I conversed with Walt several months ago. His book came up near the end of
the conversation and it appears that a new edition is in the works, to be
published by a different organization. This was all tentative at the time
but he was working on it.
Jerry Sevick is another great thinker/writer that the league seems to have
turned their back on.
Phil
At 09:26 AM 9/13/2000 -1000, you wrote:
>
>Paul wrote, in part:
>
>> Notwithstanding the ARRL's procedure for accepting an
>> article for publication in the first place, a professional journal
>> would have dealt with this issue in a true professional
>> manner...
>
>(and would have)
>>
>> The League's review board, functioning as an unbiased
>> mediator would, much like a court trial, review all evidence
>> presented by both parties and decide what, if any action
>> should be taken to correct any technical inaccuracies or
>> deficiencies based on prima-facia evidence.
>>
>> Instead, the League decided to form an ad-hoc review board (the
>> "contributors") without disclosing their rationale for selecting these
>> individuals. Several contributors were far from being financially
>> disinterested.
>
>This sort of action smacks of what happened to Walt Maxwell's
>material and his reputation as a result of an approach to the
>ARRL by a famous former Collins Radio amplifier engineer.
>This person asserted that Maxwell's material was all wrong.
>That actual SSB power amplifiers wanted to see high output
>SWR to be most efficient, and that Walt's claims that a
>conjugate match, applying the Conjugate Matching Theorem
>was all wrong!
>
>I, of course, thought it was the job of the typical Pi-L
>matching network to "match" the high Z from the
>amp to the low Z of the feedline coax; and from that
>terminal on, the Conjugate Match theory would be
>applicable....as I presume does Maxwell, but this
>belief is not shared by Maxwell's detractors. This
>former sentence is my thought, not anothers!
>
>The result was the removal of Maxwell's material from ARRL
>publications, and semmingly without printed comment about
>the removal in QST or any other publication, so far as I know.
>Evidently, in Maxwell's case, not even an "ad hoc" review
>board was consulted before just dropping Maxwell. Only the
>single complainer, with reputation, seemed needed.
>
>Also, the League did not reprint Walt's book, "Reflections".
>There has remained quite a market demand for the book.
>It is now about to be republished, as a new edition, by a
>different organization.
>
>Further, Maxwell has prepared material in support of his
>positions and has submitted same to the "new" QEX
>publication/editors. It would seem that, so far, he is
>still being "overlooked" by the ARRL!
>
>It really is too bad that Maxwell's material was not also
>peer reviewed in a professional manner rather than just
>evidently dropped and judged henceforth to be worth only
>ignoring.
>
>73, Jim, KH7M
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
>Submissions: amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
>
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|