Updating - was: [TCML] RF Grounding

[Mddeming@xxxxxxx]

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they may let historical documents stand as just that, a  historical document.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    Any document is partially out of date at the time  it is published.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.
 
Matt D. 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/7/08 11:41:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

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
>






**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla