Survivalist Forum banner

shipping containers for emp/solar discharge protection

13K views 34 replies 20 participants last post by  TheFittest 
#1 ·
I'm a newbie here and looking for answers to several questions:

I'm purchasing several acres to homestead on and am wondering about using shipping containers for my housing. Putting three in the ground for a basement, then three on top of that for my main living space.

Can these containers be successfully be converted in a faraday cage system to protect the electronics within the house? I'm willing to learn how to weld to make everything metal tight. I plan on using insulated containers.

Any "pearls of wisdom" out there? Thanks.
 
#2 ·
I hadn't really thought about shipping containers as Faraday cages, but it might work.

They would need to be tight in order to give you much protection. Airtight is best. Grounding them with buried cables would be a good idea too.

Anything electronic that you wanted to protect would need to be insulated from the walls, floor, and ceiling of the container.

All in all, there are much easier and cheaper ways to protect your gear from an EMP. But if you're going to get these containers anyway, then by all means go for it.

On a related note, I wonder why so many people are concerned about an EMP. Right now, experts in this area say that the Russians are still the only nation with the capability of (1) constructing a nuke big enough to set off an EMP big enough to be truly destructive and (2) constructing a rocket capable of carrying a nuke above the USA. Granted, there are scenarios where terrorists could steal someone else's nuke, or ours for that matter, but detonating it at high altitude is the bigger problem. We absolutely have the capability of shooting down high altitude rockets as long as there aren't lots of them.

I'm not saying that an EMP could not happen, but I think that it's probability is so low that it's probably not worth being concerned about, even for survivalists. As long as your preps aren't too dependent on electricity, you're probably fine.
 
#5 ·
I hadn't really thought about shipping containers as Faraday cages, but it might work.

They would need to be tight in order to give you much protection. Airtight is best. Grounding them with buried cables would be a good idea too.

Anything electronic that you wanted to protect would need to be insulated from the walls, floor, and ceiling of the container.

All in all, there are much easier and cheaper ways to protect your gear from an EMP. But if you're going to get these containers anyway, then by all means go for it.

On a related note, I wonder why so many people are concerned about an EMP. Right now, experts in this area say that the Russians are still the only nation with the capability of (1) constructing a nuke big enough to set off an EMP big enough to be truly destructive and (2) constructing a rocket capable of carrying a nuke above the USA. Granted, there are scenarios where terrorists could steal someone else's nuke, or ours for that matter, but detonating it at high altitude is the bigger problem. We absolutely have the capability of shooting down high altitude rockets as long as there aren't lots of them.

I'm not saying that an EMP could not happen, but I think that it's probability is so low that it's probably not worth being concerned about, even for survivalists. As long as your preps aren't too dependent on electricity, you're probably fine.
Read "One Second After" by William Forstchen.


Yes, I know it's a work of fiction, but it was written to be a warning and with the advice of several experts and an afterword from a Naval Officer explaining exactly how the threat is very much possible, real, and much more likely than you think.

There were several EMP threads last year that I posted in. A couple of them were about a conference being held to discuss the threat. There was an impressive list of people signed on to it. (people like the former science adviser to Reagan, IIRC Bob Woolsey former CIA director, William Forstchen, Rezah Kahlili former Iranian Guard soldier...)

(Iran and North Korea...but also terrorists with nukes gained from either of those nations...were seen as the biggest threats.)
 
#3 ·
Can these containers be successfully be converted in a faraday cage system to protect the electronics within the house? I'm willing to learn how to weld to make everything metal tight. I plan on using insulated containers.
They should act as a faraday cage without any special treatment. Some science museums have exhibits where someone stands in a faraday cage that looks like a bird cage (in other words, plenty of open space, not sealed). The idea is that once the electricity hits the metal, it takes the easiest route -- along the metal.

The biggest problem, though, is electricity. How can you operate electric items inside the faraday cage, unless you have a nice thick electric wire coming in? To overcome that, you could use batteries, but you would need a way to charge the batteries (charge outside the faraday cage, and walk them in?).
 
#19 ·
there is no such thing as a universal faraday cage. sure you can make them out of mesh - but they will offer little or zero protection tothe higher fequencies of RFI

you dont need batteries to power things inside your faraday cage, only suitable filters that will block any incoming EMP
 
#4 ·
Assuming a scenario where there's no grid power and we're back to basics, what electronic equipment are you trying to protect? TV? Internet/computer? There won't be anyone on the other end...

On the other hand, most household items and car electronics are already for all practical purposes EMP-proof. Despite the doom-n-gloom panic articles floating around the 'net, there's also some real info out there and the real info shows clearly that EMP is about the last thing we need to worry about. Even if someone detonated an EMP-generating device, it would do very little harm. The energy required to "fry" even unprotected circuits is enormous and far beyond any reasonable payload. Unfortunately this is another area where physics & some simple math loses out to misinformation and fear.
 
#15 ·
I have to agree, any bomb has only so much energy. If you're talking about inducing voltage spikes in electronics one must also consider every other piece of metal and even poor conductors such as vegitation will all be competing for their slice of the pie. It is my opinion the useful radius of an EMP weapon would be rather limited.
 
#6 ·
I think that a relatively small nuke launched atop a scud missile in the gulf from a cargo ship would and could cause a-lot of damage to the grid in the US. but this theory has been postulated by others in several non-fiction books. I'm figuring if you prepare for a Nuke war you should be prepared for anything lesser.
Riv
 
#8 ·
If you bury the containers they will crush, they are only strong at the corners where they get stacker. There's a thread some where about this already and it was pretty good, try the search function, they are good for above ground storage and living structures though!! Good luck!!:thumb:
 
#9 ·
First for the OP;

A shipping container would be a good faraday cage in theory, but you would want to make sure it's sealed and what ever you are protecting is well insulated. Think of faraday cage layers. Maybe one of your "basement" containers can the protective cage. Don't run any wires, plumbing etc to this container and make sure the entrance makes a metal seal. Keep everything you want protected in it, and also make sure you do a few layers of protection. And don't forget to shut the stinkin door when coming and going!

And for those who think EMP is not a real threat, study the simplicity of making an EMP bomb. The nuclear yield doesn't need to be significant... Many countries can make nukes capable of creating a very strong EMP.

Then also consider how many countries have capabilities of getting an EMP to the altitude that would be needed to inflict maximum results.

Then consider who would want to do something like this to the US

It's not hard to realize that an EMP threat is real, and there are those who would be stupid enough to attempt, and possibly even succeed doing it.

For Example, the most likely current attack would come from North Korea...

They have the ability to make a nuke (their tech sucks, but would work)
They have the ability to get it to the altitude (they launched a satellite successfully already)
They have the desire (they are always saying they want us gone, and threaten to nuke us...)

It's clear to many people that they could indeed EMP us, but the question remains, would they???

They had a real chance when they launched that Satellite, how times did it fly over us? If it had a EMP aboard, all they would have had to do was set it off, and we'd had been screwed...

Maybe they didn't have the tech to do it then, maybe it was a test of their tech, and/or our response to it. Maybe papa china hasn't given them the ok yet...

Who knows why it hasn't happened yet, but the threat is real. And the consequences would be dire.
 
#11 ·
I have heard that the Russians have taught the North Koreans how to make an enhanced EMP nuke. The NK's have been wanting to take over the SK's for some time. We are the only thing standing in their way. If they detonated an EMP bomb over the US we would too busy with our own problems to bother helping defend the SK's. It makes perfect sense for the NK's to cripple us before invading the SK's. I consider the chance of an EMP attack against the US to be quite high.
I am making a trash can emp enclosure at my house. Start with a metal trash can. Drive a ground rod and ground out the can. Then line the inside with card board. Next I take anything I plan to put inside and seal inside a mylar bag and make sure it is insulated from the sides of the can and from anything else I put in the can.
Next what to put inside?
1. A survival radio.
2. Ignition module for my vehicle
3. A laptop computer
4. ???
What are you guys planing to save. I may be missing something important.
 
#13 ·
Next what to put inside?
1. A survival radio.
2. Ignition module for my vehicle
3. A laptop computer
4. ???
What are you guys planing to save. I may be missing something important.
Don't skimp on the redundancy where you can afford it...

1. 3 survival radios. Multibanded with widest frequency ranges possible
2. 2 Ignition modules for my vehicle
3. 2 laptop computers
4. Lots of LED lights, since they are a diode in themselves, it's reasonable to expect them to blow.
5. Medical and laboratory devices.
6. Microwave ovens (nice convenience feature when everyone else is cooking beans over a fire)
7. Cameras (security and photo)
8. Night Vision gear
9. digital watches
10. small televisions, and video players

Basically anything you use now that has a circuit board. Anything you may need in the future that has a circuit board, and anything you think other people would want when there are no other circuit boards...

Just look around your house and you start to get an idea of what you'll need. Then read a few good EMP fiction books.

You're going to need a way to recharge batteries for your surviving electronics so you may want to store solar panels, charge controllers, chargers, inverters, etc...

Do a simple search on the boards here and I'm sure there will be some great lists available.
 
#12 ·
Just wanted to say that I appreciate all of the input on EMPs. Ever since reading One Second After, it's been on my prep reason list. I do feel that it is less likely than some other disasters that could happen to me, but I thank those who have put forth their opinions about how it could come about.

I want to be rational in my prepping and since I am a bit anxious at times, it's hard for me to parse out whether all of my activities are sufficiently rational. :)
 
#17 ·
I do not believe that shipping containers, or any other steel container, is a good enough conductor to be an effective Faraday cage. Furthermore, all the contents in the container need to be insulated from the interior from the metal walls of the container.

Also, as another member mentioned, DO NOT BURY shipping containers. Their walls are not designed to hold back the pressure from the dirt. They are designed to be stacked, not buried.
 
#21 · (Edited)
To clarify some things about Faraday cages and EMP in general :

1. EMP tests have indeed showed that an EMP effect does not guarantee every piece of electronics will be fried. BUT....

1a : These tests were done with reduced strength pulses, not at the types of pulses an EMP device would typically generate.
1b : New super-EMP devices may generate pulses at least twice as strong as current devices theoretically are capable of.
1c : These tests were done years ago. Since that time electronic circuits have got smaller with tinier (more fragile) components and smaller distances between them (requiring less voltage to spark across).

So color me unreassured about the EMP testing done to date.

2. A Faraday cage must NOT be connected to a ground strap. If you do that, you've converted it from a cage to an antenna. Ooops.

3. The devices in the cage must be insulated from the cage exterior.

4. It is true that you can create a perfectly good Faraday cage out of wire netting for some types of 'low frequency' electrical discharge. But to get protection from high frequency EMP effects, you should have a solid metal structure.

5. I don't understand the math/physics behind this point, but my sense is that a Faraday cage attentuates (ie reduces) rather than eliminates RF and higher frequency fields (can't remember where I read it but what I read, when I did, was convincing). A single cage is therefore good, but for stronger pulses or more delicate circuitry, nested cages are better.

Hope this helps. :)
 
#22 ·
To clarify some things about Faraday cages and EMP in general :

1. EMP tests have indeed showed that an EMP effect does not guarantee every piece of electronics will be fried. BUT.... your statement is true but worded in such a way as to convey the totally wrong impression to the point we might as well call it a lie. at credible field levels, emp effects caused serious damage in a MINORITY of cars, trucks and other bits of infrastructure when tested while the device was in operation, and in many cases caused NO failures when powered down.

1a : These tests were done with reduced strength pulses, not at the types of pulses an EMP device would typically generate. you are talking about the emp commission report I assume. they did testing up t 50 kv/m, this is well above what MOST of the effected area will receive
1b : New super-EMP devices may generate pulses at least twice as strong as current devices theoretically are capable of. may. but there is no credible information presented that such weapons exist.
1c : These tests were done years ago. Since that time electronic circuits have got smaller with tinier (more fragile) components and smaller distances between them (requiring less voltage to spark across). it wasnt that long ago. the report came out in 2008

So color me unreassured about the EMP testing done to date.

2. A Faraday cage must NOT be connected to a ground strap. If you do that, you've converted it from a cage to an antenna. Ooops. so? so long as the current is being carried by the antenna and not by your electronics it doesnt matter. thats what a faraday cage DOES

3. The devices in the cage must be insulated from the cage exterior. nope. just like a bird can sit on a bare wire

4. It is true that you can create a perfectly good Faraday cage out of wire netting for some types of 'low frequency' electrical discharge. But to get protection from high frequency EMP effects, you should have a solid metal structure. this is true

5. I don't understand the math/physics behind this point, but my sense is that a Faraday cage attentuates (ie reduces) rather than eliminates RF and higher frequency fields (can't remember where I read it but what I read, when I did, was convincing). A single cage is therefore good, but for stronger pulses or more delicate circuitry, nested cages are better.

Hope this helps. :)
a faraday cage DOES attenuate the field, because in the real world there are often times openings, imperfections, and things of that nature. in practice though, a faraday cage will reduce any field that it is designed for to such a great extent that nesting would not need to be used. if you have delicate electronics then you need to concentrate on making a proper cage with good seals at any openings or joints in the conductor, out of thick enough material to be effective for the frequency range you need to protect against.
 
#29 ·
Sorry for the narrow text. This is an excerpt from "The effects of Nuclear Weapons"
Compiled and edited by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, 3rd edition.
Prepared and published by the United States Department of Defense
and the Energy Research and Development Administration

Chapter 11


11.34 A few of the practices that
may be employed to harden a system
against EMP damage are described
below. The discussion is intended to
provide a general indication of the tech-
niques rather than a comprehensive
treatment of what is a highly technical
and specialized area. Some of the
methods of hardening against the EMP
threat are shielding, proper circuit
layout, satisfactory grounding, and
various protective devices. If these
measures do not appear to be adequate,
it may be advisable to design equipment
with vacuum tubes rather than solid-
state components, if this is compatible
with the intended use of the equipment.
11.35 A so-called "electromagne-
tic" shield consists of a continuous
metal, e.g., steel, soft iron, or copper,
sheet surrounding the system to be pro-
tected
. Shielding of individual components
or small subsystems is generally
not practical because of the complexity
of the task. Good shielding practice may
include independent zone shields, sev-
eral thin shields rather than one thick
one
, and continuous joints. The shield
should not be used as a ground or return
conductor
, and sensitive equipment
should be kept away from shield
corners
. Apertures in shields should be
avoided as far as possible; doors should
be covered with metal sheet so that
when closed they form a continuous part
of the whole shield, and ventilation
openings, which cannot be closed,
should be protected by special types of
screens or waveguides. In order not to
jeopardize the effectiveness of the
shielding, precautions must be taken in
connection with penetrations of the
housing by conductors, such as pipes,
conduits, and metal-sheathed cables.

11.38 Good grounding practices
will aid in decreasing the susceptibility
of a system to damage by the EMP. A
"ground" is commonly thought of as a
part of a circuit that has a relatively low
impedance to the local earth surface. A
particular ground arrangement that sa-
tisfies this definition may, however, not
be optimum and may be worse than no
ground for EMP protection.
In general,
a ground can be identified as the chassis
of an electronic circuit, the "low" side
of an antenna system, a common bus, or
a metal rod driven into the earth. The
last depends critically on local soil con-
ditions (conductivity), and it may result
in resistively coupled currents in the
ground circuit. A good starting point for
EMP protection is to provide a single
point ground for a circuit cluster,
usually at the lowest impedance element
-the biggest piece of the system that is
electrically immersed in the earth, e.g.,
the water supply system.
 
#31 ·
Grounding EMP hardened cages is always a topic of debate among engineers. Several of my peers who have previously worked on military equipment which was EMP hardened will disagree on grounding techniques or if grounding is needed. In the case of military electronics a ground may be required for the encapsulated circuitry and thus force the issue. My opinion is that the cage should not be grounded if it is strictly a cage for protection of stored equipment. Others may argue for an earth ground or even a spark gap to disparate a large charge but leave the cage ungrounded to low charge levels. It's even possible that grounding is a moot point and either method results in protected equipment.

If I were to use a shipping container as an EMP shield I would install a second set of doors inside of the main doors. The second, inner, set would be designed to have a continuous conductive contact all the way around.
 
#34 ·
Our own country has the drones already capable of delivering EMP any where they want .
Quite likely to be used on us in the near future.

Simple bunker
Carve out a valley with a good well in it , providing dranage out of the bunker area.
Pour a concrete floor and set the containers stratigicly on the floor and build a roof that covers them all .
're cover the whole thing .
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top