# Faraday nesting items for an EMP



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

I ran accross a term on line called "nesting". I think that's when an item is individually warped for
an EMP instead of using a Faraday cage. I have some battery chargers, crank radios and 
stuff that might not do to well if an EMP strike would occur. So I was going to wrap them up 
good in a layer of heavy duty aluminum foil then warping paper and maybe a second wrap of 
aluminum foil and a second layer of warping paper and just stick them on the shelve.

Will this keep them safe?


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

I don't know if it helps I have researching that also but I need someone smarter then me.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Nesting is a good method, yes.
However, I would select something a bit stronger than wrapping paper to separate the conductive layers.

Nesting is basically an attempt to foolproof a design to withstand an EMP.
From a theoretical standpoint, nesting is not necessary. If you can form a complete enclosure out of conductive material, then the items inside should never be affected by the pulse.
However, reality has a way of screwing theory.
Nesting tries to overcome the shortcomings of an imperfect enclosure. If your seams aren't folded right, if you create an unnoticed tear, or if any gap exists, nesting is supposed to compensate by trying multiple times to create a complete enclosure.
The reason I mentioned avoiding the wrapping paper is, if it is anything like the wrapping paper I've used, it can tear easily allowing potential for two layers of foil to ground together. If the inner layer has a hole that isn't visible because of the outer layer, the entire thing can be compromised.
It's recommended that a sturdy insulator be used to avoid this possibility. It doesn't need to be elaborate. It just needs to break conductivity between layers and withstand a bit of abuse during packaging and movement.
An easy example would be to wrap an item in foil, place it into a cardboard box, wrap the box in foil, and place that into a larger box which also receives a wrapping. Take care to fold and crimp your seams, or use conductive tape to close all gaps.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

so much depends on the source and intensity .... a Carrington Effect from a solar flare or EMP pulse from a nuk - nuk bomb(s) at ground destruction altitude or an engineered EMP nuk at prime altitude and location .... dozens of other factors come into play ....

just one problem with doing a foil wrap - besides the lack of protection - is the basic difficulty of a quik use and then back into a protection mode .... whether it's a pulse from a solar flare or from a nuk - there's the very credible possibility of a series of pulse attacks over a period of time .... a re-usable Faraday Cage is the only effective method of protection ....


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

Kauboy seems to know something about EMP, so this is a question.

To build a Faraday Cage, can close mesh (like window screen) wire be used or does the enclosure have to be
solid / continuous. I understand that the integrity has to be maintained (proper contact of the lid with the
box, etc.) but is a mesh effective?

Grim

Know anywhere to get PLANS to DIY a Faraday Cage?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Grim Reality said:


> Kauboy seems to know something about EMP, so this is a question.
> 
> To build a Faraday Cage, can close mesh (like window screen) wire be used or does the enclosure have to be
> solid / continuous. I understand that the integrity has to be maintained (proper contact of the lid with the
> ...


I take no credit for my knowledge on the topic. I've learned everything I can from multiple sources, and do my best to keep up PaulS' information until his long awaited return.

As for mesh, I've read that a gap of 1mm is enough to allow current to travel in. I've not found the exact explanation for this.
Mesh is fine for blocking things like radio waves, but not so much for electrons. Radio waves are very large by comparison, and get blocked easily by a fine mesh. For electrons, they just need a path of least resistance to go around the items of importance.

I did post 3 pages from a magazine once, showing the creation of a simple Faraday cage. I'll drop them here too, just for good measure. (and I can't find the post, lol)




























The quality's not perfect, but you can make it out.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Kauboy, I'm confused. Is it electrons we're trying to proof against, or is it electromagnetic pulse, i.e. radiation?


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

Thanks for the info. Kauboy! 

Much appreciated.

Grim


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Grim Reality said:


> Kauboy seems to know something about EMP, so this is a question.
> 
> To build a Faraday Cage, can close mesh (like window screen) wire be used or does the enclosure have to be
> solid / continuous. I understand that the integrity has to be maintained (proper contact of the lid with the
> ...


unless you are planning a room sized Faraday Cage why can't you just find a enclosed metal container with a tite fitting lid - why bother DIYing some iffy wire mesh deal?


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Paraphrased and trying to be simple: During a high altitude nuke, electrons are stripped off the atoms 
making up the air. This "wave" of electrons are pushed down to the earth and destroy micro-electronics, 
chips, etc. You can liken it to a static electrical discharge as when you get a shock from touching the 
doorknob after walking across a carpet in winter. The seal garbage can, Faraday cage, or multi-wrap 
of layered aluminum foil/heavy plastic allow the "static charge/electrons" to flow over and around the 
container instead of getting into the electronics and short circuiting the micro-electronics.
This is a great read:
Electromagnetic Pulse Protection - EMP - Futurescience.com


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

paraquack said:


> Paraphrased and trying to be simple: During a high altitude nuke, electrons are stripped off the atoms
> making up the air. *This "wave" of electrons are pushed down to the earth and destroy micro-electronics,
> chips, etc. * You can liken it to a static electrical discharge as when you get a shock from touching the
> doorknob after walking across a carpet in winter. The seal garbage can, Faraday cage, or multi-wrap
> ...


This EMP business can really get confusing, and I have to keep re-reading it to keep it clear in my mind.

The wave of electrons caused by the nuke are pushed down TOWARD the earth, but do not reach it. It is the spiraling of the electrons in the magnetic field of the earth that causes the burst of electromagnetic energy called an EMP. No electrons actually touch the earth, only a field. It is the field passing by that induces a large electric current in your radio and destroys it.

Electrons, in other words lightning, can be stopped by a screen-type Faraday cage. The E1 pulse from an EMP will not be stopped by an open cage; a normally sized metal screen will not stop it.

From the article you cite:

_"The E1 component of the pulse is the most commonly-discussed component. The gamma rays from a nuclear detonation in space can travel great distances. When these gamma rays hit the upper atmosphere, they knock out electrons in the atoms in the upper atmosphere, which (if they were not deflected by the Earth's magnetic field), would travel in a generally downward direction at relativistic speeds. This forms what is essentially an extremely large coherent vertical burst of electrical current in the upper atmosphere over the entire affected area. This current interacts with the Earth's magnetic field, causing the relativistic electrons to spiral around the magnetic field lines, producing a strong electromagnetic pulse..."_

Here is a page that explains it very well:

http://www.futurescience.com/emp/E1-E2-E3.html


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Here's some more good info from that site:

"In many areas affected by an EMP attack, many very small solid-state radio receivers probably would survive if their antennas were not extended and they were not connected to any external wires. Many other unprotected radio receivers probably would not survive, though. Where most people go wrong is the source of the information for their belief that radio receivers would survive. One source for the belief is the testing of small transistorized radios that was done during the 1970s. That testing cannot be extrapolated to today's solid-state receivers, which usually use integrated circuits that are much more sensitive to EMP than the receivers of the 1970s that used much more rugged discrete transistors."

"More recent testing of portable professional two-way radios has shown that they were resistant to EMP up to quite high levels. Two-way radios must have fairly rugged inputs on the receive circuits since they have a transmitter in the same case as the receiver, often on the same circuit board. If two-way radios did not have fairly rugged receive circuits, the receive circuits could be blown as soon as the transmit button is pressed. One cannot extrapolate the EMP resistance of expensive professional two-way radios to all other solid-state radio receivers, especially inexpensive consumer radios."


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> Kauboy, I'm confused. Is it electrons we're trying to proof against, or is it electromagnetic pulse, i.e. radiation?


Gamma radiation is a "wave" of energy that can be emitted from an atom. When the bomb detonates, it produces gamma. The gamma produced is small enough to interact with electrons in the air. Due to these electrons being kicked off and immediately accelerated, they generate an electric field. It is this field that makes its way toward earth, and what is responsible for inducing the 50Kv voltage per square meter that electronic devices are susceptible to.
So no, we are not directly protecting against the electrons. My statement was not accurate in that regard. We are protecting against the electric field they generate.
Electrons are far smaller than the 1mm gap concern, but the field they generate is not. (I'm still looking for a solid reference for this info to be as accurate as possible)

For the pure theory of it, you can reference the source from your provided link: Justification and Verification of High-Altitude EMP Theory, Part 1


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Thanks for the reference., Kauboy. I'm reading all I can on the subject. I find it fascinating.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Low intensity EMP can be generated with an apparatus. Here's a test on a car:


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Here''s a bunch more.
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/ferc_meta-r-320.pdf 
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/ferc_meta-r-321.pdf 
Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects 
Electromagnetic Pulse - Nuclear EMP - futurescience.com 
Electromagnetic Pulse - Soviet Test 184 - EMP 
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack 
Electromagnetic Pulse - EMP Myths - futurescience.com
http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pubs/320-090_elecpuls_fs.pdf 
Grounding for Electromagnetic Pulse Protection - Futurescience.com - EMP
EMP Effects on Vehicles - Futurescience.com
Electromagnetic Pulse Protection - EMP - Futurescience.com


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Thanks, Para. That'll keep me busy for awhile.


----------



## budgetprepp-n (Apr 7, 2013)

This is how touchy a Faraday cage can be. I put aluminium foil over the top of an ammo box and closed the lid with a two 
way radio inside. It was a fail the radio still worked perfectly.

But then I removed a layer of paint off the top ridge and tried it again. Worked perfect


----------



## tombaxter (Sep 6, 2016)

The EMP effectiveness of a container can be easily checked with a cell phone. Just seal one inside and then try and call it with another phone. If you hear it ring you know your container is not EMP proof.
Round Coffee tins like the 500 gram Nescafe tin are good for small stuff like spare regulators, handheld radios etc. Wrap the item in bubblewrap to isolate it from the tin if you like. If you're extra fussy a smear of RF Grease around the rim would ensure a seal down to the very shortest wavelengths.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

tombaxter said:


> The EMP effectiveness of a container can be easily checked with a cell phone. Just seal one inside and then try and call it with another phone. If you hear it ring you know your container is not EMP proof.
> Round Coffee tins like the 500 gram Nescafe tin are good for small stuff like spare regulators, handheld radios etc. Wrap the item in bubblewrap to isolate it from the tin if you like. If you're extra fussy a smear of RF Grease around the rim would ensure a seal down to the very shortest wavelengths.


You cannot check if a container is EMP proof with a cellphone. That will only show if the barrier will stop the wavelength used by phones. The wavelength of an EMP is much more penetrative.

People make a similiar mistake using microwave ovens. The only RF energy stopped by microwave ovens is microwave radiation; they are not EMP proof either.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

tombaxter said:


> The EMP effectiveness of a container can be easily checked with a cell phone. Just seal one inside and then try and call it with another phone. If you hear it ring you know your container is not EMP proof.
> Round Coffee tins like the 500 gram Nescafe tin are good for small stuff like spare regulators, handheld radios etc. Wrap the item in bubblewrap to isolate it from the tin if you like. If you're extra fussy a smear of RF Grease around the rim would ensure a seal down to the very shortest wavelengths.


just total BS concerning using a cell phone - same same with a radio - same same with using a microwave for a Faraday Cage ....


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> just total BS concerning using a cell phone - same same with a radio - same same with using a microwave for a Faraday Cage ....


Illini is 90% correct. Microwaves do add some protection but not much. And just because the cell phone doesn't get a signal doesn't mean you've reduced the electrical burst enough to totally protect a device. At the same time some protection is better than no protection.

I have a few critical electronic items double bagged in EMP mylar bags so some protection but if the blast is super strong even they may not survive. The metal trash can with metal tape on the lid and where the handles are attached is probably the most realistic way to protect stuff. Even it is not perfect but when you conceder cost to protection levels it's hard to beat. A complete faraday cage room is darn expensive and probably offers no more protection than the trash can.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

John Galt said:


> At the same time some protection is better than no protection.


In practice, that would be incorrect with regards to an EMP. If you don't have full protection, you might as well have none. A 1mm gap is sufficient to compromise the entire container. Nested containers would be the optimal choice.


----------



## tombaxter (Sep 6, 2016)

Illini Warrior said:


> just total BS concerning using a cell phone - same same with a radio - same same with using a microwave for a Faraday Cage ....


You call BS but offer no scientific information or other reference to back it up. How do you test for EMP? Or don't you bother, instead just trusting the opinions of internet survivalist sites.

Unless you want to take a holiday in North Korea and test your cages beside an actual detonation, or pay a mob like Dayton Brown a few thousand dollars, I can't think of a more practical way for the average prepper to test one.



> If you use one of these new galvanized cans with a very round top and lid, as well as a very firmly-secured and tight-fitting lid with plenty of overlap onto the body of the can, then the shielding effectiveness is often excellent. In this case, you may be able to omit any extra shielding, especially for items that you may use frequently. When there is radio frequency leakage in a well-sealed galvanized can, it is usually in the frequencies above 500 MHz. These are, for example, the range of the typical cell phone frequencies, and EMP components at these frequencies are at a very low levels in nuclear weapons that have so far been tested above ground.
> Electromagnetic Pulse Protection - EMP - Futurescience.com


In other words if you can protect against shorter wavelengths then the longer ones that carry the bulk of the EMP threat are also excluded from your container by default. And more powerful radiation won't 'squeeze' through your protection either, not if the contact area is as deep as the metal tin is thick. Which is the case with coffee tins for small items.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

tombaxter said:


> You call BS but offer no scientific information or other reference to back it up. How do you test for EMP? Or don't you bother, instead just trusting the opinions of internet survivalist sites.
> 
> Unless you want to take a holiday in North Korea and test your cages beside an actual detonation, or pay a mob like Dayton Brown a few thousand dollars, I can't think of a more practical way for the average prepper to test one.
> 
> In other words if you can protect against shorter wavelengths then the longer ones that carry the bulk of the EMP threat are also excluded from your container by default. And more powerful radiation won't 'squeeze' through your protection either, not if the contact area is as deep as the metal tin is thick. Which is the case with coffee tins for small items.


some of us didn't start prepping last month - nuk preparedness has been a top subject for only the last 60 years ... try using a little common sense and alot less sarcasm - you actually learn something about prepping and learn to filter out the gullible BS ....


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Would that aluminumized tape for air conditioning ductwork be of any value sealing up say a metal garbage can lid at the fabrication and lid joints ?


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

John Galt said:


> Illini is 90% correct. Microwaves do add some protection but not much. And just because the cell phone doesn't get a signal doesn't mean you've reduced the electrical burst enough to totally protect a device. At the same time some protection is better than no protection.
> 
> I have a few critical electronic items double bagged in EMP mylar bags so some protection but if the blast is super strong even they may not survive. The metal trash can with metal tape on the lid and where the handles are attached is probably the most realistic way to protect stuff. Even it is not perfect but when you conceder cost to protection levels it's hard to beat. A complete faraday cage room is darn expensive and probably offers no more protection than the trash can.


guy, for individual electronic items - a simple 2 piece cookie or candy tin is a good to go Faraday Cage - a dime to a quarter at any garage sale or thrift store .... no need to complicate things or go extreme

in regard to that lab testing UTube - fantastic that an equipped lab did that testing .... but ... the metallic sealing tape for a complete closure has it's problems .... very rarely discussed about Faraday Cages is the need for re-usability - with both an EMP and solar flares there'll be a need to unpack and re-protect your electronic gear for an unforeseeable period post SHTF .... sealing the handle rivets or other type small opening could be accomplished with metallic tape or sealants .... but for the re-usability factor - a filler of fine grade steel wool is better for the garbage can to lid gap .....


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Would screw type thread lids be better than a pressed on lid like a trash can has ?


----------



## acidMia (Aug 3, 2016)

This is starting to sound like the best way to wrap my nephews Christmas gift this year. Nested metal tins and bins, hard wrapped in foil tape? Heck yes.


----------



## tombaxter (Sep 6, 2016)

Illini Warrior said:


> some of us didn't start prepping last month - nuk preparedness has been a top subject for only the last 60 years ... try using a little common sense and alot less sarcasm - you actually learn something about prepping and learn to filter out the gullible BS ....




living in a nuclear target zone for 60 years doesn't make you wise on the subject. You may not think cell phones are an adequate test but I assure you that if you hear one ringing inside your EMP proof container you can bet it isn't working. It's an effective test of an accepted design in that respect. I have years of experience in RF as a licensed amateur so I know a bit about its propagation characteristics. I understand the necessity for shielding and have a good understanding of how power is applied over conductors. If you were a little more open minded, less prone to shouting down other peoples opinions, you might learn a few things yourself.


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> Would that aluminumized tape for air conditioning ductwork be of any value sealing up say a metal garbage can lid at the fabrication and lid joints ?


A scientist at a NASA lab did a video testing a few containers with a EMP detecting device that he would put in each container before zapping the container. a small press fit tin container like you get cookies in did a bit better than the microwave he tested. He theorized that the paint or clear coat layer on the tin kept it from being as resistant as he had hoped.

He then got a standard galvanized trash can and used expensive metal tape to seal the can. This worked well knocking out 98% of the emp charge. He then pulled the expensive metal tape off the can and applied the cheapest metal tape he could find. The cheap tape did even better blocking about 99% of the emp charge. He theorized that the cheap metal tape had super thin adhesive compared to the more expensive metal tape and the thinner adhesive layer allowed a better metal to metal bond.

I watched this video about a year ago and can no longer find it on the web. The scientist who did this admitted on the video that he was doing the video on his lunch break and it was not officially sanctioned by NASA.


----------



## imranhossain (Oct 8, 2016)

The most important piece of information you can have after any sort of unusual electrical event is information about what happened. If there is a bright flash in the sky at the same time that the power goes off, and you've been worried about nuclear EMP, your first reaction may be to assume the worst. There are many other events, however, that can cause a power outage.


----------



## jdbushcraft (Mar 26, 2015)

You can't verify that your storage method will work, but using a radio, phone, RF toy, etc can tell you if it will fail.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

