Re: Latest RadCom Plus
Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) <drkirkby@...>
On 29 July 2016 at 18:45, Andy Talbot andy.g4jnt@... [ukmicrowaves] <ukmicrowaves@...> wrote:
I'm not just "sounding off on here". It was me that suggested in the "Last Word" that a "peer review" system should be in operation . You replied in RadCom, saying things needed to be simplified somewhat in RadCom, that would not be the case in a professional journal.
I sent a followup email to the RSGB on the 17th October, requesting it was published in the Last Word. Elaine Richards replied on the 19th October, acknowledging it. On the 20th I sent a small correction, stating that "Newtons" needs changing to "kg/square metre" and she acknowledged that correction.
Anyway, here's what I wrote, so I am not just sounding off on here, but have sent my comments in the appropriate manner, and found them ignored.
Thank you Andy G4JNT for commenting on my letter about peer review (RadCom, Nov 2015, page 96).
I appreciate that RadCom articles will often have to be simplified in a manner inappropriate for professional journals. But many of the errors in RadCom are of a very basic nature, so I can only conclude the current review process described by G4JNT is working poorly.
Measurement errors are a subject of GCSE science classes, studied by children between the ages of 14 and 16. But neither the reviewers of the Watson VAA-1 antenna analyser (October 2015), or MFJ-226 impedance analyzer (November 2015) commented that there are no figures for measurement errors provided by the manufacturers. Neither did either author attempt to measure the errors, which could have been done with a few cheap components - namely inductors, resistors and capacitors. There are plenty of photos, but nothing written about the accuracy.
The article about wind and ice on antennas (June 2012) was written by authors that believed force was measured in kg, and pressure in Newtons.
The subjects of heat conduction and radiation are both covered in GCSE level physics, yet confusion on these subjects did occur in the recent article on EM radiation, as pointed out by both myself and SA6BID/G7LSZ. That error was more subtle, and unlikely to have been detected by a child, but probably would have spotted by peer review.
Maybe the technical committee are too overloaded with work. In which case, sending articles out for peer review might be worth considering. Consider myself one who would be willing to help.
Dr. David Kirkby Ph.D CEng MIET (G8WRB)