No, they are roughly round, but not nearly as round and consistent as a solid wire, and 2 wires together are worse.
I did not say don't tin the wire, in fact in your zeal to defend this (or attack me), you missed the second sentence of the VERY FIRST post, where I mention tinning stranded wire. (DUH!)
You are correct, you did mentioning tinning the wire in your
first post, but
not in your post where you were commenting specifically on my thoughts, where I also mentioned tinning the wire. That specific context of your comments led me to infer you missed that point in my comments. A misinterpretation.
As for twisting wire, you're right. Two solid wires twisted together are rougher than one solid wire. But three are smoother than two, four are smoother still, and when you get to stranded wire made of 20, 30 strands, then you're up to 40 - 60 individual strands for a pair twisted together (twisted prior to tinning). Properly tinned, the wire at that point becomes very close to the surface contours of a solid wire of the same diameter, and there's every expectation that it would behave as well as solid wire would in such an application.
How about you consult an electrical engineer who has designed products, then you can tell me about connectors, contact area, spring fatigue, etc.
I'll rely on my 30+ years of practical experience, which I gained consulting and learning from my dad, who holds a Ph.D in electrical engineering. He hasn't led me astray yet. He's let me get shocked once in a while to teach me a lesson, but his theories and practices have always proven quite sound. They were good enough to send man into space, I'm pretty sure they'll continue to work on trains running on a track. I
have a very good teacher, thank you, and I have a great deal of respect for the insight you bring to the table as well, even in cases where I disagree with it.
You and I have different design standards. You'd engineer a bridge so that a Sherman tank could drive over it, regardless of what kind of traffic it was to carry. Nothing wrong with that, but I continually get the impression that you believe anything less is a bad thing--even if what's designed is adequate for the required load. That's where I come from. I look at the practical application, and design accordingly. If a structure is never going to be out in the rain, there's no implicit need to make it waterproof. Doesn't mean it can't be waterproof, just that there's no need for it to be. If a switch is only going to get thrown 100 times in its life, there's no need to use one that can be thrown 100,000 times. You can, but it's design overkill for the given task.
I agree with your opinion that screw terminals are more convenient, especially in terms of uninstalling a board for whatever purpose (changing locos, troubleshooting, reprogramming, whathaveyou.) But how often is that realistically going to happen? Four, maybe six times over the life of the board (and that's being really generous in terms of installing/uninstalling cycles)? I don't think there's going to be any issue with fatigue, loosening, or anything of that nature given that specific scenario. Yes, our trains move, and yes there is vibration and movement as shells get removed for maintenance, battery replacement, etc. In my experience, that very low level of movement has long proven insufficient to disconnect plugs, loosen screws, or otherwise make sound connections all of a sudden unsound. (It
is sufficient to make unsound connections reveal themselves.) Time will tell how these specific connectors will work. Based on past performance of similar plugs, I'd say the outlook is positive.
(funny how you always come out contrary to me and on the "side" of the manufacturer if my comments are perceived as negative. )
Er, yeah... If your comments are against the manufacturer and I disagree with them, then they--by definition--have to be pro-manufacturer. If I agree with you, I tend not to say anything since you've already said it. I know how much you
love "me too" posts.
And yes, I tend to give manufacturers the benefit of the doubt in many cases, especially when someone presents a position based on theory or indirect experience. I offer the same as you--a personal opinion based on my personal experiences and observations. Nothing to be implied as fact, just observations. They're merely contrary to your personal experiences and observations. That does not render either "wrong." If you're prone to perceive that as an attack, then I can do no more than reassure you it is not. I can only control what I put on the page. How you interpret that is out of my hands.
Bets are high someone wrote a glowing review and is pre-defending hisself......
Greg--take the bet. Whether it's a ham sandwich or Dave's cigar collection, it's payday!
Seriously (and not saying Dave is specifically naming me--though no one else in this discussion routinely writes reviews and is taking a "pro-socket" position),
if "someone" had a board in hand, he wouldn't have to resort to theory based on experience with similar plugs and sockets, no matter
what his opinion was. We'd be able to definitively say (as bdelmo has said) how well we found the specific sockets to work for us, and how we personally found them to hold up to repeated "cycles."
Later,
K
