Hi Ian,
you wrote:
> The other important point is to get thorough peer review of the drafts
> and also DEMAND rigorous technical editing from the magazine. I've found
> that the best way is to arrange the peer review for oneself, rather than
> rely entirely on the magazine. The good news of course is that e-mail
> shortens the whole process dramatically.
It also prevents running off by oneself and "cooking up" non-sense,
that no matter how incorrect, almost never dies.
Once something has been published, it takes on a life of its own....
right or wrong.
Your screen supply article is a nice piece and LONG overdo. I hope to
do some IMD tests here with various amounts of instability in the
anode and grid supplies.
73, Tom W8JI
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|