charlie wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
SNIP
Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)

I'm using Thunderbird 2.0.0.6, which defaults to flowed rather than
fixed width format. Please see
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Fixed_width_messages. When flowed text
messages are viewed with Thunderbird (at least with mine), they wrap to
the window width. If the flowed format is causing a problem for other
readers, please email me. If it is a general problem I can force it to
post in fixed line width. But let's take the discussion off line.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Very interesting, indeed. This probably accounts for the gradual shift (not
for the better) in QST technical articles over a number of years. There
seems to be more "publicity oriented" wording than precise technical content
compared to twenty or thirty years ago. I had assumed this was an
intentional effort to better address new hams, but I see it may have been
due to the editing process.

This editing problem is certainly not confined to QST. One of the few things
that sends my blood pressure to an astronomical level is for an editor to
make changes they do not understand. I depend on various font and
indentation settings for much of my material; now and then an editor will
decide to "standardize" these and I go completely off the wall.
Unfortunately, in many organizations the editors usually have the last shot
at material.

Bill - W2WO


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have to
deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various ways.
One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers who had
particular expertise in various areas. Some manuscripts being considered
for publication were sent to the appropriate TAs for comments and review.
This practice slowly died out, but I don't know why. I suspect it was
because the editors seldom had the time for this step in the process due
to erratic scheduling.

Eventually, they adopted a solution which was easy on the editors and
their schedules: post the proposed articles to a restricted web site where
the TAs could review them and leave comments. This saved the time of
communicating with individual TAs, and made it unnecessary to wait for a
response -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad. What I saw
as one problem with this approach was that comments and analyses were
regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing at all to do
with the subject matter. As an example (not representing any actual
particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal matters or
publicity would review (for technical content) an article on phased
arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted equally to
those from people who really understood the topic. In any case, the one or
few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally lost in the noise. I
don't know if this is the method still being used -- I resigned my TA
appointment several years ago when it became apparent that I was no longer
able to make any substantial contribution. I know of at least a couple of
very knowledgeable people who have done likewise. This is a shame, because
they're perfectly willing to provide free technical assistance, yet the
ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no longer
true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able to correct
the problems before publication. In one case, however, I wasn't given
enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations, invalid
"explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by the editor
and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable people I know,
however, have had serious errors introduced to their articles by the
editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even get to see the
errors until the article was published under their name. Most of these
people will never write for QST again as a result. This is one of the
reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and capable authors
to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not be
entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate having
an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing, as well
as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A good
editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence, and made
it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What I do object
to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content and/or results
in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello Roy...

The definition of a committee is a dark alley down which you lead ideas
so that you can strangle them. My impression is that the QST editorial
process is riddled with committees, and they're quite effective (hi).

I've given up writing for them due to the many problems you recounted -
I don't say forever, but for the time being. I'm very tired of
objections that don't make any real sense, while seeing this kind of
article (which also makes no real sense) published as is.

QST used to be a respected technical journal. It's grown inbred,
inflexible, inaccurate and inconsistent. It no longer really serves the
amateur community - it seems to largely serve itself.

Maybe a (metaphorical) bomb will go off or someone will start a
revolution and it'll change. Not likely, but maybe.

Perhaps a group of (former) writers could prepare a joint "declaration
of limited support" to present directly to the ARRL brass (bypassing the
editors) to call for action/changes.

Nice to run into you here.

Best regards - Robert Victor VA2ERY




Roy Lewallen wrote:
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
who had particular expertise in various areas. Some manuscripts being
considered for publication were sent to the appropriate TAs for comments
and review. This practice slowly died out, but I don't know why. I
suspect it was because the editors seldom had the time for this step in
the process due to erratic scheduling.

Eventually, they adopted a solution which was easy on the editors and
their schedules: post the proposed articles to a restricted web site
where the TAs could review them and leave comments. This saved the time
of communicating with individual TAs, and made it unnecessary to wait
for a response --

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

I added a top hat and "RV extension" to my HS-1600
that doubled the length of the bottom section. Here's
a picture and the combined results of three CA
shootouts from about 20 years ago. There don't seem to
have been any break-throughs since then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Sum Ting Wong wrote:
Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

I added a top hat and "RV extension" to my HS-1600
that doubled the length of the bottom section. Here's
a picture and the combined results of three CA
shootouts from about 20 years ago. There don't seem to
have been any break-throughs since then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,

I haven't read the article, but if the guy is claiming that his "tuner'
thing is better than a center-loaded bugcatcher or reasonable sized
screwdriver (FULL sized), I would LOVE to get in on any wagers he is
prepared to entertain! (Snickers and unintentional "razzberries" beginning a
crescendo and bursting into loud, uncontrollable guffaws and knee slaps!)

You mean they actually allow people like THAT to WRITE that s--- in
magazines?


73

Jerry
K4KWH

Jerry wrote:

I haven't read the article, but if the guy is claiming that his "tuner'
thing is *better than a center-loaded bugcatcher or reasonable sized
screwdriver (FULL sized), I would LOVE to get in on any wagers he is
prepared to entertain! (Snickers and unintentional "razzberries" beginning
a crescendo and bursting into loud, uncontrollable guffaws and knee
slaps!)



No, it wasn't quite that bad. The author though seems to have used a tuner
to match to the antennas being tested and then coming to some conclusion
about how well said antenna radiated energy to a relatively nearby field
strength meter (360 feet). One basic problem is that you then end up with
some signal level which may or may not be equal to the original output from
the rig (apparently an ICOM 706-MKIIG) reaching the antenna. That might
make the rig happy but it does leave the antenna with an awfully funny feed
at times, one that could be oh 3 dB or so down from what the rig puts out.

I haven't read the article, but are different mobile antennas being
compared on different vehicles, or the same vehicle? It's amazing how
many people don't realize that the vehicle is fully half the antenna,
and may in many cases play a more important role in determining overall
radiating efficiency than the supposed "antenna". So it's impossible to
draw any conclusions about mobile antennas based on comparisons done
when they're mounted on different vehicles. It's as much a test of the
vehicle's effectiveness as a radiator as it is the antenna's.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Oct 25, 10:02 pm, Art Clemons wrote:
I almost could not believe that an article that starts out with using an
antenna tuner to deliver all possible power to mobile HF antennas got
published.

I know quite a few people that want to try that set up. Without fail,
I warn against it. Some listen, some don't.. But that's ok, sometimes
failure is the best teacher...
Whats really bad is the few die hards that run those and think they
are world beaters. One will tell my friends they are the greatest
thing
since sliced bread, and then I'll have to tell em, no no no...
After a while they don't know who to believe...
So I often have to let them learn the hard way.
I assume the "die hards" don't try anything else to compare with..
I haven't read the article, as I don't QST, but if they recommended
that thing as a good performing antenna, they should be flogged.
MK

wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:02 pm, Art Clemons wrote:
I almost could not believe that an article that starts out with using an
antenna tuner to deliver all possible power to mobile HF antennas got
published.

I know quite a few people that want to try that set up. Without fail,
I warn against it. Some listen, some don't.. But that's ok, sometimes
failure is the best teacher...

I've considered putting a tuner on my Bugcatcher for 80 meters, but
haven't. The thing is so narrow there that the alternative is two taps
for the phone portion of the band.


Whats really bad is the few die hards that run those and think they
are world beaters. One will tell my friends they are the greatest
thing
since sliced bread, and then I'll have to tell em, no no no...
After a while they don't know who to believe...
So I often have to let them learn the hard way.

sometimes that is what it takes!


I assume the "die hards" don't try anything else to compare with..
I haven't read the article, as I don't QST, but if they recommended
that thing as a good performing antenna, they should be flogged.



I was surprised that they didn't include Bugcatchers in the test.
Perhaps they consider every center loaded mobile antenna identical?
Maybe they just tested the "pretty" antennas?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Oct 26, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


I've considered putting a tuner on my Bugcatcher for 80 meters, but
haven't. The thing is so narrow there that the alternative is two taps
for the phone portion of the band.

That would more more for impedance matching rather than the
loading coil itself. I have no real problem with that. I've often used
simple L network tuners for matching mobile antennas.
The system I have a problem with is using the tuner as the
loading coil itself. It's usually a disaster as far as efficiency.
Maximum current is at the coil, and often that coil will be
surrounded by body metal. Not good.. Poor current distribution
through the whip, and low overall efficiency. Not good..
If they left out bugcatchers in the test, no wonder all those
tuner fed things looked so good...
If your antenna acts very "high Q", that's actually good.
It means it's probably a pretty decent radiator.
I'd be more worried if it acted overly broadbanded, or low Q.
You won't lose much if you use a tuner for Z matching in your
case.
MK