I sure agree with you Grant.
The 'mine doesn't do that' remarks made me go back over my v1.371 problem
several times. Even though I was convinced that RFI had nothing to do with
the problem, I did buy a handful of split ferrites and put them on every
connection to the Orion...didn't help, but didn't hurt either. I was quite
concerned that it was I who had actually done something wrong because it was
not until several days later that three or four others chimed in that they
were having the exact same problem. Although TT acknowledged the v1.371
problem, I still had to go over it several times to make sure it was not the
proverbial 'operator error' that does appear occasionally at this QTH.
I think you have to read each suggestion and use your own filter to weed out
the ones that certainly don't pretain, and give each one some
creditability.
Tom -W4BQF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Youngman" <nq5t@comcast.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] E-ham Bad Orion Review
> > This hits the nail on the head for me. When I raise a technical
> > "issue" that I have, it defines my problem for technical discussion.
> > When someone replies with "I don't have that problem with mine" - it
> > is not helpful to me in a scientific / logical search through the
> > problem space.
>
> It isn't always helpful, I admit. Sometimes, however, even that little
bit of
> information , especially if it comes from several sources, can be
> enlightening.
>
> It could mean the problem has not been fully defined ... by that I mean
> the settings or control sequence or something else not mentioned in the
> "my radio died, did yours?" posting could be important in having the issue
> materialize. Of course, it isn't always practical to start with what you
did
> at breakfast and enumerate every move to get to the point that "the
> receiver quit" at 3:00 in the afternoon :-)
>
> I found in reporting problems to T-T very early on (like March last year)
> on the O. that such things as the precise control positions and operating
> sequence was sometimes necessary for them to be able to duplicate a
> problem in the lab. That could well be, in part at least, why not
everyone
> can duplicate every problem that's reported on the list.
>
> Secondly, problems can indeed have more that one root cause. If one
> person has some specific problem and no one else does .. there may be
> (likely is) more than one contributing factor. That information may be
> enough to set the diagnostic effort off in additional, maybe fruitful,
> directions. It could be as simple as a need for a RAM clear reset
> somewhere along the line or an RF or power supply problem finally
> manifesting itself (certainly aided and abetted by some change in the
> radio), etc.
>
> And there have been a few "didn't read page 35" problems as well..
>
> I think everyone here means well and really does make an attempt to be
> helpful ... often times it's just that nasty problem of not being able to
look
> at a person's face while reading his/her email that gets in the way :-)
>
> Grant/NQ5T
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|