. My guess is the confusion
> stems mostly from erratic editing of the Handbook. Certain chapters are
> chosen for revision and updating each year. Other chapters, even though
> they may contain known errors, are not touched. It might pay to take
> several years' worth of Handbooks, cut them up, and reassemble them to
> produce one relatively error-free copy!
Amen, Jim!
We have seen many examples of errors in the Handbook pointed out here on the
reflector. The latest of which is the amp project in the 2006 edition, with
the error in the step-start circuit.
My guess is that c. WW II, several experts took jobs at ARRL HQ at a pay
rate much lower that industry standard at the time because they loved the
work. We were getting more bang for our buck as members of the League. As
they retired, their established standards of technical excellence seemed to
fade away slowly over the years. Volunteers were recruited to serve as
technical editors at times, but apparently a lot of errors began to slip
through the cracks. Most new hams today are not too technically inclined,
and only want info on which is the best performing "plug-and-play" equipment
to buy and set on the desk. The few technical magazines remaining have
changed their format from major projects to small station accessories,
antennas, computer based, and QRP stuff. I'm not blaming anyone here, you
must adjust your products to fit the desires of your subscribers, or go out
of business.
My suggestion to anyone undertaking a newly published project is to show it
to your local "Elmer", or toss it around here on the reflector before you
start drilling holes in a chassis.
(((73)))
Phil Clements, K5PC
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|