-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
question about davemade amps
- Thread starter loosecannon
- Start date
"while reading on a ham forum, i ran across a guy who has been dealing with RF grounds and mobile installations his whole working life."
"he said the same thing you did about running the negative wire of the radio right to the battery terminal, but not running the amp's negative to the terminal."
congratulations, you've just created a ground loop.
"not sure if you know the "why", but he said its because the radio's negative lead is isolated from the chassis, so its ok to go to the terminal."
lmao.
well then he had better head back to the blackboard. the isolation of the negative lead from the chassis is a holdover from the old days that allowed the equipment to be powered from either positive or negative ground vehicles.
the primary consideration there had absolutely nothing to do with ground loops. the design still remains intact to this day in the majority of chicken band and 10M export radios, even though the majority of vehicles have long switched over to negative ground systems.
"in the know" my ass.
"he said the same thing you did about running the negative wire of the radio right to the battery terminal, but not running the amp's negative to the terminal."
congratulations, you've just created a ground loop.
"not sure if you know the "why", but he said its because the radio's negative lead is isolated from the chassis, so its ok to go to the terminal."
lmao.
well then he had better head back to the blackboard. the isolation of the negative lead from the chassis is a holdover from the old days that allowed the equipment to be powered from either positive or negative ground vehicles.
the primary consideration there had absolutely nothing to do with ground loops. the design still remains intact to this day in the majority of chicken band and 10M export radios, even though the majority of vehicles have long switched over to negative ground systems.
"in the know" my ass.
Well freecell, maybe if you didn't talk in such riddles and actually helped people with their problems instead of posting links to your site which you then have to pay a subscription fee to view then maybe people wouldn't have to go elsewhere to find the answers they were originally looking for here.
my answers only seem like riddles because you lack the knowledge of the definitions of certain key words and technical terms preventing you from understanding basic concepts. you work on that and the riddles will turn into answers.
there's nothing cryptic or secretive in any of my posts.
there's nothing cryptic or secretive in any of my posts.
OK. I guess if a college degree and 5 years of bench experience in electronics makes me lack knowledge.
You know why loosecannon went looking other places?
Remember his post about getting fault codes about his crank shaft positioning sensor?
You told him to eliminate multiple grounds.
When he asked you to elaborate you posted links to your private portal.
You know the site that is like 10-12 bucks a month to have access to?
If you have all the knowledge why not share it instead of keeping it in your hidden garden? It wont do you any good keeping it, share it and help advance the hobby.
Or is it fun to make $$ off of other peoples ignorance.
And BTW my comment towards you wasn't attacking your knowledge It was attacking your demeanor in attacking someone elses knowledge. ie: The ham op that loosecannon got his info from.
Freecell i am genuinely surprised at your audacity.
the entire reason i went searching for answers on the net was because i could not get you to explain your post to me.
now you come here and actually laugh at my attempts to find an explanation myself?
i did the best i could with what i was given. the "key words" i used in my searches were straight from your reply to my thread.
Let me see if i understand your intentions correctly as they relate to your behavior.
i ask a question about something which clearly implies that i dont already possess the knowledge that i require to accomplish my goal.
you answer my question by stating a principle relating to my situation.
i ask you for some clarification as to the application of this principle to my specific situation, because it sounds to me like you might have some insight on the subject that others may not.
you restate the same principle leaving me to my own devices to investigate the application of the principle.
All this would be fine if your intentions were to "elmer" me with a sort of "teach a man to fish" kind of attitude, and i actually thought thats what you intended to accomplish by your repetition of the same principle.
now, you behave completely contradictory to what your intentions seemed to be by condescending to me, and laughing at my attempts to to learn on my own.
Shame on you sir.
if your intention is merely to chastise my search for knowledge then please do me the courtesy of declining to respond to my posts and threads.
i do feel a bit stupid, but thats because i thought for a minute that you were actually trying to help me learn.
lesson learned.
and just FYI, the thread i was referencing in my previous post did indeed have to do with ground loops, and the entire point of contention was about why its not ok to ground your ham rig's ground wire right to the negative terminal of the battery in your vehicle.
i no longer care what your opinion of this matter is.
LC
the entire reason i went searching for answers on the net was because i could not get you to explain your post to me.
now you come here and actually laugh at my attempts to find an explanation myself?
i did the best i could with what i was given. the "key words" i used in my searches were straight from your reply to my thread.
Let me see if i understand your intentions correctly as they relate to your behavior.
i ask a question about something which clearly implies that i dont already possess the knowledge that i require to accomplish my goal.
you answer my question by stating a principle relating to my situation.
i ask you for some clarification as to the application of this principle to my specific situation, because it sounds to me like you might have some insight on the subject that others may not.
you restate the same principle leaving me to my own devices to investigate the application of the principle.
All this would be fine if your intentions were to "elmer" me with a sort of "teach a man to fish" kind of attitude, and i actually thought thats what you intended to accomplish by your repetition of the same principle.
now, you behave completely contradictory to what your intentions seemed to be by condescending to me, and laughing at my attempts to to learn on my own.
Shame on you sir.
if your intention is merely to chastise my search for knowledge then please do me the courtesy of declining to respond to my posts and threads.
i do feel a bit stupid, but thats because i thought for a minute that you were actually trying to help me learn.
lesson learned.
and just FYI, the thread i was referencing in my previous post did indeed have to do with ground loops, and the entire point of contention was about why its not ok to ground your ham rig's ground wire right to the negative terminal of the battery in your vehicle.
i no longer care what your opinion of this matter is.
LC
"You told him to eliminate multiple grounds."
you'd better read it again.
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-band-...964.html?highlight=multiple+ground#post111898
"and the entire point of contention was about why its not ok to ground your ham rig's ground wire right to the negative terminal of the battery in your vehicle. i no longer care what your OPINION of this matter is."
now we're getting somewhere.
you'd better read it again.
http://www.worldwidedx.com/cb-band-...964.html?highlight=multiple+ground#post111898
"and the entire point of contention was about why its not ok to ground your ham rig's ground wire right to the negative terminal of the battery in your vehicle. i no longer care what your OPINION of this matter is."
now we're getting somewhere.
Last edited:
Dont tell me what I better do.
The point remains you never helped him, you gave him the run around.
You're a condescending, pompous, egotistical person. I have no use for someone like you in my life and any posts by you from here on out will be regarded as your attempt to advance your post count and serve no purpose other than that.
The point remains you never helped him, you gave him the run around.
You're a condescending, pompous, egotistical person. I have no use for someone like you in my life and any posts by you from here on out will be regarded as your attempt to advance your post count and serve no purpose other than that.
Yeah Freecell can be abrasive, but his advice is founded in facts.
A station is grounded with all devices to a mutual ground with connections that are kept as short as possible to the mutual ground.
This is common practice in good grounding as I have learned it.
A station is grounded with all devices to a mutual ground with connections that are kept as short as possible to the mutual ground.
This is common practice in good grounding as I have learned it.
My problem with his advice is that he doesn't give it completely. He gives some vague explanation then links to his site where he will gladly take your money to share his knowledge.
I have learned a lot from many people in my life and not one of them (with exception of the college) has asked me to pay for their sharing what they know.
" Dont tell me what I better do."
it's difficult to give advice when you take what i said and condense it into a 3 word sound bite. you misquoted me, read it again.
after all, you're the one who can't figure out how to implement my instructions:
eliminate any and all instances where MORE THAN ONE GROUND CONNECTION PATH exists between any two pieces of equipment.
if that's vague and incomplete then you're the one with the problem. contained in that statement is all anyone needs to know to eliminate the creation of ground loops in an installation involving multiple pieces of equipment and IT'S NOT AN OPINION.
if the statement raises more questions in your mind then ask the questions. is it possible that you don't know how to identify a ground connection path? do you not know how to eliminate it or do you just dislike asking questions? i graduated high school, you're the one who chose to waste his money on a college indoctrination, help yourself out here.
you can't have the answers if you can't ask the questions. now, just what part of my statement don't you understand? or would you just rather call me names and leave it at that? doesn't bother me either way.
it's difficult to give advice when you take what i said and condense it into a 3 word sound bite. you misquoted me, read it again.
after all, you're the one who can't figure out how to implement my instructions:
eliminate any and all instances where MORE THAN ONE GROUND CONNECTION PATH exists between any two pieces of equipment.
if that's vague and incomplete then you're the one with the problem. contained in that statement is all anyone needs to know to eliminate the creation of ground loops in an installation involving multiple pieces of equipment and IT'S NOT AN OPINION.
if the statement raises more questions in your mind then ask the questions. is it possible that you don't know how to identify a ground connection path? do you not know how to eliminate it or do you just dislike asking questions? i graduated high school, you're the one who chose to waste his money on a college indoctrination, help yourself out here.
you can't have the answers if you can't ask the questions. now, just what part of my statement don't you understand? or would you just rather call me names and leave it at that? doesn't bother me either way.
Last edited:
I think you're the one that needs to reread the whole thread.
I wasn't the one who asked the question, I was trying to help with a solution.
You suggested a solution and were asked by the person with the original problem to elaborate and failed to give it.
Your statement makes sense. "eliminate any and all instances where MORE THAN ONE GROUND CONNECTION PATH exists between any two pieces of equipment."
Now correct me if I am wrong but that would lead me to believe not to ground equipment in the same place. ie: amp and radio both grounded to battery. or more than one amp to the same spot in the vehicle.
Is this correct?
My setup works fine. My vehicle is fully bonded with braided ground straps and each piece of equipment only has one ground. I didn't have the problem, loosecannon did.
Good on ya for graduating high school, I did that too.
And I'll be the first to apologize about calling you names, it was childish. I'm sorry. But you do come across that way and when someone is trying to get a leg up in this hobby that isn't what they are looking for.
So please try to remember that the next time someone says they don't understand something.
I wasn't the one who asked the question, I was trying to help with a solution.
You suggested a solution and were asked by the person with the original problem to elaborate and failed to give it.
Your statement makes sense. "eliminate any and all instances where MORE THAN ONE GROUND CONNECTION PATH exists between any two pieces of equipment."
Now correct me if I am wrong but that would lead me to believe not to ground equipment in the same place. ie: amp and radio both grounded to battery. or more than one amp to the same spot in the vehicle.
Is this correct?
My setup works fine. My vehicle is fully bonded with braided ground straps and each piece of equipment only has one ground. I didn't have the problem, loosecannon did.
Good on ya for graduating high school, I did that too.
And I'll be the first to apologize about calling you names, it was childish. I'm sorry. But you do come across that way and when someone is trying to get a leg up in this hobby that isn't what they are looking for.
So please try to remember that the next time someone says they don't understand something.
"....that would lead me to believe not to ground equipment in the same place. ie: amp and radio both grounded to battery."
you're not eliminating a ground path by using separate ground connections, you're creating another one.
you're not eliminating a ground path by using separate ground connections, you're creating another one.
Which leads me to one of my points in the original thread...
All things in a vehicle share the same ground. In a 13.8VDC system of an automobile all things are grounded to the body, either the the firewall or the fender or the front of the engine copartment so they are all going to go to the same place so how do you eliminate that? If you do you equipment no longer works.
And you said to eliminate any instance of multiple grounds by the same equipment. So are you saying not to ground the DC ground of the Amp and lso ground that same amp with a braided strap?
Also are you saying to ground everything to one common point in the vehicle? Because there again raises point that all electronics in the vehicle share the same ground.
Or are you saying that the multiple ground straps are whats causing the problem as it would ground the body to the frame in more than one place and that there is where the ground loop i being created?
Like I said I have multiple straps and dont have any problems.
Last edited:
allow me to say what freecell can't bring himself to say, DC paths to ground should always be in parallel, ie each piece of equipment should have a single direct path to earth ie ground but it makes no difference if they share the same connection to ground as lond as niether piece of equipment connection fails and the others have to compensate for the failed connection.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
