On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:17:07 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

Extra Credit Question:
Did the wire make the "shield" better, or worse?

It turned it to Farady shield and prevented signals from exciting the
antenna inside.

It's still the same "1/2 inch copper water tubing (non ferrous
material passing the magnetic field)."

So, does that wire make the "shield" better, or worse?

Super-extra credit question:
If we replaced the non ferrous material (same gap, no link) with (most
have probably anticipated this) a ferrous material, does this allow
near field region electrical field interference to pass un-impeded?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:19:39 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

It's still the same "1/2 inch copper water tubing (non ferrous
material passing the magnetic field)."

So, does that wire make the "shield" better, or worse?

Hmm, this one must've been experienced exactly as an existential
question about the infinite cosmos.

Super-extra credit question:
If we replaced the non ferrous material (same gap, no link) with (most
have probably anticipated this) a ferrous material, does this allow
near field region electrical field interference to pass un-impeded?

This one must never been experienced either. I've always wondered why
perfect academic set-ups like "non ferrous material" (as if it were
lossless) always appear in the context of a populist aw-shucks kind of
posting.

Sorry All,

But when such simple questions become imponderables of the century,
they merit Cecil's 5 forbidden words woven in. Of course, it makes
only the most strained of sense, but there's nothing to compete! ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

p.s. as viewed through the bottom of a bottle of Dick's Working Man's
Brown Ale (Centralia, Washington)