Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: net.analog,net.misc
Subject: Re: "Nuclear Event Detector"
Message-ID: <794@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 22:38:52 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.794
Posted: Wed Dec 18 22:38:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 04:44:35 EST
References: <799@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.analog:570 net.misc:9015

In article <799@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
>Ahem. Aside from those cases in which your electronics are a puddle of
>slag by the time this device lets them know they have something to worry
>about, won't the EMP effects have completely destroyed the circuits this
>is "protecting" anyway? Or is this a valid product, maybe usable in

As I understand it, the EMP is strongly dependant on several factors
including the type of nuclear device, and the altitude of detonation.

In any case, it is not clear what the so called "circumvention
procedures" being refered to are, so it could very likely be intended
for military use.

Also, if this is intended for military use, then broadcasting those 
operational (specifications pulsewidth detection range, etc.) around 
the world via Usenet might not be such a good idea.

Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS

----
This may very well NOT be the opinion of my employer, but if you paid
your employer $11,000/year, wouldn't you feel justified in
mis-representing it's opinion? (-: