[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [TCML] RF Grounding
I didn't state as I intended, but I'm one of those that would find areas
to update in the coilbld document. The problem I have with that however,
is that "my" opinion and other's opinions are not your opinions. You
should state your opinions as you see them. And if we disagree, we
should state why. I can't see a few people on the list trying to update
a document like this. If someone wants to update this document, heck,
let them right their own document. If they want to update a program,
heck, let them write their own program. It's very easy to criticize
(especially on the TCML) and much harder to spend the time to create
documents or programss. So, in the end, I say don't change a damn thing.
I may not agree with everything, but so what?
Excellent post. Thank you. In the past, our RF grounding discussions
hovered mainly around RF currents (and good discussions). I think in
this latest discussion it went off track and I am certainly part of
why. The RF issues of concern as of late are transients (hash). But
there is also the issue of providing a low impedance of high RF
currents to ground which in this particular discussion was not even
mentioned. Glad you brought it up.
Regarding the COILBLD document. In that document you used ribbon. I
think mainly what was said is that the ribbon was overkill, meaning a
cable of some size should be fine to use. After all, most coilers use
cable with great success. I personally use a 6 awg high strand cable
for a 4.5" diameter coil. I use a much larger high strand cable for my
pig coil. From an RF standpoint, a large high strand conductor should
do fine for this task. I think the main point was there are means of
getting the same performance with materials more readily available.
There are other items in there such as "very high loss pvc" (as an
example) that many here would disagree with. Those issues have been
discussed to the Nth degree over the past 10 years. And I mean all the
hygroscopic issues, measurements, empirical evaluation, etc... Those
are the kind of things that cause some to state that the document
needs updating (as to pull into the TCML's current views). You may
still disagree and I understand.
Tesla mailing list