Re: [TCML] RF Grounding

[bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

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?

Take care,
Bart

bartb wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 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.
>
> Take care,
> Bart
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla