# BOV and EMP



## Padre

I just bought a 2002 Chevy Tahoe for a BOV and I am pretty happy with it so far, I have a number of modifications I plan to make to it but taking the computer out of it seems impossible, given my automotive skills and cash flow. 

And so, I am wondering about options for a bug out vehicle in case of EMP. Anyone have any ideas about where to find working vehicles, i.e. without much in the way of electronics, in case of EMP? 

I believe that my home is not viable because of its proximity to a Nuke plant, and so I am going to NEED to bug out 250 miles to my retreat in case of EMP. AND I would really like not to have to walk it....:gaah:


----------



## FrankW

Why do you feel your home is not viable due to proximity to a Nuke plant?

This has several advantages:
1) the transportation net work will be more robust, bridges/roads will be stronger/wider than average to support the shipments of fuel
2) the electrical grid will be much more robust in that are and have more redundancies.
this is both because the plant receives power (to run itself a Nuke plant needs a* lot* of power) and of course to carry all the power the plant sends oput.

Areas around a Nuke plant will be among the very last in the country to lose power.
As for EMP and vehicles the worry is over stated:
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f74/little-myth-busting-emp-9895/#post114854


----------



## DKRinAK

*Many other things to worry about....*



Padre said:


> I just bought a 2002 Chevy Tahoe for a BOV and I am pretty happy with it so far, I have a number of modifications I plan to make to it but taking the computer out of it seems impossible, given my automotive skills and cash flow.
> 
> And so, I am wondering about options for a bug out vehicle in case of EMP. Anyone have any ideas about where to find working vehicles, i.e. without much in the way of electronics, in case of EMP?
> 
> I believe that my home is not viable because of its proximity to a Nuke plant, and so I am going to NEED to bug out 250 miles to my retreat in case of EMP. AND I would really like not to have to walk it....:gaah:


I have noted a lot of concern over "EMP" and vehicles.

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

In this report you will find where the FedGov hit a sample of vehicles with up to 50kV/m bursts and they, for the most part, continued to run. Vehicles tested while shut off had no effects at all. While not covering every possible layout in hesitance, the test covered the most common types of motor control systems.

I know there are a ton of self-proclaimed 'experts' saying otherwise on the web. These tests were run by scientific experts and the military... folks with real skin in the game.

Think about it, the DoD and, later, the DOE set off 99 above ground atomic tests at Mercury NV, about 75 miles away from Las Vegas - and the lights never went out.

You have lots to worry about, but EMP is not one of them.

What?

OK,lightening produces about One Mega-volt per meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning) - which even simple math shows to be a shitpotload more than 50kV/meter. So what? Well, lightening strikes hit all over the US every day of the year - and yet, the grid stays up, with only limited and local outages. OK?

No? YMMV. Best of luck.


----------



## FrankW

DKR Thanks for linking that study!!
That was the one i was thinking of vis-a-vis EMP


----------



## Tirediron

And the carrington event never happened 
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/carrington.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

what were the detonation heights of your test blasts that prove that emp doesn't exist?


----------



## Padre

*I am concerned because people in the know are concerned.*



DKRinAK said:


> OK,lightening produces about One Mega-volt per meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning) - which even simple math shows to be a shitpotload more than 50kV/meter. So what? Well, lightening strikes hit all over the US every day of the year - and yet, the grid stays up, with only limited and local outages. OK?
> 
> No? YMMV. Best of luck.


Ok, I am not a scientist. If you are please stop me, but since you are quoting wiki I am guessing you don't know what you are talking about.

I used to sit next to the intel and mil affairs people at my office in Washington and I loved to pick there brains about this stuff--anything that was not classified that is. They seemed to think the issue was more pressing than you are suggesting....

I read the study that it seems everyone wants to quote. That silly study that ITSELF notes that: "The field strengths of such weapons may be much higher than those used by the Commission for testing threshold failure levels of electrical system components and subsystems."

They tested up to their capacity of 50kv/m. That seems to be a GREAT range if your main concern is a terrorist attack, but what about a real military, i.e. a modern EMP bomb? Or a natural phenomenon coming from the biggest nuclear bomb in the solar system, our sun?

Lighnting is, if I understand it, is similar but completely different, as its a directed static discharge, you get megavolts in a very small area, in contrast to kilovolts spread evenly acrose a wave field. 100kv/m might sound like a lot less than one mega volt=1000kv/m but in fact as the field could be 1000s of KM in diameter there is actually a lot more power involved, though, granted, less concentrated. Sure, its a lot less energy, but the question is at what point do the electronics in a car fail? They weren't able to achieve it given their 50 kv/m EMP field generator, but the army has with a 100kv/m, the results, the car not only stopped but would not start again.

Its nice to know that a 50kv/m field won't effect modern cars, but if you are talking about a strategic weapon or the SUN 100 to 200 kv/m could easily be reached. That'w why the Army tests at 100kv/m. The results:


----------



## DKRinAK

Padre said:


> Ok, I am not a scientist. If you are please stop me, but since you are quoting wiki I am guessing you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> I used to sit next to the intel and mil affairs people at my office in Washington and I loved to pick there brains about this stuff--anything that was not classified that is. They seemed to think the issue was more pressing than you are suggesting....
> 
> I read the study that it seems everyone wants to quote. That silly study that ITSELF notes that: "The field strengths of such weapons may be much higher than those used by the Commission for testing threshold failure levels of electrical system components and subsystems."
> 
> They tested up to their capacity of 50kv/m. That seems to be a GREAT range if your main concern is a terrorist attack, but what about a real military, i.e. a modern EMP bomb? Or a natural phenomenon coming from the biggest nuclear bomb in the solar system, our sun?
> 
> Lighnting is, if I understand it, is similar but completely different, as its a directed static discharge, you get megavolts in a very small area, in contrast to kilovolts spread evenly acrose a wave field. 100kv/m might sound like a lot less than one mega volt=1000kv/m but in fact as the field could be 1000s of KM in diameter there is actually a lot more power involved, though, granted, less concentrated. Sure, its a lot less energy, but the question is at what point do the electronics in a car fail? They weren't able to achieve it given their 50 kv/m EMP field generator, but the army has with a 100kv/m, the results, the car not only stopped but would not start again.
> 
> Its nice to know that a 50kv/m field won't effect modern cars, but if you are talking about a strategic weapon or the SUN 100 to 200 kv/m could easily be reached. That'w why the Army tests at 100kv/m. The results:


Please do not make assumptions not based on fact - I don't know you, nor you, me. Caution in labels is always a good thing.

I am not getting into a *issing contest with you over this - an EMP disaster has almost become a religion of sorts.

I spent twenty years in the USAF , 1/2 of that on neither regions of the Nellis range complex, even spent time at Kirkland FAB where some of our 'systems' were tested - not sitting in the puzzle palace and talking. I'm not the least bit worried about EMP from a space nuke. Others may be, that is their choice.

BTW - I used the wiki link as a fast choice for an example. You and others are free to do your own research on the subject- hence the YMMV.

The study was published by the FedGov and has a lot of useful information. None of it related to selling anything in particular.

Have a nice day. This conversation is /.


----------



## Padre

DKRinAK said:


> I have noted a lot of concern over "EMP" and vehicles.
> 
> http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
> 
> Think about it, the DoD and, later, the DOE set off 99 above ground atomic tests at Mercury NV, about 75 miles away from Las Vegas - and the lights never went out.
> 
> You have lots to worry about, but EMP is not one of them.


BTW--a little FACTUAL info about EMP. EMP is emitted in every direction from a blast (granted their is an interaction with the magnetic field of the Earth that I don't understand). Thus a blast occurring on the ground like the ones conducted prior to the 1963 test ban would have traveled in a straight line up vertically and horizontally in every direction, but downward, would have been limited by the SHIELDING that is also known as the ground. Thus EMP effects could and were experienced, but only within line of sight of the blast site. The observation of EMP gave the Army the idea the EMP in fact COULD be an effective weapon and so we developed weapons to be exploded at HIGH ALTITUDE. This served 2 purposed: 1) no fallout and 2) maximum EMP effectiveness. The 50kv/m standard is based on the observed EMP yields of a nuke in 1962, the yield of modern EMP weapons is classified I am guessing, but as the EMP study notes:

The magnitude of an EMP event varies with the type, design and yield of the weapon, as well as its placement... Indeed, the Commission determined that such weapon devices not only could be readily built and delivered, but also the specifics of these devices have been illicitly trafficked for the past quarter-century. The field strengths of such weapons may be much higher than those used by the Commission for testing threshold failure levels of electrical system components and subsystems. Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. Critical National Infrastructure, Pg. 18, found at http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf


----------



## FrankW

(Sigh)

I can see by how the direction this thread took there could could some confusion.

