-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Electronic ballasts and RF/cable interference, AGAIN
- Thread starter clowntown
- Start date
Stoney Bologna
Member
een said:
So een, Care to explain why? I'd love to hear what you have to say. I'm sure you're an expert so why not explain to me how I'm wrong.
Stoney Bologna
Member
stonewall said:
What about there very nature makes plastics non-conductive? High carbon content plastics do indeed attenuate RF emissions because carbon is conductive to EM radiation in most pratical spectral bands. So yes, black poly will attenuate most RF signals!
Stoney Bologna
Member
Infinite resistance! Well that sounds like the perfect material to attenuate a signal with!
But seriously, I have the same black poly as you do. Your ohm meter measures a material's ability to conduct a DC electrical signal which is completely different from a material's ability to conduct an electromagnetic wave.
You'll need a spectrum analyzer; UHF antena; function generator; and a little more insight on the nature of photons to be able to measure a material's resistance to an electromagnetic wave.
You should really trust me on this one because as it turns out the electrons in the carbon atom get really excited when they get hit with photons that are about 100 nanometers to several feet in length. This causes them to jump to a higher energy state and absorb some of the energy from the wave in doing so. An RF signal is just a stream of photons that are a couple centimeters to serveral feet in length. Hence, plastics containg carbon atoms attenuate RF signals. Isn't that great!
But seriously, I have the same black poly as you do. Your ohm meter measures a material's ability to conduct a DC electrical signal which is completely different from a material's ability to conduct an electromagnetic wave.
You'll need a spectrum analyzer; UHF antena; function generator; and a little more insight on the nature of photons to be able to measure a material's resistance to an electromagnetic wave.
You should really trust me on this one because as it turns out the electrons in the carbon atom get really excited when they get hit with photons that are about 100 nanometers to several feet in length. This causes them to jump to a higher energy state and absorb some of the energy from the wave in doing so. An RF signal is just a stream of photons that are a couple centimeters to serveral feet in length. Hence, plastics containg carbon atoms attenuate RF signals. Isn't that great!
stonewall said:
stonewall
Active member
So all black poly is high carbon?
We observe that the Shielding Efficiency increases with increasing dc conductivity
We observe that the Shielding Efficiency increases with increasing dc conductivity
Stoney Bologna
Member
Good for you! That's exactly right!stonewall said:
However, This group from Korea that you cited, observed an increase in shielding effeciency with increasing the dc conductivity of a hydrochloric acid doped polyaniline silver monolayer. So again, the measurement you took with your little ohm meter is not analogous.
This dc conductivity that they're talking about is not the same conductivity that you thought you measured when you touched the two probes of your radio shack multimeter to the black poly.
I'm glad you know how to do a keyword search with google scholar. But you'll need to know a little more about physics to understand the literature. Did you read the entire paper? How did they go about measuring the dc conductivity of their monolayer? They sure didn't use a radio shack multimeter.
The purpose of my original post in this thread was to state that some plastics do attenuate RF radiation. You seemed adamently opposed to this idea yet you found a paper in the Journal of Applied Physics that proves this thesis. You've blatantly contradicted yourself. So again, I have to ask: Why is this not my area of expertise?stonewall said:
You've proven to me, not to mention yourself, that you are wrong and don't really know what you're talking about. You have a basic level of knowledge regarding this topic, and that's it. I could tell right off the bat that it's only a basic level of understanding you have because of your misuse of the nomenclature. FYI, there is no such thing as the attenuation of radio frequency interference. One can, however, attenuate radio frequency emmisions.
Do you still think you're right? Got any more papers, I'd love to read'em. Got anymore condradictory statements? What makes you an expert? You obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you're so thicked headed that you can't realize you're wrong then I'd be happy to take the time to describe in further detail why you are wrong and that you don't know what you're talking about.
ps. Black poly is black because of carbon.
Last edited:
Stoney Bologna
Member
Does Mr. Een, have anything to add to this?
stonewall
Active member
No, I am trying to get a better grasp on what you are saying. I do appoligize for coming across as a know it all asshole originally.
I can see how the black poly would attenuate the RFI to a mjinor degree, but it seems to me, from my limited understanding, that it would take more than just a couple layers to effectivly silence the noise(absorb the waves). I know it shouldn't take much to stop the emmision from the high frequency switching power supply, but is a couple layers of black poly really enough?
I would love it if you could go more in depth and teach me something this fine Sunday morning.
