RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Final Re about smell tests :)

To: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards@oppd.com>, <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Final Re about smell tests :)
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:17:09 -0400
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces On Behalf Of Mike Martin
Tom,
I think what you mean is If I'm not going to agree with the
common
assumptions I shouldn't tell people about my experience.  I
think people
shouldn't ask questions if they are only going to agree with
the answer
they want to hear. Some people talk to themselves so they
get the answer
they want. ---snip---
------------------------------------

Mike,

I think you're a pretty nice fellow having met you in
person, but I feel
it is a bit arrogant to say that your readings are "real"
experience
while those of all other are just assumptions.

The fellas from Rockwell-Collins, mostly RF engineers, took
real
measurements in Cedar Rapids, IA, just as we did here in
Omaha last
week.  No assumptions were made.  Just real measurements.

I don't know which vendor's equipment you evaluated, but you
should be
aware that "experience" can be easily manipulated when
you're testing
something like BPL which is a mixture of I.T. networks and
RF.  If we
had not demanded that we do a "real world" test by having a
computer on
the system downloading files, we would've gotten the same
impression
about our BPL test that you apparently did at yours.  Their
claim that
they had 60% loading when in fact it was only 2% would've
gone
unchallenged.>>>

It's always possible a person doesn't have enough actual
theoretical or technical engineering background to
understand he is doing something wrong when something new
comes up, even though he can handle his regular routine very
well.

This happens frequently in different areas, and with BPL
being new and system operators having an interest in coming
out clean it wouldn't surprise me if Mike was hoodwinked.


This is why peer review is so good. It ensures our brain is
in the proper mode. We need to look carefully at the quality
and reliability of people disagreeing with us. I've seen the
very same thing happen over and over again when otherwise
good people work alone, especially when they won't consider
what anyone else says.

If it's one person against a large group of independent
skilled people, it generally isn't the large group who is
wrong.

73 Tom


_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>