The problem is that it is not a "Ground loop" - there is no issue
with multiple grounding if the inputs to the device are designed
properly. It occurs only when the signal return is not correctly
connected to the shielded enclosure or bypassed - that also impacts
things like VHF/UHF stability, etc.
If you continue to call it a "ground loop" it is obvious that you
do not understand the nature of the problem. "Pin 1" problem is
as good a term as any since the mechanism for this issue in audio
was first identified in professional equipment using XLR connectors
and the understanding extended to audio equipment with other
connectors (including consumer/prosumer equipment with RCA I/O).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 6/7/2013 10:58 AM, Carl wrote:
That would be too easy since ground loops go almost back to prehistory
when many discovered the same thing independently at almos the same time.
OTOH, before the Brown Theorem it was always called ground loops,
especially in the pro audio industry.
Carl
KM1H
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Eban" <alexeban@gmail.com>
To: "'Ian White'" <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] The Pin One Problem
What about plain old ground loops, numerology set aside?
Alex 4Z5KS
-----Original Message-----
From: Amps [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ian White
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:52 AM
To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] The Pin One Problem
K9YC wrote:
When you invent, create, or discover something, you get to name it.
Would that would be "Brown's Law"? I'm sorry, Jim, but it just ain't so.
We all understand your personal respect for Neil Muncie, but there are
other
overriding priorities such as respect for truth and accuracy.
It is only justifiable to call this "the Pin 1 problem" where that name
accurately applies: specifically to Pin 1 of an XLR connector in the pro
audio industry. But this problem extends far beyond the area where it was
originally identified by Neil Muncie. It is no disrespect to insist
that the
more generic problem needs a better name.
Calling it the "Pin 1" problem in situations where it simply isn't pin 1,
and even where there isn't a connector at all, is a deliberate falsehood
which misdirects and confuses people. It can only be understood by
someone
who is already initiated into the secret. At so many different levels,
that
is simply A Wrong Thing To Do.
We badly need a short GENERIC name that accurately indicates the
nature of
the problem. That won't be easy to find, but it is something we can
work on.
Calling it the "Pin 1 problem" simply isn't good enough.
73 from Ian GM3SEK
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3184/5891 - Release Date: 06/07/13
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|