[TowerTalk] Is "The Truth about Trees and Antenna Gain" the whole truth?

[Patrick Greenlee]

Proof reading is not the issue.  Proof reading will find grammar errors, 
spelling errors and the like. Technical editing can be a real problem.  
I have written things that when "simplified" by well intentioned tech 
editors were in fact very simple to read and understand but just WRONG!

A. Einstein once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, 
but no simpler."  The idea being there is a point beyond which more 
simplification will lose important content.

While the audience for QST is not, in the main, technically inept they 
are still not, for the most part, scientist and engineers either so 
there is a bit of a balancing act writing to a level that doesn't loose 
too many readers and still conveys the necessary nitty gritty of the 
topic. Bottom line: There will always be readers for which some QST 
topics are over their heads and others well beneath their level of 
understanding.

Patrick        NJ5G


On 2/7/2018 5:31 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> I believe that to be true of the editorial staff of QST. I too often 
> find myself disgusted by technical errors in QST. But one of the 
> authors of this piece, KE4PT, has a pretty serious EE education, and 
> is the current editor of QEX. Dunno about W4RQ.
>
> IMO, the worst thing about the article is the title. And, I suspect 
> that the piece may have been the victim of excessive editing.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 2/7/2018 2:34 PM, Tom Osborne wrote:
>> I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna
>> articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually
>> factual or not.  I have seen many articles in QST that I read and 
>> shake my
>> head wondering where they got their info from.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk