Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:10:28 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

while you claim

Hi Roy,

The courteous thing would be to quote me directly rather than
paraphrase me obliquely. Respond to the posting you find
objectionable.

I did. I responded to the lengthy posting you reposted. Your response to
that was, unfortunately, incomprehensible to me, and not apparently
related to the topic in question. But here's what you've said, and with
which I disagree -- that is, if I understand what you've said; I often
don't. Alas, I was too often in the back room soldering things together
when I should have been doing my English homework. (And see what it's
done: not only poor comprehensive skills but split infinitives to boot.)

------------

On 24 May 2006 17:31:59 -0700, wrote:

[Tom wrote:]
This is part and parcel to the world of isolated and shielded
circuits. The electrostatic shields are as effective as they are
complete in their coverage. Their contribution is measured in mutual
capacitance between the two points being isolated.

I don't have that reference and so cannot see that shield, but the only
thing the shield can do is reduce field impedance by changing the ratio
of electric to magnetic fields. In order to take either one to zero the
other must also be at zero.

[You responded:]
Hi Tom,

There are too many contra-examples too sustain your point. What you
are talking about is radiation, this does not account for common
induction that occurs on the very short scales I've offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

-----------

And:

-----------

On Wed, 24 May 2006 12:11:52 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
Richard's applications and illustrations do not push this
boundary. In
fact, Ramo et. al distinctly offer the case of "electrostatic
shielding" and clearly support the separation of magnetic and
electric
flux (fields). . .


[I responded:]
Can you direct me to where in the text they do so? All I've found is a
short section (5.28) on "Electrostatic Shielding" where they explain
that introducing a grounded conductor near two others will reduce the
capacitive coupling between them. Obviously this will alter the local
E/H ratio, but in no way does it allow an E or H field to exist
independently, even locally, let alone at any distance.

[To which you replied with the lengthy post which you were kind enough
to post a second time. Hopefully a third time won't be necessary.]

------------

Am I mistaken, then? Were you agreeing all along that a time-varying
electric or magnetic field can't exist independently and therefore there
can't be completely inductive (H field) or capacitive (E field) coupling?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL