[hpsdr] Tech discussion on list (new subject line)

[Doug Ronald]

Great! That will be at least one reader…

 

I should also mention if anyone has a hankering to know the IMD of their favorite device, I’ll be happy to test it, since the tester now pretty-much just sits around gathering dust.

 

-Doug

 

From: Scott Traurig [mailto:scott.traurig at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:54 PM
To: Doug Ronald
Cc: hpsdr
Subject: Re: [hpsdr] Tech discussion on list (new subject line)

 

Oops, just found the link to the article at the bottom of your rejection letter page! I will read it!

 

73!

 

Scott

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Scott Traurig <scott.traurig at gmail.com> wrote:

Doug,

 

It's a pretty standard rejection letter that many, many people receive everyday from nearly any publication on the planet.

 

The standard formula for a rejection letter in the publishing industry is:

 

Say thanks.

Deliver the news.

Give the main reason.

Offer hope.

 

And it pretty much follows that formula. It's not rude at all. Rejection is always tough!

 

73,

 

Scott/w-u-2-o

 

P.S. You could publish on this list.

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Doug Ronald <doug at dougronald.com> wrote:

***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****

I have a private message from someone asking how I measured that 53 dBm IMD3 mentioned in my post on 7/10/17, so in the spirit of those requests to continue technical discussion here, I'll answer that question even though it could be considered noise relative to openhpsdr.

Answer: I made my own tester. I submitted an article on it to QEX, where it was rejected in a rather rude letter. Here is a link, and the submitted manuscript link is at the bottom of the page...
http://w6dsr.com/IMDtester/index.html

-Doug, W6DSR

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/attachments/20170711/ee1c3fe5/attachment.htm>