That is the point, the old diesel is a stick so you can bump start it, it doesnt need an alternator. You could literally throw it out on the ground and as long as it had fuel it will run, no battery, no alternator, nothing.
Will Your Car Survive an EMP?
- Thread starter Passport1
- Start date
This one was.
Faraday also was consistent with spacing and gaps. Bottom of car introduces unpredictable exposures. Hood is not really grounded, or if it is, is loosely only at certain points. Entire ceilings are glass in some vehicles. What is the wavelength of the EMP? What is the size of the holes in then”cage?”
Emp or not, the car is only as useful as the tank of gas in it. This is probably nerdy/dumb, but who is hoarding PV panels in their shed just in case?
Searching for food would be really really hard. How many rations can we keep on hand?
Mechanical diesel, pre-silicone ignitions, and none of that works with a modern BEV which is about the only thing you could run off of renewables, and solar will be restrained by cloud cover.
Hug your moms and spouses and kids and fellow bitogers. Life is precious!
Emp or not, the car is only as useful as the tank of gas in it. This is probably nerdy/dumb, but who is hoarding PV panels in their shed just in case?
Searching for food would be really really hard. How many rations can we keep on hand?
Mechanical diesel, pre-silicone ignitions, and none of that works with a modern BEV which is about the only thing you could run off of renewables, and solar will be restrained by cloud cover.
Hug your moms and spouses and kids and fellow bitogers. Life is precious!
The injection pump needs 12v to work.
Not on an old mechanical pump. Our old farm tractors had mechanical pumps. They didn't even have a fuel pump - the tank was over the engine and gravity feed.
The pt pump on my peterbilt could let it run without power. The stanadyn on my ford and the 6.2 gm diesels need 12v to open a solenoid so they will run. I dont know how you could bypass that.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
A few things to note here ...
Regarding old mechanical diesel engines with traditional 12v systems, they won't be affected by EMPs or solar flares. The thing to understand is that EMPs and solar flare do NOT affect traditional basic wiring circuits. The only thing that is potentially at risk is circuit boards with transistors, diodes, etc.
Anything with a printed circuit board (PCB) or components with said elements will be very much at risk. Modern diesel engines with all their computer controls most certainly would be "at risk". They might survive; they may not. They are heavily dependent upon all manner of PCB wizardry.
Not so the basic old diesel engines. An ol' skool diesel just has a typical 12v starter and will possibly have a solenoid which holds the fuel rack open in the injection pump. Or, perhaps the fuel rack is manually worked (such as the old shut-off with old keyless tractors). Those are not affected by EMP or solar flare concerns.
Both my Kubota Grand-L tractors have solenoids which open/close the fuel rack with the "ignition" key. They are spring loaded to "close" the rack and shut down the fuel. When the key is "on", it pulls the rack open and allows the rack to move with the throttle. Should my solenoid fail electronically, I can just remove the solenoid manually, cover it with a small plate, and jump the starter with a set of jumper cables (I would know; I've actually did it as an experiment). To manually shut off the engine, I just manually move the little lever on top of the pump because once the solenoid is gone, there is no spring pressure to bias the rack closed.
Old diesels are pretty much immune to EMP and solar flare issues.
Regarding old mechanical diesel engines with traditional 12v systems, they won't be affected by EMPs or solar flares. The thing to understand is that EMPs and solar flare do NOT affect traditional basic wiring circuits. The only thing that is potentially at risk is circuit boards with transistors, diodes, etc.
Anything with a printed circuit board (PCB) or components with said elements will be very much at risk. Modern diesel engines with all their computer controls most certainly would be "at risk". They might survive; they may not. They are heavily dependent upon all manner of PCB wizardry.
Not so the basic old diesel engines. An ol' skool diesel just has a typical 12v starter and will possibly have a solenoid which holds the fuel rack open in the injection pump. Or, perhaps the fuel rack is manually worked (such as the old shut-off with old keyless tractors). Those are not affected by EMP or solar flare concerns.
Both my Kubota Grand-L tractors have solenoids which open/close the fuel rack with the "ignition" key. They are spring loaded to "close" the rack and shut down the fuel. When the key is "on", it pulls the rack open and allows the rack to move with the throttle. Should my solenoid fail electronically, I can just remove the solenoid manually, cover it with a small plate, and jump the starter with a set of jumper cables (I would know; I've actually did it as an experiment). To manually shut off the engine, I just manually move the little lever on top of the pump because once the solenoid is gone, there is no spring pressure to bias the rack closed.
Old diesels are pretty much immune to EMP and solar flare issues.
More complex than I am thinking.
The old Case 4 cylinder diesels I am thinking of simply had a cam driven mechanical pump. Fuel was fed into the pump with the gravity tank.
We also had one of the original Ford 7.3's (IH build or design I believe) and It had a mechanical injector pump and a mechanical lift pump. They changed later on I think. I think the old GM 6.2's were like that also - but they had other problems I believe.
A solenoid is just an actuator that moves something. Take it off and move whatever its moving by hand, unless its cycling something in operations then I guess your hosed.
The really old diesels didn't need electricity for anything. Thats mainly why they ended up in everything in the third world.
dnewton3
Staff member
Also, there's really two distinct topics which are under all this:
- direct nuclear blast events
- EMP events
The former is really about the carnage and devastation from the nuclear blast and fallout. For these events, the blast has to be reasonably close to ground level. I'm not a nuclear weapons expert, but I would say the blast radius needs to be fairly close to have a physical impact. It's about direct burst energy and subsequent toxic fallout.
The EMP event is quite the opposite. This is because the physical blast is irrelevant. It's the energy emissions which matter. They travel essentially unbounded. It would not be inconceivable that a nuke used for EMP purposes would be exploded perhaps 50-100 miles, or more, above the Earth's surface, so that the "radius" of the affected area is maximized. It's essentially a line-of-sight thing. I don't know that death and sickness would be of direct consequence. It's the total loss of most (all?) technology which matters.
And to that end, the general thinking is that EMP attacks would happen in winter, simply because it's much harder to stay alive when it's 15F, than when it's 85F in summer. No energy and no PCBs means your furnaces won't work, etc. It's not nearly as deadly when your AC doesn't work. Not that anyone asked ...
- direct nuclear blast events
- EMP events
The former is really about the carnage and devastation from the nuclear blast and fallout. For these events, the blast has to be reasonably close to ground level. I'm not a nuclear weapons expert, but I would say the blast radius needs to be fairly close to have a physical impact. It's about direct burst energy and subsequent toxic fallout.
The EMP event is quite the opposite. This is because the physical blast is irrelevant. It's the energy emissions which matter. They travel essentially unbounded. It would not be inconceivable that a nuke used for EMP purposes would be exploded perhaps 50-100 miles, or more, above the Earth's surface, so that the "radius" of the affected area is maximized. It's essentially a line-of-sight thing. I don't know that death and sickness would be of direct consequence. It's the total loss of most (all?) technology which matters.
And to that end, the general thinking is that EMP attacks would happen in winter, simply because it's much harder to stay alive when it's 15F, than when it's 85F in summer. No energy and no PCBs means your furnaces won't work, etc. It's not nearly as deadly when your AC doesn't work. Not that anyone asked ...
People often forget that extreme cold kills much more than extreme heat.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 490
Non-mechanical fuel injection pumps, they need zero electricity
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 490
Modern vehicles with computers will fry in an EMP
The only way to protect them is an actual Faraday cage around the vehicle.
Nuclear hardening or shielding is the only possible escape from an EMP.
The only way to protect them is an actual Faraday cage around the vehicle.
Nuclear hardening or shielding is the only possible escape from an EMP.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
Great book, well written. The first 1/3 was the scariest to me. Drove home the point of a submarine off the Alaskan coast with an incredibly short time frame to deliver the missile.