Last edited:
Stoney Bologna
Member
Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry about that last post. I shouldn't have gotten so angry. I just woke up this morning and checked my posts before I had my morning bowl and I realized there's a couple of people in here trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I just came here to post some simple, useful information. Then some one has to come and tell me I'm wrong in the most arrogant fashion and then go on to defend the misinformation they are spreading. That's why I got so pissed, but now I feel like a dick. 
It really would be enough because the noise from the power supply has a relatively low amplitude. This is especially true if it's noise from an "RF shielded" device because the noise has already been attenuated a great deal by the shielding material so only some really low amplitude noise trickles out. Now for a high output source you might need more than just a couple layers, but the FCC makes sure these higher output sources are not available to the general public. So it's unlikely anybody here is having issues with high intensity EMI.
Again, I'm sorry for getting so fired up.
It really would be enough because the noise from the power supply has a relatively low amplitude. This is especially true if it's noise from an "RF shielded" device because the noise has already been attenuated a great deal by the shielding material so only some really low amplitude noise trickles out. Now for a high output source you might need more than just a couple layers, but the FCC makes sure these higher output sources are not available to the general public. So it's unlikely anybody here is having issues with high intensity EMI.
Again, I'm sorry for getting so fired up.
stonewall
Active member
hey man, I know how you must have felt. i have been in your position before myself. Part of the reason I took the position I did yesterday.
I do have a big head, but I am not so dense as to not be able to learn something new when presented in a convincing manner. thanks for taking the time to hash this out.
Would you have any recomendation or procedure that the laymen could use to test the effectiveness of his "shielding" system?
A way to prove to ones self that his efforts are effective?
I do have a big head, but I am not so dense as to not be able to learn something new when presented in a convincing manner. thanks for taking the time to hash this out.
Would you have any recomendation or procedure that the laymen could use to test the effectiveness of his "shielding" system?
A way to prove to ones self that his efforts are effective?
Stoney Bologna
Member
Well you definitely know more than the layman about this topic, and you do know more than most people about this stuff. I was just being a defensive prick earlier.
If a cell phone doesn't get reception inside the shielding device it's safe to say your shielding any and all forms of EMI. But, the type of shielding device to block a cell phone would be overkill for what you need to shield ballast EMI. But if your blocking the cell phone signal you can be damn sure you're blocking the EMI. It would take a layer of black poly an inch thick to completely block a cell phone signal, but you already had that idea to begin with.
If a cell phone doesn't get reception inside the shielding device it's safe to say your shielding any and all forms of EMI. But, the type of shielding device to block a cell phone would be overkill for what you need to shield ballast EMI. But if your blocking the cell phone signal you can be damn sure you're blocking the EMI. It would take a layer of black poly an inch thick to completely block a cell phone signal, but you already had that idea to begin with.
stonewall
Active member
the cell phone in a 6mil trash bag was the first test I put the poly up to. muwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
neddless to say it didn't convince me. I still had full signal.
What about the am radio? from what I have read on complaints about electronic ballast causing interfernece it has been with am radio.
neddless to say it didn't convince me. I still had full signal.
What about the am radio? from what I have read on complaints about electronic ballast causing interfernece it has been with am radio.
Last edited:
HIDEyourBUD
Member
A little while back, I purchased a 600W 120V Lumatek. When I installed it in my cabinet and turned it on, the radio in my basement went completely to static. It was such a problem that I returned the unit. This was the BLUE version that uses a standard chord set.
fuzygrowth
Active member
i bet turning off the radio solved the problem 
. i'm keeping an eye on this thread, i have 8 regular silver 600 lumateks at 240v that have not yet been put to use but will very soon. also just got 2 of the newer blue ones also at 240v that are still just sitting around. the one digital ballast that IS being used is a 400w 120v cheapo ballast from HIDHUT that cost 130 bucks or so. one i first installed i messed up and crossed the wires, shorting it out. the radio which is always on tuned to an fm station immediately cut out to static, the bulb did not fire so i checked it out and fixed the wiring. after this i fired it up again and it works just fine, the radio which is about 15 feet from the ballast works great with no problems, ...... thats about all i have to contribute, hope it counts for something.
. i'm keeping an eye on this thread, i have 8 regular silver 600 lumateks at 240v that have not yet been put to use but will very soon. also just got 2 of the newer blue ones also at 240v that are still just sitting around. the one digital ballast that IS being used is a 400w 120v cheapo ballast from HIDHUT that cost 130 bucks or so. one i first installed i messed up and crossed the wires, shorting it out. the radio which is always on tuned to an fm station immediately cut out to static, the bulb did not fire so i checked it out and fixed the wiring. after this i fired it up again and it works just fine, the radio which is about 15 feet from the ballast works great with no problems, ...... thats about all i have to contribute, hope it counts for something.
