On 12/16/2013 9:34 PM, Richards wrote:
I KNEW it... I bet my wife you would pit your credentials
against mine to win the debate! In college debate ...
this is called the "argument from authority."
I'm not debating anyone, but I did offer a response with technical
details. Fundamental physical scientific principles are established by
study, publication, and peer review, not by debate.
Seems this is AMATEUR radio... but to some, there is
little room for amateurs. Funny, the guys at QST Magazine
appear moderately qualified, having tested and played
Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. Last I heard,
articles are NOT reviewed for technical accuracy, and I find errors to
grimace at in almost every issue. Neither QST or CQ should be read with
any more confidence in their technical content than say, People
Magazine. There are, of course, exceptions. Ward Silver's contributions
are always excellent,and AA7JV did a great piece on what he calls a
"Garden Beam" for 20M.
with more than a few rigs over the years, and they
thought it made sense. If guess if I am wrong,
they are, too!
I've not seen anything in QST in the last decade or so (or even the ARRL
Handbook) suggesting that anyone involved in the editorial process has a
clue about audio, and I've seen a lot of stuff published that is either
wrong or dumb. And this is about audio.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|