Does this seem wrong?

I ran across this video a few weeks ago. Yes, he's confusing some of the facts.

However, once I saw him pull up a drawing I realized he's essentially plagiarizing Mike Reagans Lionel CS video on this back in 2011.

Here's the original from Mike Reagan: https://youtu.be/UQ-hiIvPxVs

The very fact that he says this potential signal issue is unknown is untrue. Mike Reagan clearly discussed it in his video 12 years ago.

With all due respect to the youtuber. I don't see what the value is in copying other people's work. I guess it generates clicks/views.

IMO, the best treatment of the TMCC/Legacy signal propagation was by Dale Manquen published on Aug 2, 2011, and still true today.

TMCC Signal Basics by Dale Manquen.pdf

Didn't Dale show that Mike's explanation was wrong?

@cbojanower posted:

Didn't Dale show that Mike's explanation was wrong?

IIRC Mike's explanation was more simplified while Dale's was more technically specific.

The argument was that while  Mike helped folks understand what was happening. Dale was more thorough as to why, and in some cases it was alot to digest.

I agree it was a lot to digest. I always had a hard time following Dale's explanations.  I was happy with 50% comprehension.

And yes that video is like watching a remake of Mike's.

Dale's explanation was the technically correct explanation of exactly how it works.  I have to disagree with some of Mike's explanation, starting right near the beginning where he talks about the zero crossing and sync pulses.  There's nothing like that in the TMCC protocol, and the TMCC carrier and data stream is continuous whether AC is present or absent and doesn't give a hoot about zero crossings.  There's also no "halo" around the track, the track signal obviously is conducted directly to the board through the wheels, right along with the power.

GRJ,

What about his description of the 60Mhz? Sounded like he was cutting the cycle in half

That too Chris, my basic point was the whole description was wrong.

I suspect his Legacy base was damaged with the electrical issues he spoke about. He’s most likely compensating for the decreased signal from the base.

I like GRJ find Dale’s explanation to be correct. Unfortunately the incorrect information is out there and is getting repeated and folks not knowing take it as gospel.

I developed a lot of respect for Dale's opinions over the years, one smart cookie that was gone way before his time.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I developed a lot of respect for Dale's opinions over the years, one smart cookie that was gone way before his time.

You said a mouthful. I’m glad I got to meet him briefly at NAB one year.

@gunrunnerjohn I'm sorry I didn't get to meet Dale.  I'm an EE as well and his explanation is spot on.  I think what people have a hard time grasping is that when your body being near the locomotive helps the signal it's the earth ground that needs enhancing not the track signal.  The parallel tracks and signal bridge example was a good one.  The grounding of the wall wart is really important and in old houses that may require running a new circuit properly tied to earth ground to the train room if there are signal problems.

Unless my feed is blocking the comments from @RickO and @cbojanower on his channel he seems to have deleted their comments.  I could see them the day Chris made this post but at least for me they are gone.  Not sure why as neither one disputed his conclusions. 

Marty, perhaps he read this thread and decided to end any disagreement with his masterpiece.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Marty, perhaps he read this thread and decided to end any disagreement with his masterpiece.

I refuse to delete any comments on my channel unless they are vulgar or in poor taste.  If someone wants to dispute what I have presented, there is opportunity for one or both of us to learn something. I have a thick enough skin to take some constructive criticism even if it doesn't agree with my presentation.

BTW I give credit where credit is due.  Putting content out is difficult when so much else is going on especially with limited resources. I have a whole new respect for the bigger guys like Chris, JD, Eric, Chris etc.  I certainly don't fault his effort and if you didn't know any better that is the information at hand which came fro a Lionel source at the time.

I've never even thought of deleting comments, I like to see how stupid people can be.

@MartyE posted:

BTW I give credit where credit is due.  Putting content out is difficult when so much else is going on especially with limited resources. I have a whole new respect for the bigger guys like Chris, JD, Eric, Chris etc.  I certainly don't fault his effort and if you didn't know any better that is the information at hand which came fro a Lionel source at the time.

I just think in this instance. The information is too similar to what Mike Reagan posted. If he were to reference the other video and give a refresher that would have been in better taste, but I guess thats my opinion.

Not unlike everytime I see a video of aother "hobbyist" driving to the hobbyshop discussing products or whatever. I know that idea was originally Eric Siegels.

Having said all that. Your "unboxing" video was my favorite, Marty.😉

@RickO posted:

Not unlike everytime I see a video of aother "hobbyist" driving to the hobbyshop discussing products or whatever. I know that idea was originally Eric Siegels.

When someone else tosses the boxes on the floor and refuses to do an unboxing then I know I've made it.  LOL!

@RickO posted:

Not unlike everytime I see a video of aother "hobbyist" driving to the hobbyshop discussing products or whatever. I know that idea was originally Eric Siegels.

In this instance, I think it's useful, one guy can't cover everything.  Also, it's nice to get multiple viewpoints.  However, in the case of the subject video, it's obvious that it was plagiarized, and he even repeated the incorrect assertions in the original!

@MartyE posted:

I like GRJ find Dale’s explanation to be correct. Unfortunately the incorrect information is out there and is getting repeated and folks not knowing take it as gospel.

Not being critical here but, for the sake of discussion.  Has anyone ever asked Mike about the errors in his description of the TMCC signal?

@RickO posted:

Not being critical here but, for the sake of discussion.  Has anyone ever asked Mike about the errors in his description of the TMCC signal?

Mike went to the dark side and works at MTH now, I doubt he's in a position to do anything with Lionel videos.

Discussion regarding the TMCC/Legacy LF signal seems ongoing. In the 1950's, my company introduced the first LF based wireless control system, a garage door opener. It operated at 395KC and was fairly straightforward in its propagation profile. It was subsequently removed from the marketplace when higher frequencies became licenseable. A system based on a higher frequency is a bit simpler 

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Mike went to the dark side and works at MTH now, I doubt he's in a position to do anything with Lionel videos.

Right, I thought maybe in the last 12 years since this CS video was made. Someone may have talked to him regarding the accuracy ,or lack thereof.

@RickO posted:

Not being critical here but, for the sake of discussion.  Has anyone ever asked Mike about the errors in his description of the TMCC signal?

I can't remember if we discussed this at a Legacy meeting or not.  Again if this was something that was relayed to Mike, it might have just been parroted down the line.