I can't comprehend 135,000,000F!!! Or how an entire building can be burnt to ash instantly. Food and water irradiated for eons await the remainder of humanity. A truly frightening scenario.
Professor Brian Cox on our nuclear stupidity:
Professor Cox has a succinct way of getting out complex thoughts and processes and makes it available for all. In relating to EMP, I think the conversion is somewhat esoteric in the fact that if the trigger is pulled, we will all pay the price for our collective failure to rein in the ensuing damage, which is my point in posting his thoughts. There are specifics I won't discuss but suffice it to say that no matter the device, EMP is the least of your worries. What follows is what matters, and how the world as a whole reacts to it. If you think of the natural disasters like Katrina, Sarajevo, Buenos Aires, what is important is what you can do and provide to the collective, not your car and your ability to run. At some point you run out of fuel, parts, or it gets stolen or destroyed.
If you want to protect your car from an EMP, then take a look at Farady's work and apply it to your garage. The earlier comments about wavelengths, mesh design, path, and such are important and can be implemented if you desire.
Professor Cox has a succinct way of getting out complex thoughts and processes and makes it available for all. In relating to EMP, I think the conversion is somewhat esoteric in the fact that if the trigger is pulled, we will all pay the price for our collective failure to rein in the ensuing damage, which is my point in posting his thoughts. There are specifics I won't discuss but suffice it to say that no matter the device, EMP is the least of your worries. What follows is what matters, and how the world as a whole reacts to it. If you think of the natural disasters like Katrina, Sarajevo, Buenos Aires, what is important is what you can do and provide to the collective, not your car and your ability to run. At some point you run out of fuel, parts, or it gets stolen or destroyed.
If you want to protect your car from an EMP, then take a look at Farady's work and apply it to your garage. The earlier comments about wavelengths, mesh design, path, and such are important and can be implemented if you desire.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I found this article; it's seems to be a credibly written critique of the supposed "study" of the EMP vehicle test done by the US government ...
https://www.futurescience.com/emp/vehicles.html
This article points out a few things I've already mentioned:
- anything which has a conductor entering into the purported "cage" will act like an antenna and funnel the EMP effect into the cage, making the cage ineffective. This means that any metal building which has electrical power going into it will provide a path for the radiative burst to get into the building. Any component or device directly connected to the power supply system will likely be fried (your computer and TV ; cell phone if it's being charged). Further, the EMP effect can actually be radiated via those power pathways and have an effect on components sitting near the pathways (say your cell phone is sitting on the countertop near the outlet, but not plugged in). In fact, the study specifically quotes a pioneer of this kind of research and he specifically calls out the fact that metal clad vehicles which use the typical 12v grounded chassis system are simply porting the effect directly into the vehicles systems. The Faraday cage effect is useless when you ground the operational electronics to the "cage" itself; the cage becomes the antenna for the radiated energy and passes it directly to the system components !
- the "test" done by the US EMP Commission was very poorly done due to a variety of reasons. First, they were responsible for the vehicles and had to return them in the prior functional state to the other governmental departments from which they were borrowed. The study did not have funding to purchase sacrificial vehicles or for major vehicle repairs, so the "study" effect was purposely limited to bias a favorably low-damage result.
- (NOTE: this is probably the most important thing to understand about the study) ... Because the study had to comply with the condition above (returning vehicles in a functional state)... the EMP effect was purposely toned down and not run at maximum effect. Also in the study, they acknowledge that the physical limitations of the test equipment will not allow a realistic replication of nuclear EMP. In fact, there is no real way to understand what would truly happen with a real nuclear EMP detonation, without experiencing one. To understand the real effects of EMP from a nuclear blast, one has to experience that blast of radiated energy. But to do so would have a very real risk of truly debilitating anything within the blast radius. In other words, the "study" was completely unable to really simulate what would truly happen.