Everyone knows EMP is real and can be very significant and dangerous, and no one would think of arguing that and I take it for granted that we are all above that level but in all but a very few situations you ahve be relatively close to ground zero.
in a ground burst or low air burst think less than a couple miles from GZ.

The point I (and I thinkDKR) are trying to make is how realistic is the threat..

What is being attempted here is to get away form the perception popular media has fostered that terrorists could realistically accomplish this.

Admittedly it's not as clear in this thread as in this one:
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f74/little-myth-busting-emp-9895/

And the study DKR linked also makes this significant distinction based on altitudes and yields.

So in summary:

Yes EMP attack is achievable but only by the best equipped nation States.

But Terrorists conducting an effective large scale EMP attack is very nearly impossible, no need to worry about that and this is what the public press fear mongering has been focusing on these past couple of years.


----------



## Padre

Strikes me that prepping is being ready for anything, even the things that no one want to think about. My worse case scenario is being stuck 250 miles from my nice safe warm retreat on a mountain top without a car with 10 people and thousands of lbs of preps that I keep at my year round home in tow (or not).


----------



## Padre

BlueZ said:


> (Sigh)
> 
> Yes EMP attack is achievable by the best equipped nations States.
> Buit Terrorists conducting an effective large scale EMP attack is very nearly impossible, no need to worry about that and this is what the public fear mongering and exaggeration has been focusing on these past couple of years.


I don't care who does, and I don't think its going to happen, at least not tomorrow. Its just given my situation this is one of the most scary situations for me.

To answer your original question about why I am concerned about living near a nuke plant: my answer is Fukashima. Most Nuke plants need outside energy to regulate themselves. This seems silly to me, as the plant produces energy, but I guess the issue is if you want to shut down the plant you need energy to continue to cool the fuel rods for as long as you have the plant shut down. Fukashima didn't become critical because the Tsunami hit it, it went critical because they couldn't get stable power restored to the cooling systems. My fear is that the same would be true if EMP knocked out power for an extended period of time to my local plant. I think 2 weeks is how long these plants usually have back up power for, what happens after that though? Anyway, I don't want to find out so my plan for any situation that could disrupt the grid long term is bug out.


----------



## FrankW

Fukushima was an unusual case but its too late for me to want to write too mucha bout it...

-You are right about the silliness of needing to import power when you are in the business of generating it
theoretically it should be possible that one reactor can power the pumps for the other on in the event of a grid failure.
-However the switchyards at all plants I know of, are not set up for this (this always bothered me)
-As regards EMP the Plant control gear is VERY robust electronically and control systems are redundant.
I dont know the model of your power plant you are next to but in many modern designs the absence of power actually leads to gravity driven control rod insertion.
-2 weeks is on the high side BTW for those Diesels, but if the US cant refuel a Plant's backup power within a couple of days then we have bigger problems in this country than that the plant, because if there is no fuel almost everyone will starve..

When I make my next move I hope to be close to a Nuke plant due to the more secure electricity supply ( Nukes only get refueled every so many years.. coal plants need an functioning transportation systems 24hrs a day or the lights go out)
Power is life.


----------



## Domeguy

*Windy Boonies*

We're out here in the plains and there are 100+ megawatt wind farms going up everywhere. seems to me being close to them could insure some residual power after shtf. . . .pun not intended And several of these little towns out in the middle of knowhere have dedicated power plants tied to small municipal systems. My home town runs elec power off of 3 old diesel submarine engines using local natural gas.


----------



## Padre

*Your a short termer*



BlueZ said:


> Fukushima was an unusual case


Not really, the same issues could occur in a dozen different scenarios in this country.



BlueZ said:


> -As regards EMP the Plant control gear is VERY robust electronically and control systems are redundant.
> I dont know the model of your power plant you are next to but in many modern designs the absence of power actually leads to gravity driven control rod insertion.


Even if that is true, my concern is not the plant but power supply to the plant to run the cooling system. Control rods in most plants (the 30-40 year old ones in the US any way) work only in conjunction with water cooling systems, as in the Fukashima design.



BlueZ said:


> 2 weeks is on the high side BTW for those Diesel...


I thought but am not sure, and would love independent verification, that 2 weeks backup was required by NRC. I would love to know if I am wrong because that would significantly alter my bug out plans.



