Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

Why is it that the general public rejects anything beyond sound bites and
clever slogans?
Why is it that some experts completely reject mainstream thought and even go
so far as to present their own paradigm complete with their own private
semantics and definitions. Not many actually learned the Klingon language,
although many were accustomed to hearing it on TV. Like Psychology and
Philosophy where every major school of thought had it's own paradigm,
language, definitions and required intimate study as if it were a cult unto
itself. The end result was many led astray by loony professors who had
dreamed everything up in their heads and sought to prove it by changing all
the rules. Even Charley Manson still has his followers. Oh to be sure
there had to be some element that rang true - some brain prick of insight to
trigger the euphoria to forge ahead. But nearly all found their theories
held true only for a few specimens they held under their own microscope.

What's your point, Art? Are you looking for a grant to start your own
school of Philosophy?

Why don't you get a web presence where you can put your lab notes, math and
drawings. You can copyright them unless they belong to someone else.

Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.


3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

On Nov 25, 11:26*am, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources *Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. *Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. *For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. *The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.

3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. *To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. *The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

Well said !
It pleases me that it is a subject of debate. If the publishing is
part of the business
then ofcourse the market decides whether it is read or not. One would
have thought that public universities would
also publish the benefits of their work for all and thus advertise the
high standards of the university.
From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.
But it is not the private institutions that I point the finger at but
the public institutions
who now take on a mantle of private business by forcing students to
buy high price text books where their is a feed back to them or
increasing tuition costs that doesn';t seem to marry with the present
market but yet are paid for by public funds. I suppose that the
present state of affairs will continue if academia doesn't peruse the
web or publish their thesis even tho they actually belong to the
institution. In the mean time I am happy to make a over 100 mile round
trip to a suitable library to spend a day reading on the premises as I
am not allowed to visit Roswell.
Thanks for your input
Regards
Art

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. (NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.


[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 25, 1:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. *It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. *Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. *It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. *Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. *While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. *I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. *(NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. *Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. *Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.

[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. *I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Hmm that is interesting. Seems like the popular thinking is to resist
change as everything is O.K.
EXCEPT fior the ARRL and CQ magazine. Can't really fault that tho I
suspect that many would be better of saving their money
and use it to set up a personal business instead of spending it at
university. Seems like the financial advantages of old with respect to
return
has floated away in the wind. Why go to university if the older books
like Termans and Jackson has everything that anybody wants to know and
at a reasonable price compared to the price of books that Universities
foist on their students?. Does the world really need advances in
science and for whome?
Regards
Art

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. (NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.


[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Excellent post. The problem with QEX is not enough submissions. As for the
QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else. The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73. The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out. I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum? Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Excellent post.

Thanks. I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame.

The problem with QEX is not enough submissions.

Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. The problem was they
never really said why. When I pressed the editor, he replied that he
had enough submissions of sufficient quality. I tried again later and
had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I
was broke). I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and
never bothered again.

As for the
QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else.

Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from
WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. Mostly, it was adding a
low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from
Class C to Class A or AB. To me, it was a little like publishing an
article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on
gasoline.

The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73.

Probably true. I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the
audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style)
vehicle location. I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in
the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. When I
inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they
couldn't find it or that it was lost. Then, I mentioned that I still
wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased.

The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out.

73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To
me, it was worth the price of a subscription. Before I tossed my
archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. Wanna build a
rotating antenna direction finder? The only references in ham radio
land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. Same with various
microwave columns. I could have done without Wayne Green's endless
editorials.

I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing.
http://www.k6bj.org
Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. I used
to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio
politix articles. However, one article that I spend considerable time
writing was butchered beyond recognition. When I asked for an
explanation, I got nothing. So, no more articles from me.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum?

It probably shouldn't be an invention. More likely, an unusual or
interesting application of some existing technology. Your ATV camera
for disaster services is a good example. Direction finding is still a
common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). Perhaps
demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can
be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly
TDMA, etc). I could think of lots of useful things to build, design,
buy, or analyze.

Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

We had some floods a few years ago. The levee broke along the Pajaro
river. One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an
ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. On screen was GPS position
in APRS format. Everything worked and everyone was suitably
impressed. Then, nothing. No clue exactly why, but my guess is that
homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where
we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no
better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats,
and thugs.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 25, 11:26*am, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources *Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. *Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. *For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. *The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.

3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. *To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. *The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?
This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging . I understand the need for
peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?
I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation. This leaves
an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?
Regards
Art Unwin

On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote:


Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?

No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from
publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the
copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after
someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really
holds water, but there it is.
The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to
come from somewhere. They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly
have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good
quality typesetting.


This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging .

The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to
get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices
at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen
papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to
Xplore)


I understand the need for
peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?

IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers
(finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their
reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done
as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in
academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright
transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety
of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions.
1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple
places at the same time..
2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract
requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with
that.
3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an
appropriate disclaimer.

I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation.

Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on
the funding source for the work.


This leaves
an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?

Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might
argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the
written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author
(except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they
do with it. And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of
the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of
disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or
Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part
of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. And
it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being
disseminated by these means.

However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the
process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and
can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well.

Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. I don't
complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might
allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is
actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow
fashion. A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years
from now. The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff
or other elecronic forms.

One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage
journals on line for free. It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them
online, particularly if they're searchable. If you could convince
Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy
goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it.


Regards
Art Unwin