Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Building a Faraday's cage ?

J

John Larkin

It was false when you first posted it and it remains false.



This is also simply not true. Any material that has a mu greater than
free space will act as a shield. The higher the mu the better, provided
it does not saturate.

Even fairly open structures like the body of a car, reduces the amplitude
of the AC field seen inside.

As I've mentioned, beefy Hoffmann steel electrical equipment boxes,
with fully formed/welded corners and a tight cover, typically can't
reduce an external 60 Hz field by even half. Thin steel lining a room
will be much, much worse.

John
 
P

Phil Allison

"John Larkin"
As I've mentioned, beefy Hoffmann steel electrical equipment boxes,
with fully formed/welded corners and a tight cover, typically can't
reduce an external 60 Hz field by even half. Thin steel lining a room
will be much, much worse.


** Is JL backing me up ??

Seems he has at last some non theoretical experience to convince him.

Mumetal is not called that for no reason.





....... Phil
 
K

Ken Smith

Phil Allison said:
** This asinine Smith fool has no bloody idea.

Just so that others have the context, here is what PA seems to find so
objectionable:

****** Begin *****
This is also simply not true. Any material that has a mu greater than
free space will act as a shield. The higher the mu the better, provided
it does not saturate.

Even fairly open structures like the body of a car, reduces the amplitude
of the AC field seen inside.
****************

He seems to feel that only "magic" material like mumetal can provide
magnetic shielding.
Do some real tests.

I have. Have you?
 
K

Ken Smith

This is also simply not true. Any material that has a mu greater than
free space will act as a shield. The higher the mu the better, provided
it does not saturate.

Even fairly open structures like the body of a car, reduces the amplitude
of the AC field seen inside.

As I've mentioned, beefy Hoffmann steel electrical equipment boxes,
with fully formed/welded corners and a tight cover, typically can't
reduce an external 60 Hz field by even half. Thin steel lining a room
will be much, much worse.[/QUOTE]

This disagrees strongly with what I have seen. A mu-metal shield can
reduces the 60Hz by about a factor of 10 per layer. For a distant 60Hz
source. ie: the 3 layer shield cans reduce the 60Hz field from about
150nTp-p to about 0.1nTp-p.

An open structure such as the steal 2x4s in the walls of the building I
work in, reduces the earths field from about 50,500nT to about 39,000nT
when measured in the middle of a nearly empty office.

The OP is worried about a local source for the 60Hz not a distant one. He
has a field from a romex in the wall. This is quite a different matter
than the distant source case.
 
K

Ken Smith

** Those "emg" pickups are dual coil magnetic - you ass.[/QUOTE]

..... and I still ask how this explains the 180 degrees observation.


I assume that even where you live, adding two dipoles yelds a dipole and
that reciprocity holds.
 
J

John Larkin

As I've mentioned, beefy Hoffmann steel electrical equipment boxes,
with fully formed/welded corners and a tight cover, typically can't
reduce an external 60 Hz field by even half. Thin steel lining a room
will be much, much worse.

This disagrees strongly with what I have seen. A mu-metal shield can
reduces the 60Hz by about a factor of 10 per layer. For a distant 60Hz
source. ie: the 3 layer shield cans reduce the 60Hz field from about
150nTp-p to about 0.1nTp-p.
[/QUOTE]

It doesn't disagree "strongly". If my mild-steel box attenuates a bit
less than 2:1, and your mu-metal shield attenuates 10:1, that's right
in the ballpark of the permeability ratio of the metals. The price
ratio of the metals will be a lot higher. The OP suggested lining his
studio with sheets of thin steel, not inch-thick, seamless mu-metal.

Consider a cubic box exposed to a far-field hum source. Assume the
field is vertical, with flux entering the top of the box and exiting
the bottom. The flux has a choice of flowing through the metal sides
or of penetrating and flowing through the air inside. The situation is
not at all simple, but in general it acts like a resistive voltage
divider, where current (flux) flows through a path inverse to the
path's resistance (reluctance.) If the box is big and its walls are
thin, the air path isn't very well "shorted" so the flux short-cuts
through the inside of the box.

Mu-metal and metglas can have permeability from tens to hundreds of
times that of cheap sheet steel, and most magnetic shields are
designed for a relatively fat wall thickness. Metglas can hit mu of
1e6 if handled right, but is only available in thin foils.
An open structure such as the steal 2x4s in the walls of the building I
work in, reduces the earths field from about 50,500nT to about 39,000nT
when measured in the middle of a nearly empty office.

That's only about 20% attenuation for a lot of steel. I'd guess that
there are spots within the structure where the field is actually
concentrated above the 50K nt. The downside of any non-uniform
magnetic structure is that it sucks in ambient field and can actually
concentrate it in places.
The OP is worried about a local source for the 60Hz not a distant one. He
has a field from a romex in the wall. This is quite a different matter
than the distant source case.

True, near-field is even more complex. He should replace the offending
romex with MX or something like that, twisted wiring inside a
close-fitting steel jacket. But first he should scan the e and h
fields to find out what's actually where and which fields are giving
him problems. It could still be electric.

John
 
K

Ken Smith

John Larkin said:
It doesn't disagree "strongly". If my mild-steel box attenuates a bit
less than 2:1, and your mu-metal shield attenuates 10:1, that's right
in the ballpark of the permeability ratio of the metals. The price
ratio of the metals will be a lot higher. The OP suggested lining his
studio with sheets of thin steel, not inch-thick, seamless mu-metal.

As I understood it, he was making a 2 meter by 2 meter by 1 meter box and
had accepted the idea that it would be a double layer shield.

Consider a cubic box exposed to a far-field hum source. Assume the
field is vertical, with flux entering the top of the box and exiting
the bottom. The flux has a choice of flowing through the metal sides
or of penetrating and flowing through the air inside. The situation is
not at all simple, but in general it acts like a resistive voltage
divider, where current (flux) flows through a path inverse to the
path's resistance (reluctance.) If the box is big and its walls are
thin, the air path isn't very well "shorted" so the flux short-cuts
through the inside of the box.

This is how I was thinking about it when I wrote the responce where I
explained why a two layered shield worked better.

Mu-metal and metglas can have permeability from tens to hundreds of
times that of cheap sheet steel,


IIRC Mumetal is 50000 "tin plate" is 2000 so the OP may have to go with a
3 layer design for distant sources.

and most magnetic shields are
designed for a relatively fat wall thickness.

The metal of one of the shield cans I mensioned is under 0.03" thick.

[....]
That's only about 20% attenuation for a lot of steel. I'd guess that
there are spots within the structure where the field is actually
concentrated above the 50K nt. The downside of any non-uniform
magnetic structure is that it sucks in ambient field and can actually
concentrate it in places.

The metal of a steel 2x4 is actually quite thin. They have a "U" shaped
cross section. The sides of the "U" are the 2" face and the base of the U
is the 4" side. The 4" side has a lot of holes in it for conduit to be
run etc.

I did a fairly extensive survey of the building before we set up in it.
The field is always less than the 50K when you are away from magnetic
objects. The field strength above the roof was very eratic. In the
outside, you have to get atleast 20 feet from the building before you get
anything like a normal field.
True, near-field is even more complex. He should replace the offending
romex with MX or something like that, twisted wiring inside a
close-fitting steel jacket. But first he should scan the e and h
fields to find out what's actually where and which fields are giving
him problems. It could still be electric.

I assumed that he didn't have a net current in the romex. If he does, the
house may burn down and solve the problem.

Elsewhere in the thread, he stated that the noise dropped to zero with a
180 degree rotation of the pickup WRT the wall. It would require a stack
of coincidences about 50 feet tall for that to be purely an magnetic
pickup.
 
P

Phil Allison

"Ken Smith"
IIRC Mumetal is 50000 "tin plate" is 2000 so the OP may have to go with a
3 layer design for distant sources.


** More asinine crapology from a know nothing PITA !!

The attenuation of low level, AC frequency, magnetic fields buy a tin plate
shield is virtually zero.

Using two is still close to zero.

However, one thin layer of Mumetal or similar material attenuates that same
field by a factor of about 100.

That is WHY Mumetal is used to make shields for on scope tubes and cans for
mic transformers.

Thin steel simply does NOT work !!!!


Elsewhere in the thread, he stated that the noise dropped to zero with a
180 degree rotation of the pickup WRT the wall. It would require a stack
of coincidences about 50 feet tall for that to be purely an magnetic
pickup.


** Or a more complicated hum field that you are naively assuming.

The OPs story is entirely bollocks.





......... Phil
 
J

John Larkin

"Ken Smith"


** More asinine crapology from a know nothing PITA !!

The attenuation of low level, AC frequency, magnetic fields buy a tin plate
shield is virtually zero.

Using two is still close to zero.

However, one thin layer of Mumetal or similar material attenuates that same
field by a factor of about 100.

Given equal thickness and geometry, the shielding ratio goes directly
with the permeability ratio. Figure permeability of a couple of K for
mild steel, 10K for good steel, 50-200K for mu-metal.

Given your idea of "thin", and the volume to be shielded, 100:1
shielding may be optimistic for mumetal.

John
 
K

Ken Smith

"Ken Smith"


** More asinine crapology from a know nothing PITA !!
However, one thin layer of Mumetal or similar material attenuates that same
field by a factor of about 100.

More rude nonsense from PA.

To OP: He is optimistic bay more than a factor of 10 here.

Unless the OP is still reading along, I'm done.
 
P

Phil Allison

"John Larkin"
Given equal thickness and geometry, the shielding ratio goes directly
with the permeability ratio.

Figure permeability of a couple of K for
mild steel, 10K for good steel, 50-200K for mu-metal.


** Shame how magnetic permeability varies with flux density and is a not
simple number.

Shame you are picking numbers out of the sky .


Given your idea of "thin",


** Is this the manic John Larkin speaking ?

Or has the autistic pedant been let out again ?




......... Phil
 
J

John Larkin

** Shame how magnetic permeability varies with flux density and is a not
simple number.

Shame you are picking numbers out of the sky .


No, these are pretty good permeability numbers. To be more precise,
the exact alloy and annealing would have to be specified. There's
plenty of that on the web for anybody who's interested.

Where did your "100:1" shielding number come from? As others have
mentioned, that's optimistic for most practical geometries.

** Is this the manic John Larkin speaking ?

Or has the autistic pedant been let out again ?


When I talk numbers, I do so as an engineer. Emotional states don't
affect quantitative reality, unless you're an audio tech, of course.

John
 
P

Phil Allison

"John Larkin"
No, these are pretty good permeability numbers.


** Nope - just convenient figures YOU picked out of the sky with no
reference level.

However, even using * YOUR* thin air figures -

the ratio of "mild steel" to Mu-metal *IS* 100:1.

I'd call that " Game Set and Match" .



When I talk numbers, I do so as an engineer.


** You have completely missed the point.

Manics generally do that.

They also suffer from grandiose notions.




....... Phil
 
J

John Larkin

"John Larkin"



** Nope - just convenient figures YOU picked out of the sky with no
reference level.

However, even using * YOUR* thin air figures -

the ratio of "mild steel" to Mu-metal *IS* 100:1.

Or 30:1, depending on the alloys.
I'd call that " Game Set and Match" .


This isn't tennis, this is physics. Reality just is, it doesn't keep
scoce. The shielding ratio between mild steel and anything else
depends on the permeability ratio, which is a hard fact to
personalize.

** You have completely missed the point.

Manics generally do that.

They also suffer from grandiose notions.

Dang, you always snip my best lines.

John
 
P

Phil Allison

"John Larkin = an admitted Manic "
Or 30:1, depending on the alloys.


** Now you ARE squirming like a cut worm.


This isn't tennis, this is physics.


** I used *YOUR* figures - ASSHOLE.

The ones YOU picked out of thin air.


Reality just is, it doesn't keep
scoce.


** What you posted is not reality nor physics.

Just a manic person being obnoxious and grandiose.

You have completely missed my and the original points.

Manics generally do that.

They also suffer from grandiose notions.

They are also insufferable PITA.

Even worse when simultaneously affected by ASD.





....... Phil
 
J

John Larkin

** What you posted is not reality nor physics.

Just a manic person being obnoxious and grandiose.

You have completely missed my and the original points.

Manics generally do that.

They also suffer from grandiose notions.

They are also insufferable PITA.

Even worse when simultaneously affected by ASD.


Ooh, crabby today. But consider: If you're always angry, and I'm
having fun, which of us is crazy?

John
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

John said:
Ooh, crabby today. But consider: If you're always angry, and I'm
having fun, which of us is crazy?

John


Phyllis is on the rag, again.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
Top