[BC] FCC Approves proposed AM MoM Rules

[Mike McCarthy]

On that point, I can not agree more.

If the array is designed and built from start to finish using that process, 
it can be as you say, faster, cheaper, easier. One MUST be willing to take 
that leap of faith, both learning and accepting the fact that the whole 
project rests with a "new math" process.

And I use the term "process" very deliberately.  Because EVERYTHING 
involved from initial layout to tune up contributes something in a MoM 
project.  ANYTHING can and will, and some cases dramatically, impact the 
end result.  Unlike FIM/field based tune ups which any deviations in the 
construction can be "adjusted out", the MoM process is very different.  And 
the end result MUST be verified by the math....not the FIM.  At least 
initially.  The FIM comes in after the model is either validated....or can 
not be proven.

We as AM array folks need to grasp the "new math" and run with it where 
that process can be applied.

MM

At 12:13 PM 9/28/2008 -0400, Cowboy wrote
>On Sunday 28 September 2008 11:01 am, Mike McCarthy wrote:
> >  In this specific portion of the text, I'm referring to a very small 
> part of
> >  the overall measuring/validation process of arrays which can follow the
> >  strict procedures defined.
>
>  /snip/
>
> >  Like solid state replacing tubes, this process will be the same type of
> >  paradigm shift for AM arrays.
> >
> >  MM
>
>  Some thought it would be cheaper, easier, faster, and it *can* be.
>  It's not necessarily better or worse, but definitely different.
>
>  Better, worse, cheaper, easier all depend on your frame of reference.
>  There are many who can swing a FIM. Fewer who can do it correctly.
>  Fewer still who can understand and properly implement MoM.
>  ( and there will be many who choose not to go that route )
>
>--
>Cowboy