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.
==================================================================
|