I Can Current Density Static Create an Effective Electromagnetic Shield?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of static current density in creating an electromagnetic shield. It explores the theoretical idea that maintaining a static current density could block incident electromagnetic radiation, referencing Maxwell's equations. However, participants clarify that simply adding a static electric field does not provide shielding, as fields combine vectorially and do not negate external fields. The conversation emphasizes the functioning of a Faraday cage, which shields by redistributing surface charges to create an opposing field, effectively blocking external electromagnetic waves. Ultimately, the consensus is that static fields alone are insufficient for effective electromagnetic shielding.
cuallito
Messages
94
Reaction score
1
I've been thinking about electromagnetic shielding lately.

Of course, you have your good, old-fashioned Faraday cage.

But after staring at Maxwell's equations awhile, I'm thinking:

We're after a static E field, right?

So if we set ## \frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial t}=0## in Ampere's Law, we get

$$\nabla\times \textbf{B}=\mu_0 \textbf{J}$$

Implying that if we can hold the current density ##\textbf{J}## static around a region of space, say with a constant current source, we'd effectively 'fix' the field in that region of space, thus blocking out any incident EM radiation (theoretically)?

For example, if we had a cylinder wrapped around in conducting wire, hooked up to a constant current source, would the field in the interior of the cylinder stay static regardless of what the field outside it was doing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cuallito said:
We're after a static E field, right?
No. We are after shielding against electromagnetic radiation.

cuallito said:
Implying that if we can hold the current density J static around a region of space, say with a constant current source, we'd effectively 'fix' the field in that region of space, thus blocking out any incident EM radiation (theoretically)?
No. It is not implying that and I am not sure how you arrived at such a conclusion.

cuallito said:
For example, if we had a cylinder wrapped around in conducting wire, hooked up to a constant current source, would the field in the interior of the cylinder stay static regardless of what the field outside it was doing?
No.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to first understand how a Faraday cage works.
 
cuallito said:
Implying that if we can hold the current J density static around a region of space, say with a constant current source, we'd effectively 'fix' the field in that region of space, thus blocking out any incident EM radiation (theoretically)?
Fields add vectorally, so adding a static field does nothing to "shield" other fields that are present. It just adds a DC field term to the vector sum.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
cuallito said:
I've been thinking about electromagnetic shielding lately.

Of course, you have your good, old-fashioned Faraday cage.

But after staring at Maxwell's equations awhile, I'm thinking:

We're after a static E field, right?

So if we set ## \frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial t}=0## in Ampere's Law, we get

$$\nabla\times \textbf{B}=\mu_0 \textbf{J}$$

Implying that if we can hold the current density ##\textbf{J}## static around a region of space, say with a constant current source, we'd effectively 'fix' the field in that region of space, thus blocking out any incident EM radiation (theoretically)?

For example, if we had a cylinder wrapped around in conducting wire, hooked up to a constant current source, would the field in the interior of the cylinder stay static regardless of what the field outside it was doing?
A Faraday cage is essentially the same as a mirror for visible light frequencies. The way it shields is the charges present on the surface of the conducting shield reorient in response to the external field, this causes an equal and opposite field to appear at the surface of the shield which blocks the primary EM that tries to propagate through.

Somewhat the same way a waveguide for RF frequencies work. The RF wave doesn't get outside the enclosed guide because the inner walls are conducting and they reflect the wave everytime it hits the walls , which it does so after even distances which are related to the wavelength of the wave
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top