Tom, you are making a lot of assumptions. For one about qualifications,
there are degreed engineers in ARRL positions. The other, is that engineers
always make the tests. In no commercial company, nor many university labs,
is that the case; technicians or students, make the tests and report to the
engineers, who look over the test and write up the final results based on
technician's lab notes, or computer spread sheets. (Or even have the
students do it in college labs!) (Part of their "learning process"). So
doing the tests does not take a degree; just care and attention to detail
and documentation.
I don't know why you have so little faith in ARRL testing; unless it is
because you have not read the detailed testing in both QST and on the ARRL
web site over the past several years. The methods are detailed, the
equipment described, and the findings. Even to such details that most hams
are not interested in, yet are included on the expanded tests info on the
ARRL web site. There was even an article on ARRL product testing in QST
within the last 10 years, maybe 5. Sorry, can't recall the issue off hand.
But, maybe ARRL web site technical info service includes a web copy.
And although ARRL must be impartial, they must have some pride in that one
of the own editors, was a principal designer of the Orion. I don't think
they will trash the Orion in a review. Like all the magazines; QST depends
on manufacturer good will for advertising dollars which pays the majority of
the publishing costs. They have to walk a fine line, and work with the
manufacturers if there are performance issues during tests. But, they
remain objective, and express concern when it is justified. Sometimes it
results in a retest after the model has been checked and repaired if needed
by the manufacturer. Less than perfect models slip thru any production
process and sometimes end up on the ARRL test bench. A number of reviews
and follow on reviews have accounts of things that had to be fixed before a
review could be completed.
73, Stuart K5KVH
|