- there was significant disagreement within the Commission about how to report the findings; there appears to be a serious "white-washing" which occurred. Some members believed the "study" was very misleading in its conclusions and gave a false sense of risks.
- the study used vehicles from 1986 to 2002; hardly representative of the stuff we have today. That's stuff from 25+ years ago. The integration and proliferation of CAN and LIN systems may well magnify the EMP risks nowadays. Quoting the study:
- the test results indicate that they can define a saturation level which has an undesirable effects. IOW, the study proved at what level many vehicles will experience some level of failure to varying degrees. But the study did NOT apply a realistic energy level akin to what would take place with a true nuclear burst from a weapon specifically designed for such effect.
**********************************
My point is that anyone who points to this study and says "See - vehicles will be fine" is foolishly relying on a watered down test at best.
I implore you to read the entire article I've linked ... you won't feel nearly as warm and fuzzy after you're done.
.
https://www.futurescience.com/emp/vehicles.html
This article points out a few things I've already mentioned:
- anything which has a conductor entering into the purported "cage" will act like an antenna and funnel the EMP effect into the cage, making the cage ineffective. This means that any metal building which has electrical power going into it will provide a path for the radiative burst to get into the building. Any component or device directly connected to the power supply system will likely be fried (your computer and TV ; cell phone if it's being charged). Further, the EMP effect can actually be radiated via those power pathways and have an effect on components sitting near the pathways (say your cell phone is sitting on the countertop near the outlet, but not plugged in). In fact, the study specifically quotes a pioneer of this kind of research and he specifically calls out the fact that metal clad vehicles which use the typical 12v grounded chassis system are simply porting the effect directly into the vehicles systems. The Faraday cage effect is useless when you ground the operational electronics to the "cage" itself; the cage becomes the antenna for the radiated energy and passes it directly to the system components !
- the "test" done by the US EMP Commission was very poorly done due to a variety of reasons. First, they were responsible for the vehicles and had to return them in the prior functional state to the other governmental departments from which they were borrowed. The study did not have funding to purchase sacrificial vehicles or for major vehicle repairs, so the "study" effect was purposely limited to bias a favorably low-damage result.
- (NOTE: this is probably the most important thing to understand about the study) ... Because the study had to comply with the condition above (returning vehicles in a functional state)... the EMP effect was purposely toned down and not run at maximum effect. Also in the study, they acknowledge that the physical limitations of the test equipment will not allow a realistic replication of nuclear EMP. In fact, there is no real way to understand what would truly happen with a real nuclear EMP detonation, without experiencing one. To understand the real effects of EMP from a nuclear blast, one has to experience that blast of radiated energy. But to do so would have a very real risk of truly debilitating anything within the blast radius. In other words, the "study" was completely unable to really simulate what would truly happen.
- there was significant disagreement within the Commission about how to report the findings; there appears to be a serious "white-washing" which occurred. Some members believed the "study" was very misleading in its conclusions and gave a false sense of risks.
- the study used vehicles from 1986 to 2002; hardly representative of the stuff we have today. That's stuff from 25+ years ago. The integration and proliferation of CAN and LIN systems may well magnify the EMP risks nowadays. Quoting the study:
- the test results indicate that they can define a saturation level which has an undesirable effects. IOW, the study proved at what level many vehicles will experience some level of failure to varying degrees. But the study did NOT apply a realistic energy level akin to what would take place with a true nuclear burst from a weapon specifically designed for such effect.
**********************************
My point is that anyone who points to this study and says "See - vehicles will be fine" is foolishly relying on a watered down test at best.
I implore you to read the entire article I've linked ... you won't feel nearly as warm and fuzzy after you're done.
.
Last edited:
Will an EMP affect motorcycles which generally don't have fuel pumps? Will it keep my 50 year old BMW airhead from starting?
My 1965 VW Beetle will still go because it still uses an old style generator and points. My only issue will be fuel and getting my wife to drive so I can protect us with our shotgun.
My Lincoln would. No transistors in that.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky