Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
. . .
I learned about shieldings, Faradyas, I use them, in equipment design, in RF
and harmonics suppression, I built shielded room for university. But I also
know the difference between the Farady shield and Electrostatic shield and
seen them work. Maybe lumping all shields is as no good as lumping all coils
ain't no good?

Sorry, you're not making much sense to me. You said that a non-ferrous
shield is transparent to a (time-varying) magnetic field. The
experiments I proposed illustrate that this is false. This has nothing
to do with what name you attach to a shield.

Roy,
I have magnetothermia machine which is about 200 W push-pull power generator
at around 27 MHz. It uses single turn, shielded loop, made of coax, about 30
inch in circumference. Loop wire, antenna (center conductor of coax) is fed
from the plates of two tubes, shield is open at the far end and grounded at
the exit from the enclosure. I get those 200 W heating my body tissue with
magnetic field.

Hm. How do you know it's from just the magnetic field?

This is really interesting. Just a couple of postings ago, you said that
a non-ferrous shield is transparent to a magnetic field. Now you say
that a magnetic field is heating your body. Do you have some embedded
steel shrapnel or something making your body ferrous, or do you just eat
lots of nails and scrap metal?

Maybe it has something to do with shielding being a fraction
of a wavelength distance from the radiator and the properties of the
magnetic and electric components in the antenna reactive near field region?

What has? The heating? That's due to the lossiness of bodily fluids in
the presence of either time-varying magnetic or electric fields.

I know that this loop radiates along its circumference, not just from the
gap in the shield. What's yer theory? Or it don't (ooops, can't) woyk?

If you'll read what Tom has posted, or a description in any good text,
you'll find that the whole circumference of a "shielded" loop radiates.
The field comes from current on the outside of the "shield", not from
some field penetrating the shield. That's my theory. It's the same as
Tom's, and that of every respected author I've read.

You seem to associate and stick to wrongos and I am sorry you find their
explanations correct, for the reality proves them wrong.

Reality proves Newton wrong -- any fool can see that moving objects come
to rest on their own. There's no conflict between theory and reality --
just between theory and people's interpretations of what they're seeing.

I'll stick with the theory that's been known and confirmed for over a
century. People with alternate theories, like yours, will have to
provide some extraordinary proof to sway my thinking.

It seems you're more interested in proving Tom to be wrong about
something -- anything! -- than taking the effort to really understand
what's actually happening. So nothing else I can post will help you. I
hope the lurkers have gotten something from this, though.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL