Talk:Faraday cage

message: I think that three quite different things are conflated here.
(1) My old physics text showed the original Faraday experiment as using a fence of grounded vertical wires blocking a STATIC electric field. 
These wires were not cross connected (eg not a mesh or a sheet). They functioned by interrupting the static lines of force (shunting them to ground). The screen must be earthed to function. It is important to understand that the fence of wires is transparent to Magnetic fields and Alternating Electric fields. 
(2) A mesh of wires or a solid sheet can be used to shield for AC and RF fields (it acts as a "shorted turn" and shorts the AC electric field). Crucially, it doesn't have to be earthed.
(3) Likewise an Iron or mu-metal shield can be used to shield for Static or AC magnetic fields. It operates by shunting the magnetic field. Likewise it doesn't have to be earthed.
Some practical examples:
The screen between the Primary and Secondary in a modern transformer is acting as an electrostatic shield. It is often a sheet of copper, but can also be a single layer of insulated wire. It must be connected to earth to function, and must not form a full (shorted) turn. It is acting in mode (1). 
A modern Screened Room is intended to block AC electrical and RF fields. Strictly speaking it doesn't have to be earthed to function (although it usually is). It is acting in mode (2).
The magnetic shield around the driver in a PC loudspeaker is intended to stop the magnetic field affecting the computer monitor. It doesn't need to be earthed. It is acting in mode (3).
One further example, an earthed ferrous sheet would be operating in all three modes. It is earthing the static electric field. It is shorting the AC electric field and it is shunting the magnetic field.
There are of course many combinations of the above modes.
In my mind item (1) is a Faraday screen. Items (2) and (3) are simply Electric and Magnetic Screens respectively, and the term "Faraday Cage" is a misnomer.
Gutta Percha (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have gone way off on tangents here! The terms "Faraday cage" and "Faraday screen" mean exactly the same thing. For things like high-security computers, etc., that need to be protected from electromagnetic waves entering or leaving them (leaking out), they are put into rooms whose walls contain metal screens, similar to chicken wire or window screens built in. Those rooms are called "screen rooms" in the vernacular, and the principle behind the screen room is the Faraday cage. The two things are synonymous.  The same principles underlie waveguides, and electromagnetic waves with frequencies too low will not propagate through waveguides. Waveguides are devices in microwave engineering. D.A.W., master of science in electrical engineering.47.215.180.7 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not! Faraday demonstrated a shield made of a fence of grounded wires. The whole point of his experiment was to show that it blocks electrostatic fields without blocking AC or DC magnetic fields. A Faraday Cage however was a completely different experiment where it was proven that a electric field doesn't extend to the inside of a sphere. It is sad that so many don't understand the fundamental difference between the two. Read any old-style student text where this is made clear.180.150.22.107 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between a Faraday Screen and a Faraday cage 

message: Are electromagnetic waves blocked by a Faraday cage? Electromagnetic waves like the ones used by cell phones and microwave ovens are essentially light in different frequencies. They are different from a electric field. Would loss of reception of cell phone in elevator and microwave oven be right examples of a Faraday cage?
:Yes, and no. The difference between light and say cell phone microwaves, as you pointed out, is in the frequencies. Now, the wavelength and frequency have a relationship (in electromagnetic waves), which can be stated as, "wavelength multiplied by frequency is equal to the speed of light" (you can rearrange this equation to solve for wavelength or frequency). OK, so getting to the point: the holes in the Faraday cage are too small for the wavelengths to pass through. So, being that light has much, much smaller wavelengths than say microwaves or radio waves or whatever else might be used for communication, it passes through the Faraday cage easily. In conclusion most forms of electromagnetic waves are blocked by Faraday cages, and I would even venture to say that "all" traditional forms of communication using electromagnetic waves are blocked by a Faraday cage (now as a small point there have been attempts to make a communication device which utilizes lasers to pass the information on, and these would not be blocked by a Faraday cage, but these devices are usually considered impractical because it is necessary for there to be a line of sight for the device to work).  Hope this answers your question. Mjs072 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A shopping bag lined with aluminum foil acts as a Faraday cage. It is often used by shoplifters to steal RFID tagged items.[citation needed] In this case, the use of the bags as a Faraday cage is intentional, though paper bags lined with foil are made also for the purposes of blocking light and moisture. (Light blocking by metal foil is actually related to the Faraday shielding effect—it arises from the fact that electrical fields cannot pass through good conductors, because the electrical field across an ideal conductor is always zero, due to its conductivity. Light is electromagnetic radiation just like radio waves, infrared, low-frequency electromagnetic pulses, etc.
What bothers me here is that it implies that anything that blocks light does so because it's a good conductor.  Something that is patently false.  The initial example of using a foil lined bag to block RFID tags may well be valid, but relating the light blocking properties of a foil bag used for consumer products to this effect is really a stretch.  
Is there any objection to removing that example? 
Bagheera (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are electromagnetic waves (aka light) blocked by a Faraday cage?