BlueZ said:


> but if the US cant refuel a Plant's backup power within a couple of days then we have bigger problems in this country than that the plant, because if there is no fuel almost everyone will starve..


I won't starve and neither will my family, that's why we prep. But honestly this is the sort of senario I am worried about.



BlueZ said:


> When I make my next move I hope to be close to a Nuke plant due to the more secure electricity supply ( Nukes only get refueled every so many years.. coal plants need an functioning transportation systems 24hrs a day or the lights go out)
> Power is life.


So, your a short term disaster guy? That's good to know, to understand where you are coming from. Most of the preppers here are well prepared for most any short term disaster. What keeps us up at night and prepping is the long term scenario, the so-called paradigm shift.

For us, power is not life, at least not electric power--wood is pretty important though....

That being said, if as you have said nuke plants require huge grid inputs, and can't sustain themselves, why move near a nuke plant when you could find a place with a renewable power source. If the SHTF mirco-grids will exist around wind, solar, hydro, and locally tapped fosil fuel plants. Nuke plants will be shut down if the rest of the grid isn't stable.


----------



## FrankW

Padre said:


> 1)So, your a short term disaster guy? That's good to know, to understand where you are coming from. Most of the preppers here are well prepared for most any short term disaster. What keeps us up at night and prepping is the long term scenario, the so-called paradigm shift.
> 
> 2For us, power is not life, at least not electric power--wood is pretty important though....
> 
> )That being said, if as you have said nuke plants require huge grid inputs, and can't sustain themselves, why move near a nuke plant when you could find a place with a renewable power source. If the SHTF mirco-grids will exist around wind, solar, hydro, and locally tapped fosil fuel plants. Nuke plants will be shut down if the rest of the grid isn't stable.


1) I think a lot about the pardigm shift and i think it's coming.. but I think it will be coming with a wimper not a bang in many tiny little steps that by themselves will be hard to notice but suddenly it's a different world and country than just 30 years ago.
And in some ways its already slowly happening...
We are at the tailend of a golden age , still benefiting from the rays of its dawn and will for dacedes to come but the foundations, metallic resources and cheap oil that underpins food security and industrial wealth are slowly slipping away.

2) Even if a dystopic world which I am certain will come, it is much more likely that some parts of the country will still have robust power grid and a mderate amount of public safety, while others will suffer rolling brown outs, murderous roving gangs etc, hence the vicinity of big nuke plant being good.
it represents such a hge item of value and a solid baseline for industrial production due to its output resources will be concentrated in it's vicinity .
And during a dystopian barely functioning society that will become noticable and significant.

3) What's better than a Nuke plants is of course a big hydro electric plant.
As long as you dont ave too big a drought (also a danger though) vicinity of that plant will have power.
Off Topic: Some countries are now trying to diversify away form hydroelectric because they are feeling the pinch of the coming droughts already.


----------



## Zanazaz

Padre, my suggestion would be a back up BOV. Older model vehicles with diesel engines will work from what I've read. Older model cars should be okay as well, and even the components that may be affected can be replaced. You just have to have spares. People can quote all kinds of articles, even me , but until something is field tested, NO ONE will know for sure what will happen. 

Yes the military tests their vehicles, and perhaps the government has tested civilian vehicles, but am I going to trust these tests 100%? Nope. No plan survives the first encounter with the "enemy". This enemy is EMP, and until there is a high altitude detonation of a large, well engineered nuke, NO ONE will know what would happen.

The experts may say that civilian vehicles will be okay, but I don't buy it. Other experts say there could be problems. Who are you going to believe? For example, all the experts say nuclear power plants are safe. Well, there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukashima. How many more do we NOT know about?

Everyone has to decide for themselves. I don't expect reliable answers from the experts or the government when it concerns EMP.


----------



## Padre

Zanazaz--I agree that the status quo is a means of retaining power, and lots of so called "experts" have a vested interest in making us feel safe. The safer we feel, the more we feel taken care of, the less likely we are to take matters into our own hands...



Zanazaz said:


> Padre, my suggestion would be a back up BOV. Older model vehicles with diesel engines will work from what I've read. Older model cars should be okay as well, and even the components that may be affected can be replaced. You just have to have spares. People can quote all kinds of articles, even me , but until something is field tested, NO ONE will know for sure what will happen.


