Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats
Date	2015-11-16 19:43 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<f8ophc-k6m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <f7fnhc-5re.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n2bcrh$t5h$1@speranza.aioe.org> <osrnhc-33g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n2cva8$6tc$1@speranza.aioe.org> <cJo2y.68087$eE.61037@fx07.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 11:12 AM, gilber34 wrote:
>> On 11/15/2015 8:33 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>> skin effect is only one part of the problem, re-radiation from the other
>>>> side is another, a reason most shield rooms have two screens attached at
>>>> a single point between them. and also lack of sufficient attenuation in
>>>> material.  Gov switched from copper to galvanized steel sheet for many
>>>> of their SCIFs, much cheaper, + better attenuation.  Need to knock it
>>>> down by 90 to 150 Db
>>>
>>> Re-radiation from the other side of a closed, solid conductor is
>>> impossible
>>> for practical sheet metal of any kind.
>>
>>
>> True, if the solid conductor is thicker than skin depth, and has some
>> Iron content to attenuate down to 1KHz.   But the seams, doors can be a
>> challange, etc.
>>
>> It is a matter of how much attenuation you want, 20 Db or 150 Db
>> more material, more layers, more attenuation. (easier as you go up in
>> frequency)
>>
>> Try cutting off a DC magnetic field from a PMT tube
> 
> Simple. Just need lower resistance.
 
Mu metal.

Been there, done that for a chamber that had to exclude RF as well
as magnetic fields.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

MIT study on aluminum foil hats Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 14:59 -0600
  Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 21:05 +0000
    Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 13:24 -0800
      Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 13:26 -0800
      Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 21:58 +0000
  Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 21:37 +0000
    Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 22:04 +0000
      Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 23:00 +0000
        Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 23:05 +0000
  Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 16:06 -0600
    Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 22:57 +0000
      Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 19:51 -0600
        Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 02:33 +0000
          Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-16 10:12 -0600
            Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:28 -0800
            Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:52 -0500
              Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:43 +0000
                Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 21:55 -0500
                Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-16 23:04 -0600
            Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:39 +0000
  Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 03:24 -0800
    Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 03:26 -0800
      Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:42 -0500
    Re: MIT study on aluminum foil hats benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:40 -0500

csiph-web