I was just wondering if Aimpoint and Eotechs are resistant to electric magnetic pulse? Just asking for a friend and for no particular reason…….
EMP’s, Aimpoints, & Eotechs
- Thread starter Pointman308
- Start date
I don't know, but ide guess any steel gun safe would offer decent protection.
Aimpoints are the artificial electronic equivalent of cockroaches. Long after the nuclear holocaust wipes out all life on earth, the only thing that will remain to tell the aliens there was once sentient life on this barren rock will be Aimpoints scattered everywhere… with the dot still on.
In fact, Aimpoint should do a commercial using that theme.
In fact, Aimpoint should do a commercial using that theme.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,275
- 22,265
Simply due to the fact they haven’t caved and put MRAD anywhere in their user manual yet. EMPs are afraid of MOA stuffAimpoints are the artificial electronic equivalent of cockroaches. Long after the nuclear holocaust wipes out all life on earth, the only thing that will remain to tell the aliens there was once sentient life on this barren rock will be Aimpoints scattered everywhere… with the dot still on.
In fact, Aimpoint should do a commercial using that theme.
Rock,Aimpoints are the artificial electronic equivalent of cockroaches. Long after the nuclear holocaust wipes out all life on earth, the only thing that will remain to tell the aliens there was once sentient life on this barren rock will be Aimpoints scattered everywhere… with the dot still on.
In fact, Aimpoint should do a commercial using that theme.
littered with Aimpoints, PSA AR’s and Vortex optics in boxes headed back for warranty repair
I have done some research into battery operated items and protection from EMP's and I get conflicting information. Here is some information from a prepper site that states:
Will batteries survive EMP? This is one of the most argued about topics – particularly in regards to flashlights.
The consensus is that batteries will survive because:
Again, we can’t be sure what would happen to batteries during EMP. Some people like to keep some spare batteries (and spare LEDs for their flashlights) in a Faraday cage or bag for extra protection.
If you take this step, I’d recommend that you put rechargeable batteries plus a solar charger (or crank charger) in the Faraday cage.
---End article---
However I also read a paper from the DOD that stated DC powered equipment "should" be alright. I will try to find that paper at home tonight and post it. I keep my batteries out of my scopes, red dots, etc and store in a Faraday bag along with my NV and radios and other items I don't remove batteries from.
Edit: I should point out that I am not an expert on this nor am I an electrical/electronics Engineer.
Will batteries survive EMP? This is one of the most argued about topics – particularly in regards to flashlights.
The consensus is that batteries will survive because:
-
The batteries are not connected to the electric system and thus won’t be affected by the power surges of EMP
- The metal casing of flashlights and other devices shields against EMP
- If the switch is off, then there is virtually no wiring to transmit voltage to the battery and components
- Coils in devices (such as devices with crank power) could act as conductors which transfer voltage spikes to the batteries, causing damage.
- The metal casing of flashlights and devices don’t protect against EMP. There are too many areas that aren’t sealed off (such as around O-rings and the lens area).
- The metal spring contact for the battery acts as a conductor.
- Lithium-Ion rechargeables have a temperature-regulating chip in them that could be affected by EMP.
Again, we can’t be sure what would happen to batteries during EMP. Some people like to keep some spare batteries (and spare LEDs for their flashlights) in a Faraday cage or bag for extra protection.
If you take this step, I’d recommend that you put rechargeable batteries plus a solar charger (or crank charger) in the Faraday cage.
---End article---
However I also read a paper from the DOD that stated DC powered equipment "should" be alright. I will try to find that paper at home tonight and post it. I keep my batteries out of my scopes, red dots, etc and store in a Faraday bag along with my NV and radios and other items I don't remove batteries from.
Edit: I should point out that I am not an expert on this nor am I an electrical/electronics Engineer.
Last edited:
Aimpoints are hardened for physical use, not hardened for radiation. The electronics might survive depending on the flux of the radiation which would be mitigated by distance. Unless Aimpoint adds a layer of boron carbide or similarly dense shielding over the electronics, I wouldn't count on them surviving an EMP from a nuclear detonation.
