"The doomsday plane

wrote

Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!

No Doubt! ! !

I can belch on command, but not fart. I can prime for a belch, and leave it
in, and about 30 minutes later, it will usually emanate from lower climes,
but not in a predictable or commandable way!

Wow! My hero! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 14, 10:55 am, wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:57 am, wrote:



Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!

Not really talent... I just eat a lot of tex-mex fast food.

Hey, you should really enjoy this video of a "drive by farting" on a
live TV newscaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ouT1UKPiNg

writes:

Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
is so surprising about that?

It's surprising that the DoD doesn't admit it. What's the harm in doing so,
especially when it is so obviously that aircraft?

Dave S writes:

Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
original EMP.

A sufficiently large EMP will fry anything. The only questions are how large
the EMP can be or would be, and how large an EMP the protected facilities
could withstand. Ideally, the latter should be much larger than the former,
but I suspect it's the other way around.

The problem with EMP, though, is that it fries everything, not just your
enemy's stuff. Today, it's kind of hard to do anything with no electrical
equipment at all, even on your own side.

Al Dykes writes:

The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
~40 years.

They've been doing the same for antimissile systems, but these systems still
don't provide adequate protection.

Leadfoot writes:

What does your reply have to do with a civilian 747 suffering from
electrical problems resulting from a lightning strike?

Lightning strikes produce EMPs.

As for the E-4B that plane is throroughly protected from EMP by design.

Famous last words.

Dan writes:

EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.

Why? EMP can vaporize conductors whether they are energized or not.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dan writes:

EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.

Why? EMP can vaporize conductors whether they are energized or not.

True, if sufficiently intense, but I was thinking of induced energy in a
closed circuit.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Al Dykes writes:

The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
~40 years.

They've been doing the same for antimissile systems, but these systems
still don't provide adequate protection.


Like someone who doesn't even know how a wing works would know


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Leadfoot writes:

What does your reply have to do with a civilian 747 suffering from
electrical problems resulting from a lightning strike?

Lightning strikes produce EMPs.

As for the E-4B that plane is throroughly protected from EMP by design.

Famous last words.


They'll never be your last words because you will never fly one.

Ever


bertie