Warren Mumpower said:I told Stan he should post in the battery forum. He wasn't interested in THAT.
I just thought of something....that discussion is in the DCC forum...a place that [b]ONLY[/b] those interested in DCC would venture. Yet they are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes though most are not even aware of the situation. Maybe the topic needs to be dropped into the public forum where everyone can discuss it.
I can’t imagine why…
A close reading of the proposal reveals the following problem statement. (I guess it could be called that. It does look like some of the government RFI that I have read…I can’t figure out what the objective is.)
“The following electromechanical interface is provided to promote interchange of electronics within a Large Scale locomotive.”
So, I guess the PROBLEM is that there is a lack of interchange of electronics within a Large Scale locomotive."
So, perhaps we need an electronics exchange? I’ll trade my PC board for your smoke unit? Or, perhaps my private electronics should be promoted to corporal?
Ah…a definition from the web perhaps sheds some light. 
“Interchange is the fee paid by acquirers to card issuers for each transaction. The fee is determined by the nature of the business and the processing procedures followed. Rates are determined by the card schemes who assess the level of risk and expense involved in processing a transaction.”
Bruce Chandler said:
A close reading of the proposal reveals the following problem statement. (I guess it could be called that. It does look like some of the government RFI that I have read...I can't figure out what the objective is.)“The following electromechanical interface is provided to promote interchange of electronics within a Large Scale locomotive.”
So, I guess the PROBLEM is that there is a lack of interchange of electronics within a Large Scale locomotive."
So, perhaps we need an electronics exchange? I’ll trade my PC board for your smoke unit? Or, perhaps my private electronics should be promoted to corporal?
Ah…a definition from the web perhaps sheds some light.
“Interchange is the fee paid by acquirers to card issuers for each transaction. The fee is determined by the nature of the business and the processing procedures followed. Rates are determined by the card schemes who assess the level of risk and expense involved in processing a transaction.”
So, someone is assigning risk and going to charge us a fee for complying?
Sounds about right.
Greg Elmassian said:
I hate to cross post, so I will just say I have posted on that other forum in the DCC section.My contention is that there must be a set of requirements (The what problem(s) are we trying to solve).
I’ve put a lengthy post over there on just ONE facet of this proposed standard, and it’s a show stopper:
The connector is rated at 3 amps per pin, and there is measurable heat from 3 amps. I have posted the link (from the manufacturer’s site) on independent testing of this connector, and at 5 amps, you are close to melting the connector!
This is NO WAY a completely thought proposal, forget worrying about what functions to support, or if the chuff switch is indeed referenced to ground, these connectors cannot deliver enough current to reliably run large locos like the USA trains diesels. Period.
It’s time to back off, and approach this like a real engineering project:
*List the requirements (example: need to support all LS loco motor currents, now, and for 10 years)
*Create specifications (example: 7 amps continuous, 15 amps peak for 30 seconds)
*Select designs that can meet these specifications (well, even though I love plug and play, we need to find appropriate connectors, and they are not in this proposal)
*Integration the various designs (that meet specs) into a proposal.I’ve shown 4 steps. Seems steps 1-3 were skipped, or I sure did not see them publicly.
Just to keep my head clear, I’m trying to collect requirements myself, and putting it on my web site, under DCC, Battery & Electronics, and then “A Standard Electrical Interface?” http://www.elmassian.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=215
ALL COMMENTS AND INPUT APPRECIATED. (It’s a little rough, please excuse)I’m just trying to get my mind around this, and have no hidden agenda, other than to try to help ALL of us.
Regards,
Greg
Greg,
The 3 amps would be enough if all the mfgs would provide high-efficiency motors with lots of torque and little current draw, naturally at the same price as those “El Cheapo” motors that suck up the current. But that isn’t going to happen.
BTW your sequence, including the specs, sound “pretty good” :), looking at that it will be screw terminals. 
OTOH there really is no requirement for large currents on a whole bunch of those “functions”, which would mean: use huge cross-section for the motor circuit pins, and considerably smaller ones for the rest. Hey that would mean it’s assymetrical and even the biggest bozos couldn’t plug it in the wrong way.
Alas, that’s probably not what they were looking for.
And I’m still of the opinion that two plug/socket combos would do the trick, arrange them to take up the least amount of room and use harnesses to connect. Where all the rest gets “stuffed” is up to the user/converter. All we need is clearly designated connection points that remain the same never mind if it’s a steamer, diesel or electric.