Actually using DCC is quite simple. For the most part you don't have to understand most of the content of the discussion that has been going back and forth, and this includes my own comments in a previous post. After reading more of the posts in this thread I think Inobu was trying to explain DCC in terms simple enough for anyone to understand, where the problem arises is for people with a little more technical background the explanation wasn't precise enough. It is possible to use DCC without knowing or caring if the signal is AC or DC. Probably the only time most people are going to care is when they're troubleshooting. When you hook a standard volt meter to a DCC layout the readings aren't what you're used to seeing on a non-DCC layout.
The more you use DCC, the simpler it becomes. There are thousands of DCC links on the 'Net to peruse. Just like driving a car. You get better with experience. I am approaching seventy and still learning. Much of my DCC knowledge has come from the 'Net. One big library. Rich
I'm not. The 'population' of railway modellers (to use the UK term) is distinctly grey haired on average. Most (like B.Rick) actually just want to play trains and spending hours faffing about with a computer isn't playing trains. I certainly have the ability to use a PC with my DCC system, and did have a play with DecoderPro a few years back. But not since. Because I don't have many locos and they mostly don't need to consist precisely, I can do sufficient setting with my DCC system (NCE) in one hand and the decoder instructions in the other. I also don't feel the need for automated operation or remote turnout control from my DCC handheld, so I will not be pressured into buying into those areas either. (I'm actually a bit concerned about posts on TB where a complete DCC newbie who says "What do I need?" is told about computer interfaces and stationary decoders.) Call me conservative (or a grumpy old man) but I sometimes wonder if we are in danger of making MR into a cross between gadgetry and computing. Probably not - that's what some people said the Train Simulators were going to do, but they seem to have settled down into a dark corner somewhere
I would argue that it is simply another facet of the hobby just as scenery, scratchbuilding, operations and superdetailing are. And modelers place different values on those facets according to personal needs, skills and values. Interfacing with computers could unlock all sorts of interesting new aspects of the hobby. The least of which is automated trains to enhance action for single or few operators and could extend to auto dispatching, live streaming layout status and even remote operation over the internet (can't imagine why one might want to do this, but hey) If nothing else, phones like the iPhone offer so much more in terms of power to even the most expensive DCC throttle and PC interface makes unlocking that power easier. as for people like Rick, (talking about someone who is "here" in the third person, sorry) In 20-30 years, the graybeards in this hobby will probably be so comfortable with DCC that it will simply fall into lessons learned, but whatever new technology has come along will cause the same consternation. Call it the circle of life if you will. The only constant is change.
I will go with the original posting. It's how I first understood this type of control. Such as in Computer Numerical Control (CNC) as used on machine tools. Etc.
I heard that! Not at all offended by it. You see I'm not alone and there are a lot of Ricks, Dick's, Bill's, Bud's, Bob's, Tom's, Steve's and short little fellows who are having a difficult time with DCC. Oh, we've got it wired in, got it working but Objections - Complexity of DCC - TrainBoard.com Truth is: DCC is the simplest form of wiring, operations, and fun one can have. It's the CV's that have us "Simplites" climbing the walls. But that's another discussion on another thread currently under the gun. See the above reference.eek: Now, it's my turn to scold instead of making fun. Inobu, tried to put out a tutorial in hopes of making it simple and easy to understand. As can happen with any thread we got preoccupied with...well...I'm not sure what to call it. Nonetheless, derailed as it is we can get the M.O.W. crew out and re-rail the train. Newbies and some of us old gray beards (see my profile for proof of said description) are having problems with some of the intricacies of DCC. Simple, is what we need to hear. Complicated, we have enough of. I want to thank a relative new comer to TrainBoard for making the effort, sticking his kneck out, being baptized in fire and hopefully survives this skirmish to live another day. I look forward to Inobu's, future postings...as I do most of you's postings.cute: My turn to apologize: If I have offended any of you in anyway...you had it coming. Grin! No, it's not my intention to hurt anyone here. Perhaps a little pay back now and then but I'd rather get along with all of you then cause anyone, any unnecessary pain. The people pleaser thing...more at 11, if you need to know. Another night has arrived I need to call it a day...DAY!
This is my final entry concerning this debate. My knowledge on DCC was based on the information I read. I did a little research to identify where I went wrong or how the notion came about and here it is. Link to the glossary for DCC - NMRA - Beginner's Glossary Here is the definition. DCC — Digital Command Control — the NMRA sponsored command control system that has become the most commonly used command control system in model railroading world-wide. An alternating current of constant voltage is placed on the track with a control signal of varying frequency impressed upon it. The DCC signal is actually an alternating DC waveform, containing the digital information. The basic system is required to produce results as set forth in the NMRA Standard so that equipment produced by different manufacturers can be operated together. These two point substantiates the origin of the information posted. Based on the characteristics of AC its voltage are sinusoidal and vary with time. The alternating current in DCC is constant which disqualifies it from being the traditional AC that we know which is what I stated. The second statement indicates the means in which the data is transmitted via the waveform or voltage duration and swing. I should have added DCC signal to clarify what I was trying to explain instead of saying DCC but that is minor that was not the basis of the bantering . In any case the information is before you and is from NMRA which derived its information from Lenz the early developer of the DCC system we see today. Inobu Now I'm done.
Ah. I see where you are coming from. The NMRA spec is correct, but your interpretation is wrong. The mains AC (110V 60Hz in the US) is a constant voltage. The 110 is the RMS (Root Mean Square) value - the actual volts go from 0 up to about +155 back down trough 0 to -155 and back to 0 sixty times a second, but the RMS value is constant. The DCC AC is a square wave AC signal with a frequency about 8000Hz (I think). The superimposed DCC signal is called an alternating DC waveform which is probably a slight misnomer. This signal modifies the basic AC voltage, but does not mean it is not AC any more - if it did then the harmonics introduced onto the mains AC by things like fluorescent lighting would mean your mains wasn't AC any more. So if there is no data being sent on a DCC system there will only be the 8kHz AC square wave present, all the locos will continue to chug along or not depending on what their last command was.
Again, you are using AC to refer to a specific type of AC(house mains or "traditional" AC). Traditional AC is a sine wave at a constant frequency, but it is only one type of AC. But that is not what you originally stated. You stated that it was "not AC." Saying DCC is not AC is like saying a truck is not an automobile because it is not a car. A truck is different from a car, but they are both automobiles. DCC is different from traditional AC, but they are both types of AC.
This is not quite correct either. The DCC signal is not superimposed on the AC square wave, the square wave IS the signal(this is actually one feature that destinguishes DCC from previous digital control systems). If the command station does not have any data to send to the decoders, it still sends out data, but it will just be a string of all 1's.
An alternating current (AC) is an electrical current where the magnitude and direction of the current varies cyclically, so as the time average is zero, as opposed to direct current, where the direction of the current stays constant. The usual time-dependence of an AC circuit is a sine wave. In certain applications, however, different waveforms might be used, such as triangular or square waves. [FONT="]The generators in the power plants produce AC voltages . The current flowing through the electric appliances using AC power supply is also sinusoidal. The AC voltages and currents are characterized by their frequency f, or angular frequency [/FONT]w[FONT="]=2[/FONT]p[FONT="]f, amplitude U0 and I0, respectively, and phase constant. The voltage and the current are not necessarily in-phase, there can be some phase difference [/FONT]Dj[FONT="] between them.[/FONT] The output of the chipset in a DCC booster does not operate in a manner that constitutes or classifies it as AC. NIkola Tesla would look at this a say it is not AC. He would say it is Thomas Edison trying to make DC look like AC. What would substantiate my claims is Tesla had autistic tendencies and you know how that goes. If it's not 100% then it not 100%. May be that's what I have. lol What's so funny is your mindsets is one of which a person could take a cow patty, put icing on it, call it a birthday cake and many of you would eat it. Now, I'm really done, no really. Inobu
There ya go...triangular or square, and not sinusoidal. Still AC because it passes ground zero several times in each direction in the space of a second, as does household sinusoidal waved AC at the outlet. The decoder is what changes the whole thing to moot...it rectifies the current for its various outputs that are linked to appliances needing only DC waveform, and that would include the motor. So, the rails get a hot AC soup of instructions/commands from the DCC controller output, just in a square wave because it is digitized. The decoders sift out the packets that belong to them (encoded with their address), and do the rest as designed.
Pay attention there is going to be a quiz later. Didn't anyone read where I said all this talk about electronics is "Chaff in the wind". It don't matter to most of us. We don't care. You've taken a what was supposed to be a "Simple" presentation and made it into a darn complicated one. We are trying to promote the hobby not run off the newbies and simplites. We don't need this discussion! We just need to know, it does work! Not how it works. Got it! :we2-policeman: Until we get to the CV's, then we need to know HOW it works. eek: Now you got me showing off my control issues. Sheesh! Ok, go have some fun with this but just know this thread took a bad turn when we first decided the OP made an error. This could have been settled another way. Then I could have made good on my wagers. Grin! Next time send the OP a PM so he can CTP (correct the post). Fair enough! Bunch of show off's! Humm, that would include me...ouch!
