On Filament voltages, the 3-500ZG and a wee bit of a snit!

[K0BG]

George, you are correct. However, I bet that doesn't happen (and neither will a retraction), and if the article wins, I suspect the ARRL will issue the award, aside from the illegitimacy.

Sue, let us all hope, that this example of unscientific palaver does indeed change the status quo.

[W8JI]

There is a recognized process for printing "a retraction"
This can ether be done in the editorial section or in a separate article somewhere in the body of the publication.

A retraction usually contains the material that is deemed to be incorrect.
Retractions usually are brief.

If it were me; I would print the retraction in the editorial column, that would among other things show the league owns it's mistakes.

After I saw that article in my QST, my first few e-mails pushed for a retraction, but I offered to write a second article correcting that article with photos and references.

The offer back to me was a technical correspondence section, which could have been linked to the article. The problem I have with technical correspondence it is makes it look like a disagreement, or debate, plus the reply has significantly less exposure than the totally incorrect article has. That makes it appear like the issue is debatable, or open for a different opinion, if anyone sees it at all.

The is the same option the ARRL offered, years ago, when they made a mistake measuring the AL1200. They said the power supply had bad voltage regulation, and I said that was impossible to be from the amplifier without something inside the amplifier getting hot and smoking. The ARRL insisted they had a very expensive voltage regulator on the power lines, and it had to be the amplifier.

It turned out to be the very expensive voltage regulator, but they published the bad review before they took the time to try a different outlet.

They offered ME a chance to write a Technical Correspondence piece about they mistake they made. I told them I didn't think that would look right, and they should just redo the review. Nothing ever got done.

I received this month's QST, and there is no mention of a problem with the filament article.

Considering the article is dangerous, has no value at all technically, and most likely will cause people to harm their amplifiers, I expected some type of response. Maybe I'm out-of-touch, but this correction process has been very strange for many years.

73 Tom

[AF6LJ]

After I saw that article in my QST, my first few e-mails pushed for a retraction, but I offered to write a second article correcting that article with photos and references.

The offer back to me was a technical correspondence section, which could have been linked to the article. The problem I have with technical correspondence it is makes it look like a disagreement, or debate, plus the reply has significantly less exposure than the totally incorrect article has. That makes it appear like the issue is debatable, or open for a different opinion, if anyone sees it at all.

That wouldn't be appropriate they stand to gain credibility points by owning their mistake.

The is the same option the ARRL offered, years ago, when they made a mistake measuring the AL1200. They said the power supply had bad voltage regulation, and I said that was impossible to be from the amplifier without something inside the amplifier getting hot and smoking. The ARRL insisted they had a very expensive voltage regulator on the power lines, and it had to be the amplifier.

It turned out to be the very expensive voltage regulator, but they published the bad review before they took the time to try a different outlet.

They offered ME a chance to write a Technical Correspondence piece about they mistake they made. I told them I didn't think that would look right, and they should just redo the review. Nothing ever got done.

I agree a retraction would have been the right thing to do.
One has to wonder where the line voltage monitor was that should be on such a test bench?

I received this month's QST, and there is no mention of a problem with the filament article.

Considering the article is dangerous, has no value at all technically, and most likely will cause people to harm their amplifiers, I expected some type of response. Maybe I'm out-of-touch, but this correction process has been very strange for many years.

73 Tom

I really can't let this go without saying something.
As a member I expect better.
I'm nobody; if enough nobodies say something maybe they could be bullied into printing a retraction.

[WB2WIK]

The is the same option the ARRL offered, years ago, when they made a mistake measuring the AL1200. They said the power supply had bad voltage regulation, and I said that was impossible to be from the amplifier without something inside the amplifier getting hot and smoking. The ARRL insisted they had a very expensive voltage regulator on the power lines, and it had to be the amplifier.

It turned out to be the very expensive voltage regulator, but they published the bad review before they took the time to try a different outlet.

Reminds me of when I commented on a QST article published back in the 1970s about a low-noise JFET preamplifier for 144 MHz.

The author claimed it offered a 1 dB noise figure.

Then looking at the schematic, there was an AC-coupled 51 Ohm 1/4-W resistor soldered from the gate to ground (after an input tuned circuit). In the text it mentioned the resistor was added for stability.

I wrote simply stating I thought this must really be a 4 dB NF preamp: 1 dB for the transistor, 3 dB from the resistor.

I received a reply! It was from Doug DeMaw who wrote, "It is easy to criticize the work of others..." and a few other sentences but never did he comment on my critique or say anything about a correction.

[W4PG]

Does anyone honestly expect to see a "retraction" in the QST printed ONE MONTH after the article was printed? I must live in a different world, but the scientific journals I read in medicine take MONTHS to typically respond. The NEJM, which is published weekly, is about the same - sometimes earlier. We have YET to hear from the author, though I suspect many think that is a waste of time. I did email him and ask about this, but he has not responded and I doubt he will.

If QST has a policy of allowing replies to go in the Technical Correspondence section (which seems OK to me since that is exactly what it is), why not respond to that? While no doubt many will disagree with me (NO KIDDING!) it seems there are just more issues here than meets the eye. We have a bad article, but then we have issues with how to respond and refusals to do so unless it's this way or that way. ??

QST decides how the response is made, pure and simple! THEY are printing the info, THEY call the shots. It's the way it is with most every journal I've ever seen. Once again, we have more going on here than meets the eye, apparently.

For Christ's sake, the New York Times offen prints corrections in tiny print in section Z!

I guess I have just seen WAY too many instances of folks dogmatically claiming this or that, demanding this or that, then ultimately proved wrong for me to jump on the bandwagon without first seeing a non-biased full review of everything important. Many of you have passed judgment with no respect for the author and what he was trying to say. Even when at first glance an author seems like an idiot, I reserve the right to hear what he was thinking before passing judgment. Maybe that's the lawyer in me coming out, I dunno. I'm loath to pass judgment without a full hearing - that innocent until proven guilty thing.

That won't be popular, but it is what it is.

The peer review process appears broken in this case, but responses to that that don't include a careful review of the author's intentions is broken as well. I'm surprised so many of you have no desire to even hear the other side. That's scary to me - NO MATTER how stupid the article might be.

..............Bob

[AF6LJ]

Bob the reason I am going to demand a retraction is because it's the right thing to do.

If enough people did the right thing this country would be in a lot better shape.


Why shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?

[KM1H]

Would going thru your director have more effect? If multiple directors were getting many requests for a retraction they may be able to apply more pressure than individuals whose letters and emails direct to CT likely get trashed.

Carl

[AF6LJ]

Would going thru your director have more effect? If multiple directors were getting many requests for a retraction they may be able to apply more pressure than individuals whose letters and emails direct to CT likely get trashed.

Carl

That is a good idea and why not do both.
And I don't mean by email ether send a letter.
When I write my congressman it's not by email it's by certified mail.
I make someone sign for it.

[WB2WIK]

Would going thru your director have more effect? If multiple directors were getting many requests for a retraction they may be able to apply more pressure than individuals whose letters and emails direct to CT likely get trashed.

Carl

I think that's a good idea, too. I'd do that. And as Bob says, any sort of correction or even retraction would likely take months, not weeks.

Now, the League could potentially post something much sooner on their website than they could ever get it into print.

I don't know why they don't publish all of QST on line immediately in the "Members Only" section. Everything waits years before it's posted there, and that seems silly to me. Members are paying and receive QST anyway, so why not make it immediately available to them electronically? (I don't know the answer; if I did, I wouldn't ask.)

Bob, I had several years' worth of NEJM and JAMA here; we finally had to "recycle" about 2000 lbs of them (they're heavy!). I received this for a long time because my brother-in-law, who is an M.D., was living with us for a while (along with his wife and two kids) as they were getting settled in the U.S. and he was going through all the exams here (he was already an M.D. offshore, but as you know, you get to do this all over again, along with a residency, to hang a shingle here). It was a long process, but he passed everything, completed his residency, and is now an American doctor. Whew. But in the meantime, we got NEJM and JAMA here and they started filling large cartons which eventually were too heavy to lift without a fork truck.

[W4PG]

Bob the reason I am going to demand a retraction is because it's the right thing to do.

If enough people did the right thing this country would be in a lot better shape.


Why shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?

Sue, I don't disagree at ALL that they should be held to a higher standard.

But, we are here because a process failed - a peer review process that should have caught this article. Now, there seem to be MANY here, some with a vested financial interest, who want to ignore the process to review these issues and cut straight to the chase without any review at all. Two wrongs don't make a right!

If we are going to hold QST to a higher standard and demand a better peer review process, how in the world can we honestly sit here and demand they "retract" an article without due process? Are we then not as guilty as those who allowed the problem to occur in the first place?

I am personally offended at the apparent arrogance of those who on the one hand vilify QST for "allowing" the article to appear, yet on the other hand demand that QST respond only in the fashion THEY say and by doing so, ignore the checks and balances that should be in place for not only peer review of initial manuscripts, but that SAME peer review for corrections/retractions.

If we are so bold to demand we know what should or shouldn't be printed, why do we cry foul when QST decides on their own to do the same?

Hence why I claimed from the GET GO that a reasoned response is ultimately much more effective than a diatribe shooting barbs.

..............Bob