“Yes you showed graphs. You also referenced a shielding specification THAT IS DESIGNED FOR TRANSMISSION OF RF AT POWER … which is not what an AC cable is.”
Say what? A shield is a shield. It attenuates RF around a cable (ingress or egress) same on an AC cable, digital Ethernet cable or coaxial CATV cable. It is the same test. There is no such thing as a test for just power cable. FCC test limits yes. The shield characteristics are universal to the design. SEED or transfer impedance are about the shield’s attenuation ratio chacteristics, not the signal it is protecting or the environment. A shielded power cord with RF on it has to be looked at as the ratio of the signal to the RF noise. Do we need more RF attenuation? Funny that the advent of shielding tests was for CATV coaxial cable, and not power AC. Yes, the limits will vary to the application not how a shield reaches these limits or the design necesary to get there.
My take is you are talking about VFD cable and yes, those have digital drive data on them with limits. That doesn’t change the performance of how a shield works, though. Shields aren’t only about RF at power and cord EGRESS as you try to imply.
Notice we DO NOT sell shielded power cables! I do not see it as a benefit to users and it is costly. Passive RF attenuation is plenty fine for AC systems with quality power supplies. I’ve stated OVER and OVER until we can detect signal changes based on the amps power delivery, it is hard to say a power cord has an influence to a repeatable standard, and not just variations in perceptions by end users. Better can be better, and we push the boundaries to see what happens. Some want to try those boundaries so we provide the proper tests we can do and properly let the user know what the tests are and how they work.
The data is 100% correct and you have done NOTHING to show otherwise. You want to cement the specs where you feel they are “adequate” but no better. Really? So that’s where you hide? As soon as a spec line is legitamatley moved you cry foul.
PE engineers are boxed into fixed specs. They aren’t allowed to change the “reference” on their own. This makes sense so you aren’t sued. As long as you do it per spec, a disaster isn’t your fault when it fails, and fails they do. The specs are changed all the time to further protect liability. You know it and I know it. Engineering isn’t ever completely right. Get the “wrongs” lined up and BOOM. We have major spec revisions.
Entire SM fiber optic installations across parts of the country that FAILED BW testing? Why? All the PE driven specs were followed but the true nature of SM BW wasn’t understood by the likes of people who think the BOOK is the final answer and it IS NOT. The guidelines are nothing more than limiting liability to make sure we have no fault insurance. They aren’t really about what is right so much as it protect engineering companies from what we don’t know. That is needed, or we’d live in the dark ages, I agree. But never for a second think the book is “right” all the time.
There are places where we can move the specs above or below the FROZEN requirements. I’ve stated over and over to this crowd that it can’t sound better if it isn’t truly better measuring but…we are getting to be VERY good and the costs to try the design is high. I ONLY design to calculated and measured improvements. Who else does that? Who else offers TPC as a reference to keep cost down, and offers the exact same design with alternatives to users who can now honestly try to hear what the beef is about? Who published ALL the design data on their cable to prove HOW and WHY a design WORKS? Who tests every cable sold for R, L and C to show they do get the paper specs in real practice and as a finished assembly? To you this is “meaningless” fine. To many it is a truly better cable option to try. Something they don’t have except with ICONOCLAST.
ICONOCLAST is specifically designed to allow user’s to try TRULY better design fair and square with industry accepted MEASUREMENTS but with better than industry accepted spec limits that are not cost driven. We have no liability the bridge will fall, the shuttle will explode or the fiber link will fail to deliver. We can push for better designs that can eventually improve the PE accepted “limits” for a product once it is proven reliable and repeatable to a set standard of measurement.
“Not one iota of proof anything you claim makes any difference, heck, not one iota of actual analysis that it would make an iota of difference.”
Really? Have you even read the papers and looked at the TESTED results? Your beef is you feel it is past “good enough”? Your PE mentality limits are not the final answer are they? The physics used to make ICONOCLAST are ages old, but we push it past cost convention designs so people can try a “better” cable. If it doesn’t work for you send it back…we sell all the cost driven alternatives that are tested the exact same way. The better cable specs stay in place wheather you like them or not.
So far, you have brought nothing to show why even the “PE accepted” limits apply and why those limits should go no farther. Many PE specs are MINIMUMS. But does using better than that say it is “meaningless” and you should be sued?
If you want to try to prove better R, L and C are against the law go for it. If you want try to prove ground plane differential isn’t proportional to the wire length between grounds, go for it. If you want to try to prove Vp linearity isn’t changed by cable designs and fixed by the physics at the frequency extremes, go for it. If you want to try to prove dielectrics don’t passively attenuate RF go for it it. If you want to try to prove smaller wires aren’t more current coherent across frequency go for it. I could go on.
You and I know you can’t, as these attributes are all accepted properties of the physical world that we have defined today. Your beef is just how good does an attrubute need to be to be a benefit. That’s fine, but you also need to show, as I explained earlier, that if say a power supply has 400 dB of RF from A to B frequency attenuation, the power cord needs none…so don’t worry about it. That’s a help. That the power cord DOES have passive RF attenuation isn’t a reportable offense is it? I just report what that attribute is and how it is measured. I also put specs into perspective, so no, I’m not deceiving anyone this way am I?
My concern with power cords is NOISE, either ground loop or pumping with some systems, nor RF. This is why we sell, unshielded cords. And no, this does not always mean a giant 10 AWG cord. The current in the cord can be proportionally ratioed to lower wattage devices. But, if we have ground loop noise, we can TRY a larger AWG cord and see if it is mitigated. Ground pumping isn’t very commonly heard. Best solution, fix the ground plane. I hope we agree on that.
It seems mighty odd that all the data and explainations given, you feel it is deceptive? But we’re supposed to accept your, “that’s a fact” answers with no fact shown? This is a data driven discussion, at least my posts are so you’re welcome to bring the data to put the proper spec into a PE reference mentality. No one will admonish you for placing the “minimum” standards and how they were agreed upon.
Help define what your accepted limits are and why. No, I have no reason to ban you. You kind of ban yourself with pure arguments that if it means nothing to you, it must mean nothing to the rest of us. OK, explain and show it.
Many interchange cables and hear changes (not power or digital cables in my case). The speaker / amp/ cable system does get changed as a system. The static (we use a system in dynamic models that aren’t available) spice modeling number do show that changing the R, L and C changes the performance. Who gets to say when it is good enough, though?
I am agnostic to feelings, and use just the data in my designs. Some chide me for not using carbon nano tube jackets or what have you. I only use proven calaculation and measurements. Same as a PE would. I just push the “maximums” as far as I can and to where even I say it is getting too expensive to go farther. Would farther but measurable have meaning? We won’t know until we get there.
Best,
Galen