So if you remove the battery it will be the led that will potentially go out? Or do i have that wrong.
The diode (LED) and the supporting circuitry would be vulnerable. I studied Astrophysics, not Electrical Engineering, so I'm not an SME on this issue, but also not a layman. Keep that in mind.
Most people (including prepper bloggers) don't have a good understanding of how an EMP works or what kinds of electronics it can damage.
An EMP is best thought of as a shock wave from an explosion -except that rather than a wave of extremely high pressure, it is a wave of electromagnetic energy. And just like a pressure shock wave, this electromagnetic "shock wave" only acts on objects as it passes over (or through) them. The EMP wave front moves at the speed of light, so it only acts on objects for a few nanoseconds. As this wave of electromagnetic energy passes an object, it induces an electric current in any conductor (anything made of metal) in much the way that a magnet induces a current in a wire as it is passed near. The current induced by the electromagnetic wave begins in one direction as the wave approaches, then reverses direction as the wave passes the conductor. Immediately after the wave passes, the current dissipates. The fine metallic tracks of circuit boards, diodes, transistors, and the myriad of other electrical components of everything with a circuit board are only designed to handle extremely low current and voltage, so when an EMP induces a near-instantaneous peak of electrical current and then reverses the polarity, all on the order of nanoseconds, it typically destroys those components.
Electronic devices do not have to be powered on to be vulnerable. In fact, despite what you've heard, it makes no difference at all whether they are on or off. Batteries do not contain electrically-fragile components sensitive to minute voltage or amperage spikes, so batteries will not be affected. All Aimpoints and Eotechs will be paperweights. If you are concerned about an EMP, buy an LPVO with an etched reticle.
An EMP is best thought of as a shock wave from an explosion -except that rather than a wave of extremely high pressure, it is a wave of electromagnetic energy. And just like a pressure shock wave, this electromagnetic "shock wave" only acts on objects as it passes over (or through) them. The EMP wave front moves at the speed of light, so it only acts on objects for a few nanoseconds. As this wave of electromagnetic energy passes an object, it induces an electric current in any conductor (anything made of metal) in much the way that a magnet induces a current in a wire as it is passed near. The current induced by the electromagnetic wave begins in one direction as the wave approaches, then reverses direction as the wave passes the conductor. Immediately after the wave passes, the current dissipates. The fine metallic tracks of circuit boards, diodes, transistors, and the myriad of other electrical components of everything with a circuit board are only designed to handle extremely low current and voltage, so when an EMP induces a near-instantaneous peak of electrical current and then reverses the polarity, all on the order of nanoseconds, it typically destroys those components.
Electronic devices do not have to be powered on to be vulnerable. In fact, despite what you've heard, it makes no difference at all whether they are on or off. Batteries do not contain electrically-fragile components sensitive to minute voltage or amperage spikes, so batteries will not be affected. All Aimpoints and Eotechs will be paperweights. If you are concerned about an EMP, buy an LPVO with an etched reticle.
Chips die. If it has a chip, it's doa.
A steel safe won't help , not grounded.
A particular sized mesh , faraday blocks e1,2&3, if properly designed.
Computer controlled, circuit boards in things in other words are doa.
Bigger issues like nuke plants melting down nationwide are a pretty big deal.
Those diesel circ pumps keeping the rods cool will only last as long as they have fuel. And filters that flow, can't even imagine the contaminated fuel that would be delivered in a hurry. Fires caused by transformers burning... nationwide. Got a plan?
But yeah I'm going to be pissed when my dual tubes are done along with my clip ONS at that point.
And there are some who say an e1,2&3 won't burn all of the chips and circuits.
Hopefully we don't find out because of these retards playing war.
A Carrington is pretty likely they say, same end, different source.
Dr. Peter Pry, emp commission did a study years ago.
I think Tom Brokaw even wrote a pretty good book about it.
A steel safe won't help , not grounded.
A particular sized mesh , faraday blocks e1,2&3, if properly designed.
Computer controlled, circuit boards in things in other words are doa.
Bigger issues like nuke plants melting down nationwide are a pretty big deal.