I have read the same thing, BUT old vehicles become less and less viable as time goes by unless you are or have a mechanic on your bug out team. I mean most of the vehicles we are talking about are now forty years old. Perhaps a few vehicles from the 80s are viable but most are from the early 70s. These vehicles are hard to get parts for and because they don't use computers their technology is foreign even to many mechanics.

My question is are there any modern vehicles that don't use computers? Perhaps utility vehicles? Tractors? Just wondering if there are places that one could look for a working well maintained vehicle without all the onboard computers that could be burned out.

My one thought is military vehicles, since I know for a fact that the military shields (I think all of) them against EMP.


----------



## Tirediron

Your chances of finding much without transistors is slim, some smaller industrial diesels are still mechanicaly injected, but probably have electronic in the stream between the ignition switch and the engine, But if you don't know what to look for you could walk right by a machine that could haul several tons down the road even if it was slow.


----------



## NaeKid

Padre said:


> My question is are there any modern vehicles that don't use computers? Perhaps utility vehicles? Tractors? Just wondering if there are places that one could look for a working well maintained vehicle without all the onboard computers that could be burned out.


Honestly, the "best" kind of "modern" vehicle that doesn't use a computer would be a 2-stroke dirt-bike - the last of the 2-strokes was made about 7 years ago, but, they are still modern enough that you can get all kinds of parts-n-pieces for them. Going a little older, you can find 4-stroke motorbikes that don't have any computer-controls. Some newer 4-stroke motorbikes (like my KLR650) doesn't have any computer-controllers, but, it does have an electronic-gizmo that controls the spark (called the CDI or the "brains of the operation"), small, easily replaced and easily protected in a faraday-cage. There are other motorbikes with a similar CDI or mechanically-controlled ignition-system.


----------



## er6nrider

I think a scientist mechanic and a computer guy need to get to ether and come up with a liable answer we can go off of. Like would a bran new 2012 vehicle stand up to an emp ?


----------



## Ration-AL

er6nrider said:


> I think a scientist mechanic and a computer guy need to get to ether and come up with a liable answer we can go off of. Like would a bran new 2012 vehicle stand up to an emp ?


personally, i wouldn't count on it, like nekkid suggested try getting and old dirtbike for like $800 bucks and fixing it up.

at the end of the day, it's all speculation until we have an instance of it happening in modern times, it happened in the mid-1800's and destroyed lots of things back then, carrington event i believe?
"Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases even shocking telegraph operators.[5] Telegraph pylons threw sparks and telegraph paper spontaneously caught fire.[6] Some telegraph systems appeared to continue to send and receive messages despite having been disconnected from their power supplies.[7]"

there wasn't much in way of electronics back then but there sure are now, and really as a prepper being prepared is being prepared. you cover what basis you can while being financially responsible. If a $800 dirtbike is too much for you and you hate riding dirt bikes on the weekend then it's probably not worth it to prepare for such a thing, imo, it's all a balance and i see EMP blasts as being one of the more rare reasons we have a SHTF case.

that said, i love classic cars ,4x4's, and dirt bikes , so , i own 3 so called "emp proof" vehicles by default, i bought them because i enjoy them not because i think an EMP is coming, just happens so they work for that as well. that said, with reading about this stuff, i did go out and buy extra coils,points,generators,plugs,wires,fuses for all 3 of them just incase, extra parts cost me about $300-400 for all 3 of them and they are stored in my grounded dangerous chemicals cabinet (type of cabinet, not whats in it,they tend to be air tight to stop fumes from venting...lol)

personally, i would not have my only car be a 60's car for various reasons like safety,MPG's, ect ect ect, also i wouldn't spend $$$$ on a emp car or truck just for the sake of being protected from an EMP, but if there's some old classic car or truck your into already, have the funds, not going to starve because of the purchase i say go for it, even if you spend $1500 on a junker and spend a few months fixing it up, it gives a great handle on how to fix and repair them and giv es you good basic working knowledge of mechanics as back then everything was very simply designed for the most part, on my trucks and such i can strip them down to the very last bolt and reassemble, and i think it's fun! lol

anyways that's my view on it, get one if you enjoy it and afford it, if not no biggie i see this as being towards the bottom of plausible cases for SHTF.

(also the main difference between lighting and an actual EMP attack/event is duration and surge, that's the main reason why you can't compare lighting strikes to theoretical EMP type events, look at the dynamics of a solar flare hitting the earth or a nuke @ elevation, much different then the 1/10th of a second flash and field produced by a lighting strike)


----------

