> "Ed" Loizeaux wrote:
> How about if we end the DCC-friendly
> myth (at least on this List), <snip?
> If someone is gonna go to the trouble
> of building a switch might as well spend
> the extra few minutes to solder on the
> point jumpers and cut an insulating gap
> in the throw bar to make it MORE DCC friendly?
> ...dave
The term "DCC-friendly" has come to imply a turnout construction method that is
needed for DCC operation. That is the main objection I have to using that term
casually. A turnout does NOT have to have an isolated frog and tied-polarity
points in order to work satisfactorily with DCC.
If someone wants to build turnouts with isolated frogs and tied-polarity
points, that is a fine way to go. No problem with the design concept. But it
should be called a "short resistant" turnout (or something similar) since it
reduces the possibility of short circuits for both DCC and DC and AC as well.
Having short resistant turnouts is probably a good idea for those folks who are
unwilling to take the time to gauge their wheels and track properly. Heck, if
you are not willing to solve the real problem, why not just mask the symptom.
Calling a "short resistant" turnout a "DCC-friendly" turnout or a "more
DCC-friendly" turnout merely perpetuates the wrong myth and is misleading and
confusing at best. It is not overly difficult to use correct terminology to
avoid misleading others.
Paddling my canoe against the stream...Ed L.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