Those diesel circ pumps keeping the rods cool will only last as long as they have fuel. And filters that flow, can't even imagine the contaminated fuel that would be delivered in a hurry. Fires caused by transformers burning... nationwide. Got a plan?
But yeah I'm going to be pissed when my dual tubes are done along with my clip ONS at that point.
And there are some who say an e1,2&3 won't burn all of the chips and circuits.
Hopefully we don't find out because of these retards playing war.
A Carrington is pretty likely they say, same end, different source.
Dr. Peter Pry, emp commission did a study years ago.
I think Tom Brokaw even wrote a pretty good book about it.
A Carrington event is likely as we are way overdue for one. And it would instantaneously set us back to the days before electricity.
Just FYI, a faraday cage doesn't have to be grounded, (they usually are because they are typically very lightweight structures) it just has to have enough conductor mass to not be saturated by the electromagnetic field. Exactly like when lightning strikes a car or airplane and the people inside (and their electronics) are unharmed and they aren't grounded. There's enough metal mass in the shell of the car or plane to conduct the electrical current and magnetic field around the objects inside without them being effected. A steel safe *should* be sufficient to protect electronics inside.
Sort of. Definitely nowhere near the same EM flux as a nearby nuke, but yes, still bad on the ground (and especially space). But likely? In the next 50 years? Not really. Next 150? Maybe. Next 500? Likely.
Playing with numbers there college guy?
Trying to compare the sun's potential with a known pulse from a nuclear detonation? Fucking seriously?
I'll put my money on the sun for a million there Monty
.And your math is off on the likelihood of a Carrington event.
According to your fellow mathy types, we're past due by a little already. Not that they really know, but mathy types love to act like they know anyways.
I would think that most things run in cycles naturally. It's a pretty good chance that we'll get smoked by a massive Carrington again. Nearly did a couple of years ago. Whatever country that would have been in the line of fire would have gone back in time 150 years instantly.
Missed us by hours. Windage was off a little.
I think you quoted me but never read my post.....
,Not really sure where you were needing to correct me. Everything I posted is open source information and accurate, none of it is hyperbole.
Testing has been done already on these subjects. The results are out there for anyone to see
The interesting part for me is that the vast majority of Amerikans haven't spent 5 minutes wondering how it could happen, what's the results and what's it look like 7-30-90-365 days later.
They already did. Most of Amerika is fucked because they simply cannot survive with technology from the 1890s.
Last edited:
Dang man, you wake up on the wrong side of bed? I wasn't calling you out.I think you quoted me but never read my post.....
Not really sure where you were needing to correct me. Everything I posted is open source information and accurate, none of it is hyperbole.
Testing has been done already on these subjects. The results are out there for anyone to see
The interesting part for me is that the vast majority of Amerikans haven't spent 5 minutes wondering how it could happen, what's the results and what's it look like 7-30-90-365 days later.
They already did. Most of Amerika is fucked because they simply cannot survive with technology from the 1890s.
Everything you said was correct -except steel safes not being sufficient to protect electronics, and I was simply pointing out that they actually should be and why. I mean, a lot of my benchtop research required me to conduct my experiments inside faraday cages, so I'm genuinely familiar with the subject of EM shielding, rather than just regurgitating what I read online somewhere.
The only EMP blast powerful enough to damage your electronics at any large scale whatsoever will be from a nuclear explosion in which case you have a lot bigger things to worry about. Like not becoming a shadow or that dude from RoboCop who runs into the vat of toxic waste.
The gunsafe will probably provide shielding if it is properly grounded (not just sitting on the concrete in your garage).
That said, unless you plan on being around the house when the EMP hits, getting to your properly shielded Aimpoint might be a problem.
Hence, iron sights on the truck gun with an LPVO.
Also, DTRA did a study a while back on EMPs and vehicles. In most cases, disconnecting the batteries and reconnecting solved many of the issues from the EMP. I’ll see if I can find a link to it.
That said, unless you plan on being around the house when the EMP hits, getting to your properly shielded Aimpoint might be a problem.
Hence, iron sights on the truck gun with an LPVO.
Also, DTRA did a study a while back on EMPs and vehicles. In most cases, disconnecting the batteries and reconnecting solved many of the issues from the EMP. I’ll see if I can find a link to it.
Last edited:
Can’t find the DTRA report, but found this: https://preparednessadvice.com/emp-proof-vehicles/
Unknown if the writers know what they are talking about.
Unknown if the writers know what they are talking about.
In the event of an EMP, there are a lot of variables that will come into play and depending on how far away you are from it and what is going on, more individual things might survive than folks expect.
The big issue will be that with any large event, the power grid will be down for sure, probably down hard and not coming up again anytime soon.
Also probably most stuff with a radio that has an attached antenna will be cooked.
Communication systems hooked up to long runs of wire will also probably be toast.
A lot of more complex multi-band antennas for Ham and such might be ruined as well.
So power and communications will be down hard and probably not coming back anytime soon.
That by itself will be enough to quickly start a mass dying in this country, even if a lot of the small stuff keeps working and cars keep going (until they run out of fuel).
The big issue will be that with any large event, the power grid will be down for sure, probably down hard and not coming up again anytime soon.
Also probably most stuff with a radio that has an attached antenna will be cooked.
Communication systems hooked up to long runs of wire will also probably be toast.
A lot of more complex multi-band antennas for Ham and such might be ruined as well.
So power and communications will be down hard and probably not coming back anytime soon.
That by itself will be enough to quickly start a mass dying in this country, even if a lot of the small stuff keeps working and cars keep going (until they run out of fuel).
The little research I’ve done said that if the unit is waterproof it is probably protected. Not sure if this correct?
Irons, ACOG's and Accupoints give zero shits about EMP's.
That being said I always carry a T2 in my inventory as well.
That being said I always carry a T2 in my inventory as well.
Nah, I should have worded it differently, lol, definitely could have explained better in person as I hate to type.
If you've read about this stuff like you say, and I'd imagine you have, I'm sure you saw many conflicting articles too.
As far as a steel safe being protection, it appears that the smart guys state either a grounded box, which does make sense. OR a cage lined box that's ungrounded based on the pulse(s) hitting it being the only true answers. I dunno of course, but to me it does make sense.
Grounding or blocking(correct mesh) that allows it to dissapate before it frys chips etc.
The biggest black hole I've read about this stuff is the shape, density or whatever ya want to call it in a faraday cage, bags or whatever. It would seem that is an important piece of information for people to have. lol
There's a company that sells direct wire-in emp shield thingies, american made 100%. Never bought any of them personally though.
I mean a person could buy anything thinking it'll work, and find out later, tooooo late, that it didn't actually work. The EMP shield folks DO appear to be legit for sure though. I have my reservations about the trash can designs and claims out there.
I said Peter Pry, it is Vincent Pry, ironically I am listening to him do an interview right now. He's a very intelligent guy, and is pretty earnest in trying to get our grid hardened. But the folks in charge would rather all of us die it seems.
What I've wondered about is this.
How in the hell can humans build something to protect against something with an unknown power ultimately? Speaking of a solar burst mostly here, but just HOW powerful are the Ruskie emp weapons? DO we actually know?
Sobering thought.
I remind myself that the same people in charge of "protecting us" and being "informed" are the same bunch of evil, corrupt shitbags who "trusted the science" for the last two years and change. They also think a woman can be a man.
Yeah, we're on our own here.
Sorry about the poorly worded response, I do try to post non bitchy stuff most of the time. Hoping you can answer/comment something you've found that I haven't about this stuff. It's been frustrating seeing the BS that's on the web about realistically one of the biggest threats to this country today.
When the power dies, this country will follow. People will survive, but imagine only the U.S. is hit and guess how many foreign powers will occupy the void for various reasons. Not to mention the expected response from our .gov.
China alone would have many reasons to come visit us simply to protect it's vast "property" scattered all over this country. And I don't think this .gov would resist it.
Perhaps I'm too cynical.
They say 90% within the first year. Very possible imho. People are stupid, lazy and weak today. The old skills have been lost to most in our society.