message: For instance, will a magnetic compass in a Faraday cage still point toward magetic north? Suggest such knowledge be added to the main page.
Andrew8
:No. Magnetic field is not blocked by a Faraday cage. I discovered this the hard way as a student when someone re-located a CRT computer monitor in an adjacent lab. So their computer monitor was 2-3 feet away from the experiment area, but on the opposite side of a wall -- took forever to figure out where the interference was coming from....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.38.122.195 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a magnetic field blocked by a Faraday cage?

message: Is it just me or is this Faraday cage just a metal enclosure?  I suggest someone add to the article that a Faraday cage is actually just a metal enclosure.  There seems to be an epidemic in science of easily-reducible-to-a-generalized-name concepts still being called by their original discovers or inventors' last names even one hundred years after they discovered or invented it.  I think 30 years of calling a new discovery by the last name of its discoverer is appropriate but not one hundred years plus. Foober 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more than just a metal enclosure.  It depends upon the frequencies that you are considering - for example bridges are Faraday cages at radio frequencies but certainly not at optical frequencies.Flying fish 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it need not be metal. Conducting non-metalic material can also create a Faraday cage. Andrew8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.38.122.195 (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an excellent observation, it made me wonder what types of conductors are non-metallic (graphite, some salts and all plasmas), but i think people often forget they exist (like i did). Although, I have yet to see one made of a non-metal, I suggest that the article should emphasize this, avoiding the use of the word metal unless it is specifing the nature of the conductor as so: ...conducting material (metal or non metal). Chibby0ne (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It need not be metal but it must be a good conductor.  Few materials other than metals are really good conductors.  Given economic factors, most practical devices will be metal even though other things might fit the bill in theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.170.103 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: As others have indicated, it doesn't have to be metal, but it does in some sense need to be an enclosure.  The idea of the Faraday cage is more about the shielding effect or restriction of charge to the surface of a conductor.  The cage is just the practical realization of the surface of such a conductor.  70.247.169.197 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: A Faraday Shield consists of a fence of conducting wires or strips which are connected to ground. It blocks Electrostatic fields, but not AC or DC magnetic fields. The key is that it must be Grounded to function. They are wildely used industry where blocking electric fields is necessary, eg coupling between RF coils, transformers, etc. If it were a complete loop it would create a magnetic short circuit. 180.150.22.107 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Faraday cage = a metal enclosure?

message: The first paragraph seems to contradict itself, defining a Faraday cage as shielding from electromagnetic radiation and then talking about Michael Faraday experimenting with electrostatics. Obviously the cage will shield both, but this does not make clear what the definition of the term is (i.e. perhaps it was initially an electrostatic shield and then discovered to also be an electromagnetic shield). Either way, as mentioned above, the article could probably do with a rewrite by someone with a background in the area. --postglock 08:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope interested readers can discern that the Postglock's post was addressed shortly after his post. The article is correct. See also skin effect for the RF (i.e. electromagnetic version) --Ancheta Wis 00:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The article is wrong. Faraday used his Faraday Screen to differentiate between Electrostatic and Electric fields (eg AC v/s DC). Faraday Screen and a Faraday Cage are two completely different things. 180.150.22.107 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction tag added

