At 06:53 AM 3/1/02 -0500, David J. Windisch wrote:
>Do any of you TT'ers out there have a short (3 or fewer reasons) pro/con on
>whether the 'technical excellence' found in Antennex makes the subscription
>is worthwhile?
>
>Despite the well-known, widely-respected names appearing therein, I've
>hesitated, cuz the dead-chicken-waving-and-incantation-mumbling by others
>over certain antenna types is, to me, off-putting.
I share Dave's interest and concern. I was just reading a sample article
on Antennex about a 90cm-long 40m monopole that I found just a little too
good to be true, claiming a radiation resistance of 50 ohms and
correspondingly high efficiency compared to other types of extremely small
antennas.
Seems to me that if a publication like this wants credibility, some sort of
peer review or jurying is indicated. Granted, we're not the IEEE, but when
respected amateur antenna modelers like W4RNL get involved, they tend to
lend a cachet to the site that spills over on other articles that may not
deserve it.
Or maybe you just apply the TANSTAAFL* test?
73, Pete N4ZR
* "TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch", thanks Robert A.
Heinlein for the acronym
|