<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ron:<br>
The Chrome Monokote parallels what we were told about using aluminum
colored Butyrate dope, years ago. I had pretty much forgotten it.<br>
Interestingly, (at least to me) was a Bob Godfrey Laser 200 I bought
used several years ago from a well known modeler. I put in my radio,
and, after noticing several antenna positions that were apparently used
by the former owner, I selected the easiest location. Fortunately,
before flying, I did my usual range check. Instead of the 60+ yards I
usually got, (antenna colllapsed) I couldn't get even 20 yards. The
other pre-located positions showed the same results. So, with little
to lose, I moved the antenna outside. While not as pretty, the 60
yards plus returned. I subsequejtly flew the airplane; haven't had any
radio problems at all. I asked the previous owner about the situation;
he said: "Well, I did have a few glitches now and again." I'll bet!
The covering? Metallic Blue Monokote. Does this prove anything?
Probably not. But, I'll play it safe, and range check any way. BTW:
All my pattern stuff has always had internal antennas; no problem.<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid5A24FDCC-3D98-11D9-972E-000A27AE0394@cox.net"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Keith Black wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><!-- Arial --><font size="-1">In other words, if
you built your fuse out of this material you'd probably want to run
your antenna externally. ;-)</font>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I can remember when some self-styled RF experts were warning of the
danger of using chrome Monokote, which contains no metal) when running
the antenna inside fuselages. <BG>
<br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----
<br>
<br>
<b><!-- Arial -->From:</b><!-- Arial --><!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --> Bob
Richards <br>
<b><!-- Arial -->To:</b><!-- Arial -->
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a> <br>
<b><!-- Arial -->Sent:</b><!-- Arial -->
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:59 PM
<br>
<b><!-- Arial -->Subject:</b><!-- Arial -->
Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")
<br>
<br>
John,
<br>
<br>
I disagree. The definition of a "Faraday <b>CAGE</b>", which is
what Bill said, is a completely conductive sealed enclosure.
<br>
<br>
Also, the edges don't have to be fully bonded together for RF
protection. They can be stitched together at intervals depending on
how high in frequency you want attenuation. The closer the spacing,
the higher the cutoff frequency. Obviously, if you want cutoff up into
the gigahertz range, you pretty much need a continuous bond.
<br>
<br>
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm">http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage</a>
<br>
<br>
Bob.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><i>John Ferrell
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net"><johnferrell@earthlink.net></a></i></b> wrote:
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1">Sorry to get picky, but a
Faraday shield is not an electromagnetic field, it is an electrostatic
shield.</font>
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1"> </font>
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1">An rf tight room needs the
edges fully bonded together and a Faraday shield requires that they be
insulated.</font>
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1"> </font>
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1">I think everyone knows what
is being said, but I felt obliged to add the detail.</font>
<br>
<!-- Arial --><font size="-1"> </font>
<br>
John Ferrell
<br>
My Competition is not my enemy!
<br>
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</a>
<br>
<!-- Arial -->----- Original Message
-----
<br>
<!-- Arial --><b>From:</b>
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE -->Bob
Richards <br>
<b><!-- Arial -->To:</b><!-- Arial -->
<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a> <br>
<b><!-- Arial -->Sent:</b><!-- Arial -->
Monday, November 22, 2004 1:06 PM
<br>
<b><!-- Arial -->Subject:</b><!-- Arial -->
Re: Measuring Surface Flatness (was "Cabinet Grade Particle Board")
<br>
<br>
That's what it is. No RF gets in or out. Something like 110dB
attenuation.
<br>
<br>
Bob.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><i>Bill Glaze
<<!-- 0000,0000,EEEE --><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com">billglaze@triad.rr.com</a>></i></b>
wrote:
<br>
Bob:
<br>
Do I recall when such a room as you describe was known as a "Faraday
Cage?" Or am I having one of RvP's "Senior Moments?" (No offense,
Ron! O:-) )
<br>
Bill Glaze
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>