I'm an old fudd.
I shoot a R700 in .308, measure in mils and adjust in minutes.
I also use ACOGS on 75% of my stuff. Although I love an Eotech or 5.
I even set everything up with a KAC micro rear and MAGPUL Pro front.
Hell, I even LIKE my M25 suppressed
100 miles up over Wichita KS is the secret sauce according to the smart kids sir. EMP will hit coast to coast, varying power per mile. The radiation would be less of an issue, jet stream and distance.
Robocop would be fried most likely though, so there's that
I'd be interested to read your paper on it. Obviously you have a handle on the science and can correct the contradictory information out there.
O rings waterproof. EMP shielding protects the entire "chipset" 360 degrees or redirects the pulse depending on design.
Rubber doesn't conduct, but I doubt that was the design when they were waterproofing it.
I would think all things considered. Our electro optics and comms not working will be a major problem at points for certain.
But water,food production AND preservation, shelter and clothing, meds etc, will be the critical within hours for many or most.
They'll be a daily grind with no realistic options for a generation probably.
They'll continue to be an issue until we die.
But water,food production AND preservation, shelter and clothing, meds etc, will be the critical within hours for many or most.
They'll be a daily grind with no realistic options for a generation probably.
They'll continue to be an issue until we die.
It is quite simple. History doesn’t have any bearing on probability. Flip a coin 50 times. Even if you get 50 heads in a row, you are not “past due” due for a tails on the next flip. The probability is still 1 in 2.
Weird.
I thought recorded history produced patterns and values. And the science actually studied past events to record and predict celestial events.
Those silly ancient people and their stoopid precisely aligned rocks that followed and predicted celestial movements. Let alone the recorded effects and cycles of the sun.
Never realized those sciency types just flipped coins.
The above is an example of probability based on chance. Let's take an example of probability based on statistics. The 100 year flood. This does not mean, as the name might be taken to imply, that one can expect a flood of this magnitude every 100 years, nor that one should only expect a single flood of this magnitude every year.
You could see a "100 year flood" for 5 years in a row and you are not past due for a dry spell. The meaning of a 100 year flood is that in any given year there is a 1 in 100 chance that you will experience a flood of that magnitude. Likewise, if you have not had a 100 year flood in 101 years, it does not mean that you are suddenly past due for a flood. The probability of a flood of that magnitude is still one in 100.
You could see a "100 year flood" for 5 years in a row and you are not past due for a dry spell. The meaning of a 100 year flood is that in any given year there is a 1 in 100 chance that you will experience a flood of that magnitude. Likewise, if you have not had a 100 year flood in 101 years, it does not mean that you are suddenly past due for a flood. The probability of a flood of that magnitude is still one in 100.
Depending on the time of year, the loss of climate control for habitats and transport might surprise people as being much more deadly than worrying about food and water.
It's the mistake a lot of folks think about survival in the wilderness.
Lack of shelter and thermal control can (depending on the environment) kill you faster than lack of water and eventually lack of food.
Shelter / thermal control > water > food
There’s a difference between periodic processes like orbits and seasons, and chaotic events like storms and earthquakes. Periodic processes are predictable because the patterns reliably repeat - the sun rises and sets predictably; the planets move across the sky predictably. Chaotic systems happen in a less predictable manner, so you can sample across a range of events over time, but you can’t predict when a chaotic event will happen, only the frequency of the event over time. But there’s no rule that the Universe has to obey those chaotic predictions. You might predict the frequency of earthquakes or hurricanes in a region over decades, but because they are chaotic and not periodic systems, it’s a question of probability (hence the coin toss analogy).
I hate when people get so PC and have to mock science and “sciency types” for being more knowledgeable about a subject in order to somehow make themselves feel better and/or act as though ancient people had some magical knowledge we lost due to that evil science stuff. That’s the stoopid.
True enough.
We chose to learn and live more like our grandparents generation than our parents.
Of course there are a LOT of variables, but you already know these things.
The bad part is that there are way to many folks who do not. They will be a bigger problem than -15degF at some point.
Just keep in mind there numbers guy that some of those sciency types you defend are some of the same folks who work for big pharma, big tech .gov, the types of folks who also bury some of the true history of this planet with their "accepted" theories.
Man made climate change, renewable energy theory, rising sea levels, C02 being a pollutant etc. etc. etc.
If you think that there is no subterfuge involved with skeletons, skulls, scrolls, drawings, sculptures certain written "words" etc. etc. etc., I have a bridge to sell you. For some reason the Smithsonian comes up quite often in written record as showing up at many discoveries only to take said fiindings.......then they just vanish without a trace. Tony Fraudchi is a sciency type too.
Nobody gets a pass in my view of humans. There are good and honest AND bad corrupt shitbags in every vocation.
So yeah, some of your sciency types can absolutely fuck off. Not you per say, but it would appear you have a thin skin. lol
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try it on.
Given times of year, if I had to defend a spot or hold out for the first wave of dying to end and I was prepared, I'd prefer to be stuck with the freezing weather, rather than summer. Deep freeze weather with everything covered in ice and deep snow will do the natural selection thing pretty quickly.
I can't speak for all the country or world, but around where I live, if the power was to go off and communications go out and no more gas being pumped, and it was down to 0f or below like we got a year ago, with snow and ice. All you have to do is be able to survive a week or two of it.
A large number of folks will freeze to death in their houses and cars waiting for someone to come save them and take care of them.
Another large number of folks will die once they try to go out and scavenge too late.
Two weeks in and the population numbers will be a lot lower.
"Science works because it often tells you what you don't want to hear. Isn't that right, fatso?"
I've read a good bit, and what I've seen is that most of the articles written for lay-persons are a mixture of correct science, incorrect or misunderstood "science", and conjecture. And honestly, that's not surprising because the field of Electromagnetism is a branch of advanced physics where quantum mechanics and electrophysics intersect.
Doesn't matter how advanced enemy tech is (and I seriously doubt ruskie tech is more advanced than ours). A 1950's-tech device set off at the right altitude would likely be enough to shut down most or all of the power grid. But I don't expect such a thing to happen due to anticipated reprisal. What I think is far more likely is a coronal mass ejection (CME), which can last hours or even days and the sum electromagnetic bombardment can be orders of magnitude greater than anything human tech is capable of generating (or protecting against without re-engineering the whole grid from the top down).
Some thoughts on Faraday cages. . . They shield against electromagnetic radiation -this includes both magnetic fields and radio waves. The principle behind its function is simple: surround a vulnerable object with a cocoon of highly conductive material. The conductive housing conducts most forms of electromagnetic radiation, thus redirecting them through itself and around the object being shielded without the shielded object being affected. The caveat is there must be enough conductive potential to not be "saturated" by the field. This can be accomplished by either increasing the mass or increasing the conductivity of the conductor housing. A steel housing requires more mass than a copper housing to accomplish the same level of shielding due to steel being a poorer conductor than copper. However, steel still conducts electricity quite well, so a steel safe with its generous mass should still be a vastly more protective housing than a standard copper screen Faraday cage simply due to the fact that hundreds of pounds of steel can conduct more electricity or magnetic field than a few ounces of copper mesh. If you doubt a steel safe can shield, take a handheld transceiver (walki talki) and shut yourself inside your safe and see if you can still transmit or receive radio signal. I bet you can't. So putting copper screen in your safe is a drop in the bucket compared to what your safe can already do. And remember, there's always someone trying to sell you something.
The famous copper mesh of a standard Faraday cage works well despite a very small conductor mass due to the grid construction of the copper screen spreading its mass over a larger area, but it would be more effective still if you filled in all the little square holes in the screen to make a solid sheet -there's nothing magical about screen except that it spreads mass over a large area effectively and is far cheaper per square foot than copper sheet.
Ah, a statistician. Why is it that every time you meet a statistics nerd they always seem to think that being good at statistics basically makes them a scientist?
