curious and curiouser...

[Mike O'Dell]

Dan Romanchik KB6NU wrote:
> That's kind of amusing. It brings to mind several questions:
> 
> 1. How do they test the device?  I would presume with some low-level 
> radiation source, but I'd wonder how that translates to operation during 
> a nuclear event, when supposed the levels would be much higher.
> 2. Is removing power from electronic devices actually going to protect 
> them?
> 3. If so, can power removed quickly enough to prevent damage.
> 
> 73!
> 
> Dan KB6NU
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> CW Geek, ARRL MI Section Training Manager
> Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com
> LET'S REALLY MAKE THE ARRL THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR HAM RADIO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 28, 2009, at Oct 28,8:13 PM, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>> Now here's something you don't see every day, Chauncey.
>>
>> What's that, Edgar?
>>
>> An integrated circuit "Nuclear Event Detector".
>>
>> A WHAT?
>>
>> An integrated circuit "Nuclear Event Detector".
>>
>> http://www.cmac.com/news-and-literature/press-releases/documents/NEDV1.2Jun09.pdf 
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
> http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

i assume it's lifting the power to the boards
so the EMP suppression on the box connectors
has a better chance of saving the bacon.

the gamma and x-ray flux arrives much faster
than the EMP because the MHD effects have to get
spun-up to generate the EMP.

i also assume the systems being protected are
"sufficiently removed" from the "event" that
any of this matters.

	-mo

ps - i would guess testing is done with an x-ray machine