1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Faraday Cage Effectiveness versus Frequency

  1. Jun 27, 2017 #1
    If inside of a metal (for ex. Aluminum) enclosure, could it potentially create more harm than good if frequencies were able to penetrate due to an imperfectly sealed cage or due to a relatively high power level of frequencies that allowed them to penetrate the metal? If the power level was high enough, could it exceed the ablility of absorptive materials used on the interior to try to capture what gets in?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 27, 2017 #2

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    Here's a discussion on Faraday cages where they talk about what it can and can't block and how well its done.

    It did mention that cell phone signals are attenuated meaning a powerful enough signal could get through.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  4. Jun 27, 2017 #3

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If the inside of the cage were to resonate at a particular frequency, and the coupling from outside to inside were just right, I think the field inside it could exceed the field outside. I am thinking along the lines of a tuned circuit connected to an antenna. But a small hole in a cage would not admit more than a very small fraction of the incident power flux so I think the answer would have to be No. Any dissipative element inside the cage would damp the resonator and produce a very low Q factor.
     
  5. Jun 27, 2017 #4
    I have to review the study you've referenced.
    I agree about the dissipative element being capable of absorbing penetration due to small leaks, but what about if of the power level of the frequency was high enough to result in a lot of frequency penetrating to the interior, where it can bounce around continuously - if the power level was high enough could this exceed the ability of damping materials to reduce frequencies to a safe level?
     
  6. Jun 27, 2017 #5

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you suggesting an absorbing layer? Not a bad idea but you'd need to look up details of actual designs and calculate whether it would be worth it. What isolation do you need? 60dB or 120dB - which? What do you mean by 'Safe'? It's a bit 'how long is a piece of string' at the moment.
    Perhaps more important than the material and thickness of the box, the seams, door and in/out connectors should be considered.
     
  7. Jun 27, 2017 #6
    What I meant to say was if the power level was high enough to penetrate the shielding material itself, not just leaking through holes. In this case could it create conditions inside the cage that would exceed the ability of absorptive materials to reduce the frequencies?
     
  8. Jun 27, 2017 #7

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Reread the quoted bits of that article above .... skin depth is related to frequency, not power

    you have to get up to X-rays and higher for any significant ( but still small) depth penetration .... they use X-Rays for looking for metal defects

    As far as I'm aware of, for a solid continuous shield, there is no penetration. EM enters/exits via cracks and holes
    This is why RF waveguides work so well for carrying very high power ( 10's of kW's) from transmitters to antennas for TV stations etc
    there isn't any leakage through the WG, only from joints between sections and they use methods to reduce that


    Dave
     
  9. Jun 27, 2017 #8
    I need to read that article. Interesting that thickness of shield material apparently does not matter, it is the continuity of the enclosure that determines leakage. Therefore, absorptive materials on the inside should prevent any leaked frequencies from continuously reflecting back + forth on the inner surfaces. And joint leakage reduction techniques are important.
     
  10. Jun 27, 2017 #9

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, the thickness is important it has to be at least greater than the skin depth for a given frequency

    primarily, yes


    yes that will help

    but absorptive materials on the inside are primarily used for dampening oscillations inside a box that are radiated by the circuitry inside the box.
    These radiated oscillations can cause circuit instability. The higher the frequency, the more these oscillations can be a problem


    Dave
     
  11. Jun 27, 2017 #10
    Actually, the primary concern is if people are inside of the shielded room. It seems it will be ok if properly designed.
     
  12. Jun 27, 2017 #11

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  13. Jun 28, 2017 #12

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You need to get things in proportion here. A shielding of only 30dB would reduce the power exposure by 1/1000. (1kW arriving outside produces 1W inside) What exactly are you trying to protect humans (?) from? You want an Engineering answer so your question needs to specify the requirements with some accuracy. to make it worth while. Comments about a foot bridge may not apply to a Motorway bridge.
    The requirements for a good measurement facility is entirely different from the requirement for personal safety.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Faraday Cage Effectiveness versus Frequency
  1. Faraday cage (Replies: 3)

  2. Faraday cage ? (Replies: 5)

  3. Faraday cage (Replies: 10)

  4. Faraday Cage (Replies: 1)

Loading...