[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Updating - was: [TCML] RF Grounding
Hi Bart, Richard, All,
I agree that no author can (or should) be required to change their
documents. People who disagree should write their own. Now, if an author desires
to stay up with current thinking, they MAY feel compelled to issue updates, or
they may let historical documents stand as just that, a historical document.
The problem occurs when, with the passage of time, pioneering works
start to take on the mythic aura of scripture, and it becomes difficult to
separate what is best understanding from what was best understanding from what was
op/ed. One has only to look at the junk that has grown up around Tesla's
speculations, as well as his achievements, or consider that many areas of science
were held back for decades because "Aristotle said...." was considered
adequate scientific proof.
Any document is partially out of date at the time it is published. Of
course, newbies and neophytes have the most difficulty in separating what is
still valid from what is dated, but that will always be true. Keeping
information up to date on the latest thinking through iterations is, IMO, a major
service that this list performs.
In a message dated 3/7/08 11:41:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
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?
> 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,
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Tesla mailing list