[Elecraft] K3 FD report in high RF (K3 vs Flex 6xxx)

[Fred Townsend]

Jim hits a resonate cord. I do appreciate the League trying to keep costs
down but sometimes you get what you pay for.

Years ago I wrote the author of a QST published construction article
pointing out an error. He sent me his original schematic. QST had redrawn
his schematic using multiple ground busses using the pitchfork ground symbol
and thereby combining busses.  I wrote the editor explaining these errors
were doubly wrong since the EU bands the use of the pitchfork symbol for any
use other than a safety ground (green wire terminals). I got a reply
ignoring the fact the circuit was changed and stating they didn't follow
European standards. In fact they made their own standards. How about
adopting IEEE or some other standard electronic symbols?

If they are going to make their own standards then, they should not be in
contravention of existing standards. For instance QST frequently draws a
differential amplifier as an op amp. Granted the same ICs can be used for
either an op amp or a differential amplifier but use determines the proper
symbol and rarely are op amps (analog computing) used in ham radio. Other
inconsistences abound like using both square and triangles to represent a
linear voltage regulator. Make up your mind and stick to it.
Probably the most annoying abuse is the standard of drawing circuit flow
from left to right. QST draws schematics so they best fit on the paper. Not
for clarity. This makes understanding even more difficult but I do
appreciate the effort to economize.  

73, Fred, AE6QL


-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ross
Primrose
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:12 PM
To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com; elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 FD report in high RF (K3 vs Flex 6xxx)

On 7/1/2015 12:06 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Yes, ARRL Labs tests are damning, though you would never realize it if 
> you only read the text. When is ARRL going to assign technically 
> competent authors to these reviews?
>

Right after they stop taking advertising revenue from the reviewees (is that
even a word ;) )

73, Ross N4RP