Jim,
I must disagree with you on several points....
<<<1) QST is intended for general readership and one goal is to
encourage folks to get on the air. To that end, their goal would not
be well served by article that insisted that nothing is worth doing
unless you can implant 120 radials a full wavelength long of the
finest oxygen free copper, carefully implanted into precision sliced
turf, which is watered by an automated system, and that's only for
those pikers that can't afford to copper plate the back 40 of their
saltwater marsh with the full sized vertical array for 160m. <yes, I
am exaggerating, but you get the idea..>>>>
I don't know where the 120 figure came from, but I never stated that as an
absolute requirement. I realize you are exagerating however I do believe
the inverted L article did in fact convey the impression that a ground
system, which is truely one half of the antenna, is not particularly
important. You may dispute that and I don't intend to argue it further
since it is a subjective matter but I stand by my interpretation as being
rational. I think putting up the best possible antennas we can with our
resources is a desireable goal. If anything that radiates is okay, is now
the dominant philosophy, then why not do away with tower talk, and all the
exchanges on troubleshooting and improvements?
<<<2) I think that even QST's editorial board would concede that QST's
technical review standards are uneven. I don't think anyone should
be under the impression that it is a "rigorously peer reviewed
journal", or, for that matter, that there is extensive technical
review, other than for obvious errors. (I can cite specific examples
over the past few years of blatantly incorrect and/or unsafe
practices, if you like.) Hey, they have a limited budget, and they
essentially have to live what contributors are willing to write. I
suspect that would be counter productive to start coming down too
heavily on would-be contributors for technical review:
a)it would slows down the process (e.g. it takes a year to get
published in an IEEE journal, if you're lucky)
b) it would be frustrating and discouraging to the authors, who are
doing the writing out of love, not as their full-time day
job. Nobody will earn a living from writing for QST, even if you
wrote every article in every issue.
I would gripe more if things with technical inaccuracies appeared in
QEX, for instance, because the expectations are higher.>>>
I merely pointed out a need for a minor change to one paragraph. I hardly
think this would delay publication or cause any sane author to give up and
go away. I know an author who put up with months of revisions. That
didn't stop him. Also, radio topics are not fundamental breathtaking
research that must be communicated immediately because a nobel prize is on
the line. If an antenna article is delayed a few months to make it better,
that is not the end of the world.
<<<3) Hey, if you're a competitive sort, why not let the unwashed masses
believe something they read in QST, when you know better, and can
whip the pants off them as a result. Maybe these articles are a
carefully laid plot to encourage the competition to do something wrong?>>>
surely you are not serious. Yesterday was April 1 so I guess not. There
was a time about 30 years ago when I would have been tempted to agree. The
problem today is that there are too many bad signals out there already, due
to compromise antennas such as flagpoles, istotrons, slinky indoor coils,
and all sorts of other stealth CC&R compliant antennas. I think hams who
can put up real antennas, deserve to be told how to properly do the job.
After that if they want to go into denial and think half the antenna is good
enough, that's their business.
<<<4) With respect to the change over the years in content (often
described as "lots of pictures of appliances, less technical
content"): In these internet days, there's lots of other sources for
information, some better, some worse. The function of a ARRL
magazine as a "technical journal of record" is fading away, replaced
by books, websites, and so forth. Partly this is because the level
of integration of the components has increased (not many folks
building CW keyers with discrete transistors to make the flipflops
these days, I suspect), changing the fundamental nature of "radio
experimenting and homebrewing". Partly this is because the nature of
Amateur Radio itself has changed in the last 30-40 years.>>>
On the contrary, I think the need for an authoritative avenue of
communication is even more important now, for the very reason you give, that
there are all sorts of other uncontrolled, unedited sources of information.
It is now possible for anyone to set up a website with the patina of
authority and legitimacy, and fool the uninitiated with "quack" antennas and
so forth. The internet in fact is a breeding ground for junk science, quack
medical remedies and other nonsense, and let's face it, the ham antenna
market has had its share of this over the years. More now than before, ham
magazines such as QST have an even greater responsibility to publish good
advice based on sound engineering and measurement.
<<<One doesn't look to back issues of QST for design information so much
any more. >>>
This is true, but I'd like to point out that it is partly due to
availability. The ARRL should consider making the entire run of QST
available to members on the web, instead of selling it for hundreds of
dollars on CDs. Professional associations have done this with their
journals and it is a great member benefit. ARRL might get a lot of new
members just for this alone.
73,
rob / k5uj
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|