Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")

[Dean Pappas]

Yes. Maybe not a great one, as the lid is unlikely to be conductively gasketted, but your transmitter would likely not interfere with a plane flying on the same frequency.
Dean 
 

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Grow Pattern
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:42 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")


The big question is;
 
"Is my Ali TX case a working Faraday cube????"

E.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")


The tangents that some threads create are often much more interesting than the original intent of the thread. 
 
Keith I would say it's not a good idea. If you built a fuse out of this material, (done everyday BTW),  I suggest you build it large enough to accomodate the person flying it (vbg). I know Bill, Don Ramsey and Al Glenn and probably several more, flew or still fly "Faraday Cages" for a living
 
Now, how we went from measuring surface flatness to "shielding" devices from EMI/RFI (regardless of what the emitting source is), is beyond me
 
MattK
 
In a message dated 11/23/2004 4:32:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, tkeithb at comcast.net writes:


In other words, if you built your fuse out of this material you'd probably want to run your antenna externally. ;-)
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bob  <mailto:bob at toprudder.com> Richards 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")

John,
 
I disagree. The definition of a "Faraday CAGE", which is what Bill said, is a completely conductive sealed enclosure.
 
Also, the edges don't have to be fully bonded together for RF protection. They can be stitched together at intervals depending on how high in frequency you want attenuation. The closer the spacing, the higher the cutoff frequency. Obviously, if you want cutoff up into the gigahertz range, you pretty much need a continuous bond.
 
http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
 
Bob.


John Ferrell <johnferrell at earthlink.net> wrote:

Sorry to get picky, but a Faraday shield is not an electromagnetic field, it is an electrostatic shield. 
 
An rf tight room needs the edges fully bonded together and a Faraday shield requires that they be insulated. 
 
I think everyone knows what is being said, but I felt obliged to add the detail. 
 
John Ferrell   
My Competition is not my enemy! 
http://DixieNC.US <http://dixienc.us/> 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Richards <mailto:bob at toprudder.com>  
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")

That's what it is. No RF gets in or out. Something like 110dB attenuation.
 
Bob.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041124/bacd9039/attachment-0001.html