message: It seems that a Faraday Cage requires a completely enclosed cage so that there are clear "inner" and "outer" surfaces.  However, one of the links on the bottom goes to a site that talks about grounding a conductive shield and specifically says that the Faraday Cage does NOT have to closed on all sides.  It seems to me that if the cage is NOT closed on all sides, then the conductor has only a single surface and the electrical charge is free to propogate to any point on that surface.  (The linked site also credits scientists working with Einstein or at least in the same era for creating the first Faraday Cage, but I digress.)
So is this a different property than Faraday's enclosure?  Is this more simply, shunting the electrical charge away and dissipating it to ground?  Does a Faraday Cage need to be grounded?  Is a Faraday Cage more effective either for blocking electrical fields or as an RF shield if the cage is grounded?  If the cage is not fully closed on all sides, is it a "Faraday Cage"?  --JJLatWiki 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Faraday cage does not need to be grounded the shield the inside from external EM.  The reason cages are connected to an internal circuit's ground is to prevent the cage from capacitively coupling parts of the circuit to each other, and to prevent crosstalk from cables.  Connecting the shield to ground causes them to capacitively couple to ground instead.  There's a very clear description and picture in , which we should mimic. — Omegatron 06:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is an unclear and potentially (aha!) misleading sentence, and adds to the confusion in everyday speech between a "ground" (as in V=0) and something "neutrally charged" (as in Q=0). The ground is a reference potential, not necessarily without net charge, and I believe it is a mistake to start talking about charges moving back and forth here, since the ground potential is undefined. 83.248.163.42 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do true Faraday cages need to be grounded? 

message: Added to the list item indicating occupants in a car were safe from lightning. The truth is more conditional
than that and cars don't provide complete safety.
See http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/vehicle_strike.html (National Lightning Safety Institute) for example.
-Michael
Question:  What does this comment "Faraday cages are not good to use outside in the event of a lightning strike." mean?  The cited source does not support the assertion.  Perhaps it can be reworded. --69.3.237.169 21:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is protection from electrical currents really an aspect of a Faraday cage?  I mean, I know that Faraday cages protect against currents, but is that really relevant?  The key point of Faraday cages is that they prevent electric fields from penetrating.  Protection from currents is related more to the skin effect, no? — Omegatron 07:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicle safety 

message: A bolt of lightning has over a billion volts and a lot of amps, but if it hits a car, it won't penetrate through it, and kill the people inside? 64.236.245.243 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general it will not, yes. This lightning safety sheet calls a car the second safest place to be in a storm, after a proper building. Just make sure you don't touch any conductors connected to the metal body of the car. Algebraist 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was tested on the BBC's Top Gear. Richard Hammond sat in a car while an electrical charge was built up in a device high above it until the car was effectively struck by lightning several times. The electricity did penetrate the car a little since he reported feeling it in his fingers, but not enough to do any harm. 194.80.52.106 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning vs. a car? 

message: The article mentions that small electronic parts at Fry's are kept in a cage, inferring that the cage is used as a Faraday shield. What I've seen at any Fry's, I've ever been to, is nothing but a security cage made of chain-link fence. There would be no reason to keep parts in a Faraday cage; there would however be a reason to keep them in a secure area; CPU's and memory are valuable and easily stolen.
24.165.87.76 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fry's Electronics 

message: I saw a request for a picture of a Faraday Suit. This is a Russian "Radar Suit" that I photographed at Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker museum some years ago. Not sure if it is what is needed for the page.  --jmb 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Electrical lineman wearing a Faraday suit.47.215.180.7 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Note that the suits worn by high-voltage powerline workers are not meant to protect them from the current that flows in the line, but rather, from the intense electric field that surrounds it. Without the suit, the AC electric field would induce circulating electric currents within the lineman's body. 74.111.99.101 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Faraday Suit

message: My thoughts: To get a "Faraday's cage effect" it can have big holes and must not be metal as long as it has low resistance (metal helps both because of that the charges inside the metal extremely quickly re-distributes which in total makes the field zero inside the cage, but also might help because of the low resistance since you get a voltage division vs the source), and it certainly does not have to be grounded. See my comments on "Antistatic bag" too. --88.131.22.138 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- grounding a Faraday cage, or not, is completely irrelevant to its operation. That is total science fiction. For example, an aluminum-alloy airliner in flight is a Faraday cage, and an ungrounded car is a Faraday cage. For Faraday cages in buildings, grounding them solidly IS a good idea for safety's sake in case of electrical accidents within or lightning strikes from without. When lighting strikes a car, the (insulating) rubber tires are bypassed by the current jumping the short gaps between the underbelly of the car (incl. the hubs) to the ground or pavement.47.215.180.7 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: At a business that was located across a two-lane street from one cell providers antenna, several employees including myself did an experiment on our lunch break that involved sticking the phone inside of the microwave, with it powered off the whole time, and seeing how many bars remained and/or calling the phones. Most phones went to out of service. Two rang, including the phone that matched the service provider on the antenna farm across the street. The matching-provider phone kept 100% of its bars during the entire time it was inside the microwave. 
The cellular band (1.8, 1.9GHz) isn't too far from the 2.5GHz used to actually cook the food. It does a pretty mediocre job of keeping these larger wavelengths out, but yes it did in fact block them somewhat. Just not as well as would be expected if the device were designed to do such, considering how frequently the signal is blocked unintentionally.
It seems like we should be able to get a citation on exactly how much of a shield a microwave oven is, or at least ought to be, considering that we are allowed to have 1W WiFi amplifiers on bookshelves and these ovens are usually between 400 and 1200 watts; I would think that somewhere, there ought to be a published guideline for shield effectiveness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Microwave oven as shield?

message: The phrase "A Faraday cage is best understood as an approximation to an ideal hollow conductor" really puts me off. I hardly know anything about how Faraday cages work, but this is a very bad way to start a section to explain how something works. I myself don't understand them so I don't think I'll change this myself. If anyone who knows more about Faraday cages could fix this it would just be great --BiT (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Badly formulated

message: Mention what to do in such
cases, and if
proposed solutions would be effective.
Jidanni (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't pull the plug on rogue cellphone

message: Mention if caves make good s, and if they are well grounded (which I suppose is the case.)
Jidanni (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're wet enough, they can make a passable Faraday cage, and yes, an outstandingly well-grounded one. However, at this point, any Faraday-cage-related, charge-distribution-based, shielding effects are totally insignificant compared to the sheer mind-boggling quantity of stone and dirt and hard water and other not-perfectly-transparent-at-useful-frequencies materials between the inside of the cave and the surface world, or even, in many cases, between rooms of the same cave.67.162.34.172 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Caves?

message: I cannot understand why the only example offered on this page relates to a foil lined shopping bag.  Surely there are other examples which can be offered to the reader to better understand this concept... 142.221.110.4 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had a citation for the story told to me by a DEC hardware engineer, the gist of which was: one of his cow-orkers was called in to attend a sick VAX at GCHQ in Cheltenham.  As can be imagined, many were the hoops requiring to be jumped through before he could gain access to the machine room, which was located inside a Faraday Cage guaranteed to stop the pesky Soviet Union from finding out what was going on inside.  Great, then, was the consternation among the spooks when, while up to his elbows in the entrails of the unwell VAX, his pager went off. Mr Larrington (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples?

message: From the first sentence of the second paragraph, under History:
:The same effect was predicted earlier by Francesco Beccaria (1716–1781) at the University of Turin, a student of Benjamin Franklin, who stated that "all electricity goes up to the free surface of the bodies without diffusing in their interior substance."
I read this as attributing the "all electricity goes..." quote to Beccaria, not Franklin, but the phrasing is ambiguous on the matter. Could someone who knows for sure what it should say, please rephrase this sentence to be clearer?  67.162.34.172 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear quote citation

message: Since he discovered it first, should we name it after Franklin? Or as IP67 pointed out, should we name it after this Beccaria? Dictabeard (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Franklin cage]]/[[Franklin shield]]

message: According to my memory of first year physics, a Faraday cage only blocks incoming electromagnetic radiation - to block outgoing radiation would violate Gauss' Law. Considering removing the whole section but I'd like an expert's opinion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdor 1154 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A Faraday cage WILL block outgoing radiation in the same way as incoming radiation. To block outgoin radiation would not violate Gauss' law since a radiation source inside the cage cannot change the amount of charge inside the cage. The total charge inside a Gauss surface surrounding the cage will not be affected by charge movement inside the cage. This beeing said I tried the experiment with a cellphone in a microwave oven and still got good reception. Ulflund (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faraday cage in microwave blocking outgoing EMR? 

message: The Operation section of the main article states that the position of a charge inside a hollow metallic conductor does not affect the field generated outside.
Again, this is an oft misquoted form of Gauss's Theory. Yes, the field outside will be identical to as if the conductor wasn't there - but moving the charge within this conductor, and RELATIVE to it, will change the strength of the field at a defined external point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.145 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gauss's theory is not misquoted. Charges in the metallic conductor will move in such a way as to cancel any movement of the contained charge. This is not something you can see directly from Gauss's Law, but has to do with the free charges in the conductor. Ulflund (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauss' Theory Misquoted 

message: I think the main article, and several related ones could do with linking to an article on electromagnetic transparency.
Speaking of transparency, I've also got a question
> How are certain substances transparent at certain regions in the electromagnetic spectrum, but not in others - on EITHER SIDE of this permitted region?
E.g. The Human body: X-rays get through, radio waves pass through, but light does not.
Can both phenomena be explained with the same nature (i.e. particle or wave, but not one for each..)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.145 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. Since the article concerns conductors, which aren't transparent I don't see why there should be links to such pages. Ulflund (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electromagnetic Transparency 

message: Why is this sentence so worded? It seems pointless overkill, why isn't it just "Such an enclosure blocks out external electric fields"? 109.154.60.112 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Such an enclosure blocks out external static and non-static electric fields." 

