5 ms·

Thank you for the resources. I would be interested in your take on this guide: http://123.physics.ucdavis.edu/week_5_files/low%20level%20signals/shielding_loops

Thank you for the resources. I would be interested in your take on this guide: http://123.physics.ucdavis.edu/week_5_files/low%20level%20signals/shielding_loops.pdf http://123.physics.ucdavis.edu/week_5_files/low%20level%20si... We have generally had good experiences when sticking to these patterns, but are always looking for possible improvements.

hilbert42 6y ago
I'll read it and let you know.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hilbert42 6y ago
My apologies for not replying to you earlier, I printed the paper out (as I like to make notes in the margins), but I managed to be sidetracked longer than expected. I downloaded the paper in a hurry and I initially thought you were its author and just wanted comment on it. It wasn't until I looked more closely at the download URL and saw 'ucdavis' that I realized that the file resides on that site and not the one where the author works. There are several issues here: (a) this topic will time out in a few days and I'll not be able to contact you about the matter, that's likely a problem; (b) the paper address both general shielding issues and some very specific ones that relate to specialist research equipment; and (c), whilst I am happy to provide some general comment on the paper here at HN, there are some in-depth issues that I would prefer not to comment thereon given the paper's origin and the nature of my intended comment. The reason for my point (c) is that I used to work at an establishment whose work concerned itself with hardware that is somewhat related to that mentioned in the paper and thus its instrumentation incorporated magnetic and EMR shielding of a similar standard to that [which would likely be] employed on equipment mentioned in the paper. This raises two issues and it depends on your reason for asking in the first instance. If you want general information about shielding then I have no trouble giving that; alternatively, if you work with technology similar to that which is discussed on page 4 of the paper then it's a somewhat different matter. Thus, I would have to be much more specific as the shielding requirements are not only anything but trivial but also they are often much more demanding to implement. It's here that I have some issues with the paper and it would be unfair to air them in public without informing the author first (and as he's not sought feedback the matter is moot). If you are involved in similar technologies that demand similar standards of shielding then I'd be glad to discuss the matter further in private but that seems difficult given there's no way on HN to exchange private messages/ensure privacy. Anyway, please provide me with more specifics about your application/requirement and if I can contribute anything useful then I'll try to help.

hilbert42 6y ago

I'll read it and let you know.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hilbert42 6y ago

My apologies for not replying to you earlier, I printed the paper out (as I like to make notes in the margins), but I managed to be sidetracked longer than expected. I downloaded the paper in a hurry and I initially thought you were its author and just wanted comment on it. It wasn't until I looked more closely at the download URL and saw 'ucdavis' that I realized that the file resides on that site and not the one where the author works. There are several issues here: (a) this topic will time out in a few days and I'll not be able to contact you about the matter, that's likely a problem; (b) the paper address both general shielding issues and some very specific ones that relate to specialist research equipment; and (c), whilst I am happy to provide some general comment on the paper here at HN, there are some in-depth issues that I would prefer not to comment thereon given the paper's origin and the nature of my intended comment. The reason for my point (c) is that I used to work at an establishment whose work concerned itself with hardware that is somewhat related to that mentioned in the paper and thus its instrumentation incorporated magnetic and EMR shielding of a similar standard to that [which would likely be] employed on equipment mentioned in the paper. This raises two issues and it depends on your reason for asking in the first instance. If you want general information about shielding then I have no trouble giving that; alternatively, if you work with technology similar to that which is discussed on page 4 of the paper then it's a somewhat different matter. Thus, I would have to be much more specific as the shielding requirements are not only anything but trivial but also they are often much more demanding to implement. It's here that I have some issues with the paper and it would be unfair to air them in public without informing the author first (and as he's not sought feedback the matter is moot). If you are involved in similar technologies that demand similar standards of shielding then I'd be glad to discuss the matter further in private but that seems difficult given there's no way on HN to exchange private messages/ensure privacy. Anyway, please provide me with more specifics about your application/requirement and if I can contribute anything useful then I'll try to help.