W0UN wrote
...."You are really missing the point here. Again, the definition is clear,
concise, AND ACCURATE. And it seems to be understood by almost
everyone else. It is an internationally understood concept but it seems
to be a concept that you fail to grasp -- or maybe you just have a desire
to joust at your own windmills."......
I think Bill is just trying to make a point that the name stinks, and I
agree with him. Yes the meaning is well defined and accurate, but the
term is misleading. Sure, it isn't going to go away. It's in all the
literature, and it isn't going to change, but the point is still that
the name is misleading. I have had to teach this concept for many
years, and invariably when someone hears the term for the first time
they think there is only one ground allowed in the system. I have even
seen this concept implemented incorrectly in electronic systems by
designers who read a little about it and never understood it, resulting
in requiring a total redesign for the system. Thank goodness those were
not my students.
I think most of the readers on this reflector understand the concept,
but when you look at the ham population in general, very few understand
it, and the name just makes it more confusing.
See, I still didn't say the correct name. I had to use it when teaching
about it, but I made sure everyone knew I didn't like it.
Jerry, K4SAV
W0UN -- John Brosnahan wrote:
>>------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>>
>>My point exactly. In English, the word "single" has a specific
>>meaning. If you have more than one ground point but you use the word
>>"single", you are confusing the issue. There is nothing wrong with
>>saying "Double Point Ground" or "Multiple Point Ground" or "Multiple
>>Ground Points".
>>
>>Please call it what it is.
>>
>>
>
>
>Bill--
>
>That is WHAT it is -- a single-point ground. That doesn't mean that
>there cannot be other grounds or that there cannot be two single-point
>grounds, or even more, in a system.
>
>It is EASY to have a building with a single point ground that is connected
>to another building with its own single point ground and the connection
>cable between the buildings could have grounds all along the length
>of the cable.
>
>Not unlike a building with a single point ground that is connected to the
>electrical transmission line, which has grounds at every utility pole
>along the way,
>and that electrical transmission line is connected to another building which
>has its own single point ground.
>
>The meaning is well-defined AND IT IS ACCURATE. That does not mean
>that there cannot be other grounds in the system.
>
>Note that the word is NOT single-ground -- meaning only one ground. It is
>SINGLE-POINT ground meaning that all the equipment IN THAT SYSTEM is
>tied to a single grounding point. Other systems -- such as a tower system
>with control circuitry at the tower could have its own single point ground
>that is separate from the single point ground in the shack.
>
>You are really missing the point here. Again, the definition is clear,
>concise, AND ACCURATE. And it seems to be understood by almost
>everyone else. It is an internationally understood concept but it seems
>to be a concept that you fail to grasp -- or maybe you just have a desire
>to joust at your own windmills.
>
>--John W0UN
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|