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 also noted that the testing antenna was 360 feet away.

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
too.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:02:12 -0400, Art Clemons
wrote:

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
to.

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?

S.T.W.

On Oct 26, 1:43 am, Sum Ting Wong wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:02:12 -0400, Art Clemons
wrote:

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
to.

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?

S.T.W.

Publish or perish?

denny

BTW, here is the email I sent to QST after reading that article...
************************************************** *********************

I know that as a business owner that customers only say something when
they are not happy... As your customer I have to say that the QST
article comparing various mobile antenna configurations appears to be
a bad decision... The methodology is non existant and the information
imparted is thin gruel indeed... I can only assume you are having
problems finding articles elementary enough to satisfy your target
membership of new hams who have rudimentary technical knowledge...

Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level... Success and leadership is not exclusively
defined by circulation numbers - rather it is more defined by the
standing and esteem it is held in by the rest of the amateur,
technical, and professional community...
************************************************** *******************************

denny / k8do

Denny wrote:
Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level.

Right on, Denny. Where is Larsen E. Rapp when we
need him? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:16:14 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Denny wrote:
Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level.

Right on, Denny. Where is Larsen E. Rapp when we need him? :-)

Maybe QST has hired Hashafisti Scratchi away from CQ?

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

On 26 Oct, 13:12, 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 -- 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

But "experts" are usually diehards and unwilling to
accept, analyse, or review change.
Can you imagine some of the "experts" on this group
having a hand at what should be printed and what was hogwash?
Maybe it is time to govern science by the polls.
Art

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.)

Thanks,


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

charlie wrote:

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.)



Roy seems to be using T'Bird which if I remember correctly defaults to 72
characters per line. Roy's post showed up fine in Knode here too.