peter.chadwick@Zarlink.Com wrote:
>
> David said about RSGB Radcom
>
> >I'd tried to get a couple of things published, both of which were turned
> down for being too technical.
>
> It's always been a bit of a problem with Radcom, and I guess, QST. Most
> hams these days aren't that interested in technical matters,
Yes, there is probably a lot of truth in that. That's probably not
helped by the fact that one can gain an amateur license whilst learning
next to nothing.
I recall reading once (~15 years ago) in Radcom some information about
the RAE. There was a question about how to wire a 13 A plug which
something like 85% of people got wrong, yet the pass mark was 70% - the
70 and 85 might be transposed. I've not seen the question, so perhaps it
was ambiguously worded, but if not, that should never be allowed to
happen.
I go to a club and have given a number (more than my fair share) of
talks. The members once asked me to do one on "Really basic
electronics", which I did. It was clear there were one or two people who
did not know the function of a resistor, yet have an A-license. Another
talk I was requested to do was on how to read circuit diagrams. Clearly
if you obtain a license without knowing how to read a circuit diagram,
or what a resistor does, you don't have any basis upon which to improve
your knowledge.
If the exam(s) were made a little harder, people would be forced to put
a bit more effort into learning something if they wanted to get a
license.
> My disillusionment with the current state of RSGB means I only offer
> articles to QEX now, not RSGB.
Same here.
> And I believe that the average UK ham is
> better represented where it matters by being a member of ARRL.
>
Maybe, I don't really know myself on that one.
>
> 73
>
> Peter G3RZP
Another thing that annoyed me with Radcom was that after submitting the
article to the RSGB, which very similar to the one later published in
the QEX
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~davek/ham/txline.pdf
I heard nothing for 4 months or so. Finally I decided to phone Radcom's
editor who said he had decided against publishing it on the grounds of
it being too technical. He said (not an exact quote, but pretty close)
"You have to remember many of our readers are dustment or similar so
would not understand this. Not everyone is technically minded". It would
have been nice to have let me know before the four months, since he had
clearly already made the decision. That is just plain bad manners.
Much to my amasement, the RSGB once published in the 'letters page' a
letter of mine moaning about the level of articles and asking as the
last sentence something like "Am I the only one to feel this way?" I was
obviously not, as another ham took the trouble to write me a two page
letter to me saying he felt exactly the same.
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge.
Dr. David Kirkby,
Senior Research Fellow,
Department of Medical Physics,
University College London,
11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA.
Website: http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~davek
Author of 'atlc' http://atlc.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|