If you aren't used to using statistics to actually interpret data or solve problems, then its just an academic pursuit with no context, and context is everything. Here's what I mean:
With no context, you'd be correct. But if you like statistics, you're probably familiar with this thing called sample size which we denote by the symbol n=. Sample size can be a number of objects, but it can also be a number of units of time, such as seconds, days, or years. In your example the sample size is 50 coin tosses, so n=50. Now according to your college stats class, each toss is its own universe, totally unable to be affected by the other tosses. However, in practice, this is immediately discovered to be inaccurate as each toss is linked to the other tosses by time; there is in fact a trial with 50 samples, not 50 individual trials that each have a sample size of n=1.
In order to understand how the number of tosses in this trial affects the probability of the outcome of the next toss, you have to employ a power analysis as denoted by a "p value" which determines the probability of detecting a true effect (as opposed to noise). You will never be able to predict with 100% certainty that the next toss will be heads or tails, but with each successive toss that adds to your sample size, you have more power to predict a likely outcome correctly. In this example, with a normal coin, an infinite number of tosses should yield an approximate ratio of 50/50 heads/tails. Knowing that, you might get 2 or 3 heads in a row. If you flipped the coin 1 million times, there would conceivably be strings of maybe up to 30 or even 40 successive tosses of heads, with each successive heads becoming increasingly improbable. But out of a sample size of 50 tosses, the probability that all 50 head would be heads would be infinitesimally low, and would also make that 51st toss being heads even more improbable, and therefore equally predictive of the alternative outcome.
Actually, that's precisely what it means: that based on historical data and geological record, the mean occurrence of a flood of this magnitude is approximately once every 100 years.
Again, no. If you have an event that happens approximately every 100 years, and you go 200 years without the event occurring (or the event occurs twice in 100 years), that would have a lower probability than the mean occurrence of 100 years, but it certainly happens. But for that same event to occur only 5 times in the last 1000 years and the last event was 175 years ago and assuming the probability of the event hasn't changed. . . Statistically, it would be highly probable for the event to recur in the near future. But when we want to communicate this type of information culminated from a lot of high math and science to lay people, we just say such an event is past due -because effective communication requires speaking your audience's language.
Last edited:
Nope…
The 100-Year Flood
A 100-year flood happened last year so it won't happen for another 99 years, right? Not exactly. Misinterpretation of terminology often leads to confusion about flood recurrence intervals. Read on to learn more.
This question points out the importance of proper terminology. The term "100-year flood" is used in an attempt to simplify the definition of a flood that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term "100-year storm" is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1-percent chance of occurring. In other words, over the course of 1 million years, these events would be expected to occur 10,000 times. But, just because it rained 10 inches in one day last year doesn't mean it can't rain 10 inches in one day again this year. (Bold added for emphasis.)
It is funny that so many people feel they need to write so much to prove they know so little. Academic journals are full of it. 7+page articles that should have been ‘letters to the editor.’ Even more that shouldn’t have been published.
Oh, I’m not a hydrologist either. But, keep guessing if you like.
Also in the article you linked:
"it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the "100-year flood".
That's called the mean in statistics. You know why they don't call it a 1% flood? Because it's actually named for its mean occurrence of 100 years. That article was just using the familiar system of percentages because it's written on a high school level for public consumption.
"it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the "100-year flood".
That's called the mean in statistics. You know why they don't call it a 1% flood? Because it's actually named for its mean occurrence of 100 years. That article was just using the familiar system of percentages because it's written on a high school level for public consumption.
Last edited:
So the mesh itself is basically trading reduced effectiveness for a weight saving?
What if you had a box of solid copper sheet weighing 1lb and a box of the same dimensions made out of thicker perforated mesh still weighing 1lb, would one box stop more signal than the other? I'm guessing the solid box will perform better?
What about the surface texture of my tinfoil hat. If I wanted to stop the 5G from frying my brain, would I be better off wrapping a given length of foil smoothly around my head, or crumple it up a bit first? Would the smooth foil reflect (refract?) energy more efficiently or would the crumpled foil attenuate it at a higher rate?
By the way. I'm not calling you a crackpot by any means, the tinfoil hat is just too good of an example to not use use.
Similar threads
