I understand and appreciate your angst... but if I understand Jim's
position correctly, he advocates rooting out the cause of the problem,
rather than putting a bandage on it - even if the bandage is cheaper and
seems to get the job done.
As an analogy... and please forgive me if I miss the mark... my road to
Heck is well paved with all my good intentions... but by analogy, you
can sometimes put a few ferrite beads on a cable and it seems to kill a
problem of RF in the shack, ... but it is not as good a solution as
rooting out the cause of the RF, (e.g., a faulty X or poorly grounded Y,
or something else you could fix). I think it is usually best to cure
the cause of the stray RF than to just put a ferrite bead over a cable
to mask its presence.
Thus... I think Jim is advocating one try to eliminate the problem, such
as the old "pin-1" problem - than to mask it with something (perhaps an
isolation transformer.) Not that you cannot avoid the effects of a
problem that way... but it may be better to eliminate the cause, than to
devise an effective mask.
Anyway... I think that is the ideal. Any traction ? ;-)
Happy days to y'all. =================== Richard -K8JHR =========
On 10/30/2011 1:56 PM, Casey wrote:
> My point is this: Jim wants people to stop using isolation circuits and
> his "carrot" to them is simply to tell them to do it the "right way" and
> the right way is to go study 66+ pages of technical material and to sort
> it all out for yourself.
>
> I really can't understand Jim's expectations when the alternative for
> hams without an EE is to simply spend some money for the gizmo that
> provides some kind of solution. It's not very helpful or understanding
> of those hams who are not EEs to just throw a link at them. Being right
> doesn't necessarily mean anyone is going to listen to you.
==================================================================
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|