At 10:14 AM 4/2/2007, Rob Atkinson, K5UJ wrote:
>Jim,
>
>I must disagree with you on several points....
>
><<<1) QST is intended for general readership and one goal is to
>encourage folks to get on the air. To that end, their goal would not
>be well served by article that insisted that nothing is worth doing
>unless you can implant 120 radials a full wavelength long of the
>finest oxygen free copper, carefully implanted into precision sliced
>turf, which is watered by an automated system, and that's only for
>those pikers that can't afford to copper plate the back 40 of their
>saltwater marsh with the full sized vertical array for 160m. <yes, I
>am exaggerating, but you get the idea..>>>>
>
>I don't know where the 120 figure came from, but I never stated that as an
>absolute requirement. I realize you are exagerating however I do believe
>the inverted L article did in fact convey the impression that a ground
>system, which is truely one half of the antenna, is not particularly
>important. You may dispute that and I don't intend to argue it further
>since it is a subjective matter but I stand by my interpretation as being
>rational. I think putting up the best possible antennas we can with our
>resources is a desireable goal. If anything that radiates is okay, is now
>the dominant philosophy, then why not do away with tower talk, and all the
>exchanges on troubleshooting and improvements?
I think we basically agree. I think you've actually hit the nail on
the head though, in distinguishing between what gets published in QST
and what gets discussed on TowerTalk. I agree that it would have
been nice to have a bit more emphasis on grounds for vertical
antennas in the QST, but, you sort of have to take the rough with the
smooth in QST. As I mentioned, in these internet days, one would
look to forums just like TowerTalk for the further discussion and tradeoffs.
><<<2) I think that even QST's editorial board would concede that QST's
>technical review standards are uneven. I don't think anyone should
>be under the impression that it is a "rigorously peer reviewed
>journal", or, for that matter, that there is extensive technical
><snip>
>I merely pointed out a need for a minor change to one paragraph. I hardly
>think this would delay publication or cause any sane author to give up and
>go away. I know an author who put up with months of revisions. That
>didn't stop him. Also, radio topics are not fundamental breathtaking
>research that must be communicated immediately because a nobel prize is on
>the line. If an antenna article is delayed a few months to make it better,
>that is not the end of the world.
I think you're right, in principle. However, I think we all have our
areas that we would like to suggest just one minor change to a
paragraph, and if ALL of us were to weigh in, it would truly be
oppressive for an author (been there, done that, on both sides). The
QST editors have to walk a fairly fine line between filling the
space, achieving a desirable level of technical content, and overall
publication balance.
If antenna article is delayed it's not so much that the world is
breathlessly waiting, it's that you now have a hole in the pipeline
and pages to fill. I am under the impression that QST is not exactly
overwhelmed with article submissions. That several month delay as
you go through the multiple revision cycles is also a significant
disincentive to an author. While it may have been interesting to
start the article and get it actually out the door, you may have
other things occupying your mind 6 months later, and it's hard to get
psyched up to do the edits. Unless you're regularly writing, it's a
huge chore.
><<<3) Hey, if you're a competitive sort, why not let the unwashed masses
>believe something they read in QST, when you know better, and can
>whip the pants off them as a result. Maybe these articles are a
>carefully laid plot to encourage the competition to do something wrong?>>>
>
>surely you are not serious. Yesterday was April 1 so I guess not. There
>was a time about 30 years ago when I would have been tempted to agree. The
>problem today is that there are too many bad signals out there already, due
>to compromise antennas such as flagpoles, istotrons, slinky indoor coils,
>and all sorts of other stealth CC&R compliant antennas. I think hams who
>can put up real antennas, deserve to be told how to properly do the job.
>After that if they want to go into denial and think half the antenna is good
>enough, that's their business.
Well, it *was* meant facetiously... And you point up a valid
concern. How many hams, having put up some real clunker, but
believing it to be a wonder, got frustrated, and are no longer active?
In these modern days with inexpensive automatic antenna tuners, I
think less emphasis on "precision pruning to resonance" and more
emphasis on just having reasonably low loss in the antenna system
(and grounds would be a big part of it for a vertical) would be
useful.468/f might be handy if you have lots of room to string up
that idealized dipole a long ways off the ground. But for a dipole
on the roof of a house, or a vertical next to a house, the other
aspects of the system will dominate performance much more than if the
resonance happens to be 13.9 MHz instead of 14.2.
><<<4) With respect to the change over the years in content (often
>described as "lots of pictures of appliances, less technical
>content"): In these internet days, there's lots of other sources for
>information, some better, some worse. The function of a ARRL
>magazine as a "technical journal of record" is fading away, replaced
>by books, websites, and so forth. Partly this is because the level
>of integration of the components has increased (not many folks
>building CW keyers with discrete transistors to make the flipflops
>these days, I suspect), changing the fundamental nature of "radio
>experimenting and homebrewing". Partly this is because the nature of
>Amateur Radio itself has changed in the last 30-40 years.>>>
>
>On the contrary, I think the need for an authoritative avenue of
>communication is even more important now, for the very reason you give, that
>there are all sorts of other uncontrolled, unedited sources of information.
>It is now possible for anyone to set up a website with the patina of
>authority and legitimacy, and fool the uninitiated with "quack" antennas and
>so forth. The internet in fact is a breeding ground for junk science, quack
>medical remedies and other nonsense, and let's face it, the ham antenna
>market has had its share of this over the years. More now than before, ham
>magazines such as QST have an even greater responsibility to publish good
>advice based on sound engineering and measurement.
I agree on the need for an authoritative source, but I don't think
that QST is it. They have neither the time, budget, or charter, or
for that matter, the page space to cover and debunk all the junk out
there. Something like an online ARRL Antenna Handbook would be much
better, but, since ARRL derives a significant amount of revenue from
sales of such things, that's not likely to be a reality.
><<<One doesn't look to back issues of QST for design information so much
>any more. >>>
>
>This is true, but I'd like to point out that it is partly due to
>availability. The ARRL should consider making the entire run of QST
>available to members on the web, instead of selling it for hundreds of
>dollars on CDs. Professional associations have done this with their
>journals and it is a great member benefit. ARRL might get a lot of new
>members just for this alone.
I agree. I couldn't live without IEEE Xplore. But then, IEEE
membership is >$100/yr, and to a certain extent you get what you pay for.
I would gladly pay for an online archive subscription to back issues
of QST, QEX, etc.
Jim, W6RMK
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|