message: As a matter of protecting electrical equipment from solar flares or other peaks in EMF, a Faraday cage is often advised.  Is such a cage required if the equipment is turned off and the battery removed?  Can someone provide a source in regards to that?-65.189.245.24 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Equipment turned off

message: In the movie, Enemy of the State, Brill takes Robert Dean into his Faraday Cage he built in a secure location to keep the NSA from tracking them.[6]this link keeps scrolling down with nothing relevant to the article and I couldn't get out so I closed the window.Civic Cat (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the appropriate template for this link?

message: Cars are also Faraday cages (tires inflated, windows rolled up) [Irrelevant!] Why is this not mentioned? 199.19.248.29 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  cars 

message: The first of three references in this article is to an Encarta entry on Michael Faraday.
# The link to Encarta (the second link) is broken.
# The other link used in this reference directs the reader to what is apparently an archived copy of the Encarta entry.
# That entry mentions a Faraday cage only once - briefly.
Why would an encyclopedia use another, discontinued (according to that article's references, Encarta's discontinuation could be attributed to Wikipedia) encyclopedia as a source?  Surely there are better and more reliable sources available, that are not simply agglomerations of information into a handy reference.  While Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources does allow that "Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited", it also implies (in a navel-gazing, self-referential manner) that these are not particularly valuable sources - the information they hold should be available for citation from another source.
Finally, this article is of a length, and contains content sufficient that one assumes additional sources have been used and thus there should be more than the existing three references in an article of (many) words. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using an encyclopedia as a reference source?  What are the other sources? 

message: After review of the factual and speculative interrogatories contained within this wiki article
asking for verification or demonstrating the fundamentals of Faraday Grids, Cages, etc.,as well
as, the rudimentary physics and quantum analytic discussions contributed are flawed, defective 
and indefinite as a whole, even though most contributions are pointed in the right direction.
As the Subject headline suggests polarization, etc., are all missing in the content of this wiki
causing ambiguous assumptions, queries of all sorts and literal confusion particularly the effects
experienced by the human 3rd dimensional entities inhabiting the earth planet.
All things, animate or inanimate are seemingly solid in their relationship to its elemental form.
It is therefore reasonably accurate to suppose that all things seen, unseen, measurable or not, is
subsequently reduced to energy vibrations in their relationship to infinite frequencies, harmonics,
chaotic noise generated and mixed in with the root of any waveform pattern, however equated.
Faraday focused on blocking of various electrical energy patterns which interfered with the operation
of his historical day contrivances. Trying to apply Faraday quantum elements to present day applications
is incomplete and therefore antiquated today. However, lays the groundwork for further expansion that
needs to be applied to present day issues considering both the microcosm and macrocosm of pure energy.
For example, a contributor queried light wave spectrum but missed the side bands of light waves, missed
the concept of as speed approaches the speed of light, time becomes zero and further did not express any
considerations to noise accumulated on root frequencies that Faraday was concerned with in his time.
The noise includes side band frequencies outside the mainstream light wave spectrum, such as gamma, theta,
beta from ultra violet to infrared spectrum which piggy back on these frequencies, as common knowledge to
those in the electrical fields have a very clear understanding as we in these fields work with suppression
of transient, white, pink and other noise to clean up, so to speak, the clean generated frequency energy.
Moreover, grounding is the most important element in the electrical physics of energy and even more so 
when considering the polarization of macro and microcosmic physics extending beyond the light wave spectrum
and beyond its speed when the portal of time is no longer relative but cyclical in lieu of wave forms in
time and space. The latter being the foundation of Faraday quantum physics and the blocking of these forms.
The principle theory of polarization is the proportional repelling of opposite charged elements, much like
the opposing poles of any set of bar or u style magnets. The more complex side of polarization extends to
both the effects considering the microcosm within ameba structures as well as that in the macrocosm of
planetary bodies and their respective valence bonds. Reference is emphasized to Nikola Tesla experiments.
Subsequently, a new vision to understand sub atomic particles, such as quarks,to electromagnetic fields of
the planetary bodies including all the conglomerate of the joining of noise inter-meshed with the host
of root frequencies will require the rethinking of the engineering for any type of Faraday cage or grid,
that will polarize these more complex conglomerate frequencies which are manifesting in present day EMP's.
In conclusion, Faraday grids or cages, let alone his solid forms will require an advanced infinite concepts 
of energized and polarized fields impressed on these type of grids in order to be effective in this current 
day and age of digital signals and the transient transmissions of analog finite and cyclic infinite energy. 
Submitted July 27, 2016 as a treatise for a infinite creative development by J. Hogue  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.100.163 (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarization of EM Frequencies, Surge Suppression, Carrier Noise and Clarifications  

