Back over on that other site (you know, the one that claims to be the 'authoratative radio reference') they're preparing to release several new radio reviews.
I hope they do a better job on the individual reviews than on the transmitter shootout they did. Don't get me wrong, overall the effort was impressive, but there were several errors and shortcuts taken that reduced the rigour of that particular exercise.
Such as, not understanding how to appropriately tune the AMT5000, and blaming the documentation, rather than actually getting the information. It is valid to criticize the documentation if it is found lacking - it is NOT valid to just go ahead with testing without having all the facts at hand.
Such as repeatibility, particularly with a kit transmitter such as the AMT5000 - the results are highly dependent on the quality of the build. [In a recent post 'over there', a highly praised reference was made to a blog site that reviewed shortwave radios. One of the major factors in that particular review was repeatibility, but I guess they didn't see the relevance to their own reviews.]
It has become apparent after much discussion on the results of that shootout challenge that the relatively poor grounding played a significant role in the performance of the AMT5000 - it was affected more than the other transmitters (which does appear to match up with theory). That's a valid result. What is NOT valid is to continue to test the AMT5000 in an individual review with a poor ground - a better ground needs to be used to see if that particular transmitter lives up to the promise of its efficiency. And then ideally (perhaps in Shootout V2), matched up against those other transmitters with all using that better ground.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
They shot themself in the toe in several ways that I spoke about while it was going on, and because I spoke about it, they blame me for the wound.
I think the must significant thing I said at the time is that all publicity is good publicity and even the detractive, hateful attitude they aimed at the AMT5000 while pretending to be fair put the AMT5000 in the mind of many readers.
It is known to the psychological sciences that memory disintegrates over time rearranging details in such a way that we don't remember if something good or bad was said, we only remember the AMT5000.
It is my pledge that I will never again react to their postings as a peer in the part 15 community, because no peerage exists between here and there.
No matter what they do or say, it is promotion for the part 15 business/hobby, no matter how they try to crush the very equipment that makes the pastime possible.
Stirs things up.
The ALPB does not endorse my remarks but I endorse theirs.
because it starts out by continuing criticism of the previous review and speculates about the quality of a review which has not yet been published.
As things unfold, let's try to be constructive in our remarks.
Neil
I brought this issue up again because there is continuing discussion 'over there' about the new reviews, and THEY continue to slag those who had constructive criticism about the previous ones.
It was that constructive criticism, sometimes painful, that led to a fuller understanding of why the AMT5000 performed as it did in the testing. It also pointed out that its full potential had not been realized.
I (and I'm sure others) are grateful that they do the reviews. But resting on their laurels for just doing them is not sufficient - they should be both fair, rigorous and valid scientifically. And the reviewer(s) should be able to listen to criticism, which is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
I make no assumptions about the new reviews, other than putting forth the expectation that they be fair, complete and scientifically rigorous.
Why are we still beating this dead horse?
It's Easter. The dead horse is back from the dead.
But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” Stephen Covey
A dead horse? I think not. How can it be dead when it continues to be resurrected 'over there' (it's not only members of this Forum that have doubts).
And like I said, the constructive criticism offered for the AM transmitter shootout, even in the face of continued personal attacks from the inner circle 'over there', eventually resulted in a possible explanation for why the AMT5000 did relatively poorly in the testing.
Even your 'dead horse' post is an attempt to discourage discussion and debate, which is essential in everything (or at least in a free society).
And I'll repeat - I applaud the effort involved in the transmitter shootout and the upcoming reviews. They ARE the only ones doing this kind of thing.
I just want them to be done in the best manner possible.
The advice "Love your enemies" is given in the Bible as a menu suggestion for survival living during a famine.
They are especially good with beets.
Why not take this discussion over to that board?
Neil
Exactly Neil.
many of us are banned from that other forum simply because the webnmaster found out we have an account over here and in my case i was banned simply for sharing info with fellow part 15 enthusiasts (you know in the spirit of global knwledge) but apparently webmaster took excpetion to that and even put it to a vote to the membership to ban me for simply sharing info.
Part 15 dot US is my exclusive choice.
Even your 'dead horse' post is an attempt to discourage discussion and debate, which is essential in everything (or at least in a free society).
I think the above is an incomplete sentence. Just kidding. 🙂
The expression "...at least in a free society" raises questions in my mind, as I think the notion of a free society is mostly the stuff of slogans, as we've departed from being a free society.
However, taking the "liberty" of discussing "free societies" would change the subject of this thread, and I don't feel "free" to do that.
Still, the "dead horse" analogy seems strange also, as why would we beat a horse whether it was alive or dead, and are we calling those folks on the other site horsey?
Keep it scientific, use professional standards, if the condition persists consult the ALPB.