Cable shield as a Faraday cage

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
It was idle curiosity really :magnify: I will have to experiment using my mobile phone, though it hasn't been interfering lately :confused: I've been using STP for my unbalanced connections with screen connected to signal return at the sending end. Interest in the Faraday cage just got me wondering.............
 
For an extended discussion of Faraday Shields wrt audio cables, see:

DIY DC power cables - Page 9 - UpTone Audio (Sponsored) - Computer Audiophile and following.

What he is describing / advocating is NOT a Faraday Shield in any accepted sense.
The extra conductor will reduce the connection impedance - similar to the added conductors described in the link I posted.
The idea is that with low impedance the shield current becomes unimportant as it can only cause a correspondingly low voltage (thanks Mr Ohm) while SCIN noise is insignificant. All this assumes balanced connections.

But the post linked above misses several points eg Low frequency H fields pretty much go straight through cable shields - esp if non-ferrous (Cu / Al)
 
I think John Swenson's claims can be safely dismissed as nonsense, he mentions doing tests but I couldn't find any evidence of this or results. How running a wire parallel to the screen does anything other than reduce impedance is a mystery to me. Alarm bells also rang when he claimed screening against low frequency.
 
Note John Swenson sells products that are close to snake oil...

I'm not competent to comment on the points made (and rather wish I hadn't posted the link) but I can't let the above go without asking which of Swenson's designs (he's a designer, BTW, not a vendor) are "close to snake oil". As I hate wasting money on fakes, it'd be good to be warned.

Hopefully, Bill can let me know as quickly as he responded to my opening post.
 
ROHS-Threading-Bushing-Feed-Thru-capacitor.jpg

Dan.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
scottjoplin said:
I think John Swenson's claims can be safely dismissed as nonsense
Yes. His idea of running an extra wire from one end of the shield to the other, but otherwise leaving it isolated is nonsense of the most pure kind. Clearly he is quite confused. He asks "So how come nobody does this?"; the reason is quite simple: it isn't true. He then goes on to talk nonsense about the ground wire for a turntable.

I would not buy anything from someone who is so confused about electrical basics.
 
This is from this article Design Techniques for EMC: cables and connectors linked to by billsherv :
2.6.3 Pairing send and return conductors
Even when not using transmission lines, always use paired conductors. Provide a dedicated return path for the return current as close as possible to the send path (and not via an earth or a screen). This works even when signals are single-ended and all their return conductors are bonded to a common reference potential. The fluxcompensation effect encourages return currents to flow in the path nearest to the send conductor, in preference to alternative current paths, and we can use this natural phenomenon to help keep the field patterns of our cables tight and reduce their E and M leakages.

Does this mean that the signal return would have some immunity to currents flowing in the shield even when they're connected together both ends?
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Twisting cables minimises loop area. This is good.

Running return and send together is good from the point of view of keeping Kirchoff happy and trying to herd the return current via the same path.

Keeping return separate from PE is also good.

To do this may require some mods to the unit and may not cause an audible improvment but at least gives you the warm feeling of doing the best with what you have.
 
I think John Swenson's claims can be safely dismissed as nonsense, he mentions doing tests but I couldn't find any evidence of this or results. How running a wire parallel to the screen does anything other than reduce impedance is a mystery to me. Alarm bells also rang when he claimed screening against low frequency.
H.Ott mentions adding a separate ground lead between chassis that are connected with a screen ground.
I can't remember the context, but I do recall that he advocates this impedance reduction method. I do recall a warning that the extra wire/cable MUST NOT contact the screen.
 
Quoted by scottjoplin:
The fluxcompensation effect encourages return currents to flow in the path nearest to the send conductor, in preference to alternative current paths, and we can use this natural phenomenon to help keep the field patterns of our cables tight and reduce their E and M leakages.
This is only true for sufficiently high frequencies, where cable inductance dominates over cable resistance. Typically this means from 10's of kHz upwards, although some cable designs could push this down into the upper end of the audio band. At lower frequencies the return current divides according to resistance, not proximity to the forward current. In this case it is hard to beat the forward and return currents being concentric, as this renders the external coupling to be near zero.
 
H.Ott mentions adding a separate ground lead between chassis that are connected with a screen ground.
I can't remember the context, but I do recall that he advocates this impedance reduction method. I do recall a warning that the extra wire/cable MUST NOT contact the screen.
Parallel Earth (ground) Conductor [PEC] is tested in detail here Bonding Cable Shields at Both Ends to Reduce Noise
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.