From: David Woolley (david@djwhome.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jun 30 2002 - 23:23:12 PDT
>
> Well... I would not call a nuclear explosion a natural source of energy.
> Admittedly, when you do detonate a nuclear blast, its pretty huge.
> However, as a signaling method, it lacks charm.
You missed the point. Protection against nuclear electromagnetic pulse
effects also provides protection against lightning, but the two effects
are not quite the same (EMP is much faster). As a result the public
literature on protecting from nuclear EMP also tends to provide information
on the nature of lightning EMP.
> Doppler shift of a signal always applies, given that the signal originates
> "out there" somewhere.
But it is not worth worrying about when the signal bandwidth is much greater
than any conceivable Doppler shift, and the uncertainties in the duration of
each pulse in the sequence is uncertain.
> Finally, we know that lightning produces energy far above the water hole...
> some of which we can see as visible light.
See my first reply. The optical pulse is produced by thermal, and possibly
ionisation effects, not by the EMP mechanism. It almost certainly has a
hot body spectrum and therefore power drops off rapidly in the microwave
region.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 23:57:45 PDT