message: I am only able to refer to https://sinews.siam.org/DetailsPage/TabId/900/ArtMID/2243/ArticleID/757/Surprises-of-the-Faraday-Cage.aspx for details. Perhaps, someone with a bit of knowledge in physics (I have none) could assess this issue's relevance and correct the article, if necessary. Many thanks in advance, --Mathelerner (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  False mathematical treatise 

message: My apologies if this is encompassed or implied by a previous answer, but does anyone know whether Faraday cages can be used to protect electronic devices from those EMP weapons that knock out every device within a substantial radius?  In any event, the cage's usefulness or non-usefulness for this purpose should be mentioned in the article.  Antediluvian67 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense against EMP weapons? 

message: The article is insufficient to imagine how Faraday cages may look and to form a clear mental figure of how they are built.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.56.204 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more imagery 

message: Hi, I recently came across a source which states that Faraday's experiments with regards to the cage effect were similar to earlier experiments performed by Nollet. However, I have been guilty of being too enthusiastic in adding new information to wikipedia and sometimes it results in me adding things that are erroneous or unsupported by references without me realising it so I would like to make sure I'm not being too hasty this time. You can find the link below and based off what little I was able to translate it sounds like Nollet may have also discovered the Faraday cage effect early though I'm unsure of the exact date and whether or not I'm misinterpreting things again which isn't helped by the fact that the source is entirely in French, so I would like some other wikipedians to pass judgement, particularly French ones.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j2GMJwc3h0kC&pg=PA95&dq=Faraday+Cage+Nollet&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_ycm7rp3hAhX0sHEKHeuHBsk4MhDoAQhTMAg#v=onepage&q=Faraday%20Cage%20Nollet&f=falseSQMeaner (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible early detection of the Faraday cage effect? 

message: I would like to contest the statement: "A good idea of the effectiveness of a Faraday shield can be obtained from considerations of skin depth.", as it relates to electric fields at least (magnetic fields are another consideration). This statement appears in the section at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage#Exterior_fields 
I think that for varying electromagnetic fields, the majority of the energy is actually reflected at the surface of the conductor of the Faraday shield, thus the attenuation (skin depth) considerations are moot. From section 9.3 in Griffiths' Introduction to electrodymanics (4th ed.) we can calculate the transmission coefficient for any air-metal interface and see that it is extremely small. It is this transmitted electric field that actually gets attenuated as per the skin depth effect, but the majority of the shielding comes from the low transmittance (high reflection), not the skin depth effect.
To convince ourselves of this fact, consider this informal thought experiment: in electrostatics we know that the thickness of the shield is not relevant in order for the shield to work properly: the conductor could be very thin and the Faraday cage would still work perfectly. Now if skin depth alone is used to determine the required thickness for effective shielding from an electromagnetic wave, then lowering the frequency implies that a thicker conductor is needed. In the limiting case where the frequency is extremely small and both concepts should reconcile (0.0001 Hz for example), the electrostatics view would mean that a thin shield can be used, while the skin depth view would imply that a very thick shield is needed (which is a contradiction). From experiments we know which view is correct and we know that a relatively thin cage will still work effectively at low frequencies. We can only conclude that the skin depth is not the main factor in determining the required thickness, and thus the original sentence in the article (and the accompanying graph right beside it) are misleading.
To further intuitively appreciate the impact of low transmittance and high reflexion at an air-metal barrier, the principle of radar and how it easily detects metal objects can be used in place of any calculations alluded to in the Griffiths reference above :-) 142.137.139.167 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin depth relevance? 

message: Whoever added the video definitely had the right idea, but it is quite low resolution. Surely it would be worthwhile to replace the video, or to put it through some kind of AI enhancing tool? If you all are cool with me replacing the video, could you please let me know? Data Devourer (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace/enhance video quality?