You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In 3D modelling we often use a conductivity of something between 1e-14 S/m to 1e-8 S/m (on Wikipedia it states the range as 1e-15 to 1e-9 S/m; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity), which yields finite skind depths for air. This is (a) more realistic, and (b) also what we often use in actual 3D modelling?
Does anything speak against updating this table accordingly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the following table
https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/harmonic_planewaves_homogeneous/skindepth.html#skin-depth-for-various-materials
the conductivity of air is given as 0 S/m, which results in an infinite skin depth, suggesting that an EM signal travels the whole globe back and forth.
In 3D modelling we often use a conductivity of something between 1e-14 S/m to 1e-8 S/m (on Wikipedia it states the range as 1e-15 to 1e-9 S/m; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity), which yields finite skind depths for air. This is (a) more realistic, and (b) also what we often use in actual 3D modelling?
Does anything speak against updating this table accordingly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: