Perhaps it's just me ...
Maybe I'm just getting old, and the world of electronics is leaving me behind. I've taken Elektor Magazine pretty much uninterrupted since the early 70s and have seen it grow from the typical-of-the-time hobbyist magazine, to the global publication that it now is. However, recently I've become more and more disillusioned with some of the content and the way it is presented. An article in the current issue is what has prompted me to write this missive. The article that I am referring to is the Homelab Weather Station.
In the past, articles for constructional projects were always fully vetted by the magazine, to include editing, re-photographing, parts check availability and most importantly, building one to ensure that readers could reproduce a working version. And so it was with some excitement that I started to read the article as for some time, I have been looking for a new weather station to build to replace the (now mostly defunct) one that I designed and built twenty years ago. This one seemed to qualify for my needs pretty much exactly, right down to it finding a good practical use for the Raspberry Pi Zero W that came with my subscription this year.
The more I read, the more I thought that this was going to be 'the one'. For sure, there were a couple of warning signs that this might not be quite the case, in that there was a reference to the BMP180 sensor being difficult to obtain, but there was a substitute available. Also that there was an issue with the I2C address of the differential pressure sensor that was employed. However, I was fully expecting these issues to be dealt with in detail later in the article, along with descriptions of the code and what could be changed in it.
So I was very disappointed when I reached the end of the article and it concluded with a basic "That's it then folks. Thank you and goodbye ..." No code. No explanations of how to deal with the issues highlighted in the text. The section on construction was very poor. The photograph of the mounted unit bears little - if any - resemblance to the text which mentions four holes and a sealed piece of pipe. Not a multitude of holes and a big lump on the top as figure 9 shows. It also talks of screening in front of the holes - although none can be seen in the picture. How does this affect the calibration for the windspeed ?
I thought that there might be more details on the Elektor website, but I haven't been able to find anything.
I'm fairly computer savvy, and a professional electronics engineer, but that has always been analogue. I have ventured into using microcontrollers, but I willingly admit that I struggle a bit, so maybe the beefs that I have with this article - and others like it - are down to me, but I can't believe that I am the only long-time and older reader that finds this departure from the magazine's original basic concept of publishing complete and ready-to-build projects, less than helpful.
Don't get me wrong on this though. I fully understand that magazines like Elektor are in a difficult space, and that concepts and formats have to change to keep them in a viable place. I don't have a problem with experimental projects being placed in the online space, nor brief articles in the magazine outlining such projects, but I expect a multi-page article that has achieved whatever criteria are applied to determine that it goes to print in the actual magazine, to be a complete project ...
Sorry. Rant over now ...
Happy New Year all !
In the past, articles for constructional projects were always fully vetted by the magazine, to include editing, re-photographing, parts check availability and most importantly, building one to ensure that readers could reproduce a working version. And so it was with some excitement that I started to read the article as for some time, I have been looking for a new weather station to build to replace the (now mostly defunct) one that I designed and built twenty years ago. This one seemed to qualify for my needs pretty much exactly, right down to it finding a good practical use for the Raspberry Pi Zero W that came with my subscription this year.
The more I read, the more I thought that this was going to be 'the one'. For sure, there were a couple of warning signs that this might not be quite the case, in that there was a reference to the BMP180 sensor being difficult to obtain, but there was a substitute available. Also that there was an issue with the I2C address of the differential pressure sensor that was employed. However, I was fully expecting these issues to be dealt with in detail later in the article, along with descriptions of the code and what could be changed in it.
So I was very disappointed when I reached the end of the article and it concluded with a basic "That's it then folks. Thank you and goodbye ..." No code. No explanations of how to deal with the issues highlighted in the text. The section on construction was very poor. The photograph of the mounted unit bears little - if any - resemblance to the text which mentions four holes and a sealed piece of pipe. Not a multitude of holes and a big lump on the top as figure 9 shows. It also talks of screening in front of the holes - although none can be seen in the picture. How does this affect the calibration for the windspeed ?
I thought that there might be more details on the Elektor website, but I haven't been able to find anything.
I'm fairly computer savvy, and a professional electronics engineer, but that has always been analogue. I have ventured into using microcontrollers, but I willingly admit that I struggle a bit, so maybe the beefs that I have with this article - and others like it - are down to me, but I can't believe that I am the only long-time and older reader that finds this departure from the magazine's original basic concept of publishing complete and ready-to-build projects, less than helpful.
Don't get me wrong on this though. I fully understand that magazines like Elektor are in a difficult space, and that concepts and formats have to change to keep them in a viable place. I don't have a problem with experimental projects being placed in the online space, nor brief articles in the magazine outlining such projects, but I expect a multi-page article that has achieved whatever criteria are applied to determine that it goes to print in the actual magazine, to be a complete project ...
Sorry. Rant over now ...
Happy New Year all !