[R-390] 6C4 versus "W" and "WA"

[Tim Shoppa]

"WA0HQQ" <r390 at al.tirevold.name> wrote:
> As far as the 'the "FAQ" and "Y2K" manuals are full of statements that 
> are simply wrong' accusation in a previous posting - I say 'put up or 
> shut up' - if you have knowledge of factual errors in either, please 
> share them with the group and me, so they can get corrected.  They will 
> not get fixed unless you provide data instead of rhetoric.

OK, my biggest beef with the Y2K manual is the big bold safety warning
on the first couple pages that says "It should also be connected to
a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter.  If the radio continually trips
the GFCI check the line filter.".  The second sentence is extremely
misleading and potentially dangerous.

If the radio does not trip the GFCI, then the stock line filter is failed
or your GFCI is broken/miswired or no working ground connection
is present.  The AC leakage current from hot to ground through the 
stock 390A line filter (if operational) will trip a GFCI.

Modern replacement AC line filters have much lower leakage currents
(as a result of much smaller capacitors) and will not trip a GFCI.

I'm somewhat worried that someone will see the GFCI trip, and start
noodling around with the ground until the radio becomes ungrounded
and the GFCI stops tripping. Yeah, I know, this violates a different
even bolder recommendation in the safety section (and in the military
manuals) that says to always have a good ground.

In fact past questions to this list have had people asking "I had to
unhook ground from my 390A so that it wouldn't trip the GFCI, I was
just trying to follow the Y2K manual, what did I do wrong?"

My recommendation: Either remove the sentence "If the radio continually
trips the GFCI check the line filter." or replace it with a sentence
like "The stock 390A line filter and proper grounding will trip a GFCI
if everything is operational and wired correctly."

If I am complaining about some old out-of-date Y2K manual and the
most current revisions are more accurate, then it's my bad.

Don't take my criticism of a sentence or two in some
old FAQ or Y2K revision as any sort of criticism of the work as
a whole. 99.9% of the information in those documents is correct and good!

Tim.