[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Shoppa) wrote: > Having seen some bad vibes unfold through the channels of the > letters column and other communications with editors, I think that > BY FAR the most useful thing to do would be to contribute an > improvement (preferably with schematic) rather than a lengthy > textual or mathematical criticism.
To elaborate a little bit: Writing for a magazine is not something anyone will ever make money at. It's about as profitable as sitting around all day posting to Usenet and mailing lists :-). Editors typically chose articles based not on technical merit compared to commercial products or state-of-the-art lab merits but instead on FIRST on how it looks to sell the magazine and then secondarily on reproducibility/constructibility. The order is actually often reversed by the best of the ARRL editors, to their credit. I ghost-authored some articles for hobbyist electronics magazines in the 80's. It was a memorable experience. It had little to do with academic knowledge or product superiority and everything with shine and pizazz. It seriously soured me on salesmanship - I can literally get disgusted when I see the techniques used to push a crappy product in a sales presentation etc. In some ways I wish I could recover the naivete of my youth and be the "happy wanderer" that buy all the crap being sold out there! Tim. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
