsession'
There is no such thing as coincidence.
If you are interested in the rest of Gibbs' Rules they can be found here.
For those who do not know, here is Gibbs' Rule #39: from Season 7 Episode 21 'Obsession'
There is no such thing as coincidence.
Which is what I heard a shrink say once. Only he put it as "A cigar is never just a cigar." He meant there is meaning in everything, not that a cigar is always a substitute for penis.
bb
There is no such thing as coincidence.
I prefer the quote I read in a few stories that goes:
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
I prefer
Once is chance, twice is happenstance, thrice is enemy action.
I'd never heard of Gibbs Rule #39. As a fan of old-old mysteries, the rule has been stated by other fictional detectives long before Gibbs ever appeared on the scene.
I'd never heard of Gibbs Rule #39. As a fan of old-old mysteries, the rule has been stated by other fictional detectives long before Gibbs ever appeared on the scene.
Every investigator has their own set of 'rules'. I only found and posted this version in response to the OP.
CZ
I think the clear consensus is: never assume that any TV program is so ubiquitous that everyone across the entire globe, understands any arcane reference, or even cares what it might be. If you're going to use it in a story, you'd best supply adequate context.
Even in the U.S., network television is not as popular as it was back in the 50s and 60s when we only had three channels. Now, with well over 200 on most cable packages, many are cutting their cords entirely, giving up on 'broadcast' TV and instead going with alternates like Netflicks.
never assume that any TV program is so ubiquitous that everyone across the entire globe
How about a novel turned movie — Catch 22
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know what that means?
Now, with well over 200 on most cable packages
Half of which are 80% reruns of broadcast network TV shows.
AJ
I assume you are not referring to the famous Grace Darling. (As part of the exam for the school I went to I had to be able to write a 500 word essay about her - my mother's choice of subject. I was 8 1/2 at the time - ugh)
As for "darling" as "sweetie" or "sweetie-pie" or "luv" or "love" etc, as another Brit of course I do.
As for "Gibbs' Rule Number 39" no way do I know it and haven't yet looked it up
"Kill your darlings" is a much quoted piece of writing advice, the intention of which is to get the writer to question any line or scene of which they're overly fond but which actually detracts from the story.
AJ
"Kill your darlings" is a much quoted piece of writing advice
culpa mea - I should have remembered that from a post a long time ago in this forum
Gibbs' Rule Number 39
I'm German, communicate a lot in English, but I've never heard of this before. What is NCIS?
A popular, long-running US TV crime drama - NCIS stands for (IIRC) Naval Criminal Investigative Service. The team of (mostly) good-looking model types is headed by grizzled former marine sniper Leroy Jethro Gibbs, who has his own set of investigative rules (which are not formally codified). Mentioning the rules is a recurring theme in investigations.
Wikipedia (spit) page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIS_(TV_series)
Hope that helps,
AJ
Should we be panicking?
Depends where you live, and if it is visited by hurricanes, tornados or cyclones (or any other bad weather involving wind, precipitation, or rising water levels.) Most of Florida is in trouble. Seattle, not so much.
Aircraft have wires from the wings to shed static; why can't sharpish edges on a car (like the back edge of the rear wing) do the same or is the paint an insulator?
Aircraft have wires from the wings to shed static;
Aircraft are also going hundreds of miles per hour, so they typically can end up building up a much bigger charge than your car ever could hope to build up. Airplanes get hit by lightning more than people realize. It's just that it typically doesn't cause any damage to the plane while it's in the air, and primarily those trailing edge antenna are there to redirect the lightning strike along the skin of the aircraft.
For fun sometime, you ought to watch a video of the guys that ride on the helicopter skid and then get out and work on live high tension lines.
Aircraft have wires from the wings to shed static
They have wicks, which are not actually wires because they have a high resistance up to 200Mohms. Their purpose is not to allow discharge, but to channel it through a device that manages the corona so that (mainly) large RF frequency generations are avoided.
Not such a big concern on cars.
I recall when ESD protective measures first became a major concern in my company. Most of us knew very little about protective measures for working with ESD sensitive components and circuit cards.
The line manager of our circuit card fabrication shop had to put in ESD workstations. All she knew was the ESD system had to be grounded. They had a contractor cut a hole in the concrete floor and copper rods were driven into the subsoil. The company required a maximum resistance of 1 ohm between the ground point and the soil to ensure a very high conductivity discharge path.
Total cost was over $100,000. Then they learned that the ESD mats and wrist straps had a 1 megohm resistor in series to ensure that the discharge rate was very low.
Then they learned that the ESD mats and wrist straps had a 1 megohm resistor in series to ensure that the discharge rate was very low.
Ignorance can be expensive. Fashion also. All that is required is a normalizing of potential between the operator and the device(s) i.e. the bench mat. It's all relative. Whether the operator is "grounded" is immaterial if the device isn't.
I used to work in a building built in the early 70's. They hired out the job of rewiring the place in the early 80's to install good grounds for all of the computers that were being purchased. This was for a large building where thousands of people work.
I heard a few years ago that the electrical contractor diligently did all of the work and never connected the ground line to anything. The shoddy work was not caught by the building inspectors.
The shoddy work was not caught by the building inspectors.
Shoddy is a questionable term in your account.
In a building, it is the load center (main circuit breaker box) that is grounded. The load center should have been grounded by a prior contractor and should not have required grounding. When you say the contractor rewired the building, it sounds like he strung Romex between the load center (and subpanels) and the electrical receptacles. The ground and neutral wires of the Romex cable (most likely two wires with ground) would have been connected to the load center's respective bus bars and the ground bus bar would have been already connected to the ground point. Since the load center should have been grounded, the contract between the building owner and contractor and the building permit would not have required the contractor to install a separate ground and since the permit didn't specify installation of a ground point, the building inspector would not have checked to ensure the work had been done.
Except that what I remember, and I could be wrong, the contract was to upgrade all of the electrical circuits to provide a good ground.
As I said, I might be wrong or remember incorrectly, but I do know that everyone was surprised when they came in for the remodel and there was no grounding on any of the circuits.
