2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.12.053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electromagnetic shielding performance of carbon foams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
116
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 263 publications
(117 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
116
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These cell parameters determine the specific bulk material properties, the relative density and porosity of the foam. Scanning electron microscopy analysis is required to investigate the morphology of the carbon foam cellular structure [39]. Also the effective conductivity of the foam, and consequently the ACS, depend on this particular internal morphology.…”
Section: Absorbing Cross Section Of Carbon Foamsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These cell parameters determine the specific bulk material properties, the relative density and porosity of the foam. Scanning electron microscopy analysis is required to investigate the morphology of the carbon foam cellular structure [39]. Also the effective conductivity of the foam, and consequently the ACS, depend on this particular internal morphology.…”
Section: Absorbing Cross Section Of Carbon Foamsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggests that low temperature heat treated foam EM-SE is dominated by absorption. Recently, Moglie et al (2012) studied the EM-SE of CF (GRAFOAM FPA-20 and FRA-10) in the frequency band 1-4 GHz using the nested reverberation chamber method. It is reported that with increasing thickness of CF total SE increases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The individual GCSs have an average diameter about ∼ 1 mm and consist of porous glassy carbon. In terms of pore size their internal structure is in-between that of carbon foams [4][5][6] and aerogels 7 . Glassy carbon is a non-graphitizing, highly disordered, carbon with features that make it definitely different from graphite: it is hard and brittle with a conchoidal fracture, shiny and isotropic, and with a density typically 30% lower than that of graphite.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%