About time for me to add my $0.02.
I always enjoy reading the test results produced by ARRL. At the same time,
I realize that the ARRL test methods differ from those used by most of the
manufacturers. As long as the ARRL uses a repetitive procedure to test
radio "A" and radio "B" and radio "C" and etc., the comparative value should
be good for comparing one radio to another.
One point to remember, manufacturer specs can be considered as "guaranteed"
thus should a product not meet specs (and it may be up to the buyer to
provide proof of such) the buyer may not be required to continue to be the
owner of the equipment. As to the ARRL numbers, they are good for
comparative reasons.
I truly believe that certain members of the staff at ARRL are indeed degree
Engineers of the correct discipline for the technology they are dealing
with. At the same time, most of the manufacturers do have staff with
greater knowledge and experience.
I believe that the reports of the ARRL should be used in the context to
which they are intended and that is comparative values. The manufacturers
methods and values are guaranteed values. They both sets of numbers will
most likely be correct but yet exhibit unique differences.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alderman Chester" <CAlderma@ora.fda.gov>
To: "'tenteccontestingcom'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:13 AM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] Re: # 4 Argonaut V ARRL Review 3rd and 2nd IPs ?
> The ARRL is not a professional engineering company and does not have the
> means nor the technical expertise to test equipment and publish their
> findings against that of trained professional engineers. The unfortunate
> fact is they take the liberty to do so. And the unfortunate fact is that
> most hams will believe the ARRL test before they will believe the
published
> facts of professional engineers. In same cases it is warranted, such as
not
> publishing figures of gain of antennas that some manufacturers produce.
>
> When I was in design engineering, Jim's procedure was always used, and by
> every microwave company that I dealt with, to measure intercept products.
> Fortunately we did not have an amateur enterprise testing our manufactured
> gear, we had other professional engineers do the testing. And since the
test
> were industry standard, there was very seldom any disputes.
>
> In my opinion, the ARRL should use their system (if's that's all the test
> equipment they can afford) and use it to publish comparative results for
all
> manufactures of ham gear. They should NOT compare their test results to
that
> of trained professional engineering concerns.
>
> It's up to us hams to realize the amateur status of ARRL published
> information. The bottom line is ONLY when we hams get a piece of gear on
our
> desk and use it for several months, is the final (individual) decision
made.
>
> I just have this feeling that the ARRL will tear the Orion apart with
their
> published 'test' and I feel sorry for those who will wait to purchase an
> Orion until 'the ARRL test results are published'. WE test radios, not the
> ARRL.
>
> Tom/W4BQF
> LM ARRL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Reid [mailto:jimr.reid@verizon.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:42 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com; W1RFI@arrl.org; KH6DX@arrl.org
> Subject: [TenTec] Re: # 4 Argonaut V ARRL Review 3rd and 2nd IPs ?
>
> Stuart, K5KVH, wrote, in part:
>
>
> > Jim, The ARRL lab has a very limited budget and likes to do
> > tests some hams can replicate. The spectrum analyzer
> > Rhode and Schwartz uses is a professional probably $50,000
> > one, or more. ARRL lab has some good basic ones, but
> > probably not the ones that will do the high dynamic range of
> > todays new receivers, in fact, it is a problem for the $25,000
> > spectrum analyzers, for we face the same in our lab at the University.
>
> Well, if the ARRL cannot afford to do an accurate test, using
> the correct and industry standard method, then, I believe
> they have no business substituting some other method and
> publishing the results as accurate and meaningful!!
>
> Such "jury rigged" testing is not accurate and is certainly
> unfair to manufacturers who invested many bucks to bring
> new product to the amateur radio market! What is the point
> in doing "something" if it is not really accurate?
>
> 73, Jim KH7M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
|