RE: SPICA manual comparisons

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@domain.elided>]

I agree generally with Ian Lomax' advice to Peter Fugedi about Spica manuals,
Wes Ingram's and the AROC "Technical Notes" publication, but would differ on
one detail about the AROC product (which Fred Di Matteo and I produced) and
add another one or two. Ian writes "It's a collection of everything ever
written about SPICA in the Alfa Owner, arranged chronologically". For "in the
Alfa Owner" please substitute "in the Alfa Owner and AROC chapter
newsletters." Much of the material came from Alfetish, Alfa Bits, Alfacionada,
Alfista, Romeo & Giulietta, Una Notizia, The AROCO Newsletter, La Frontiera,
La Pilota, I Saluti, La Veloce Vita, Overheard Cams,and Velocissima. The
chapters, and the excellent newsletters which many of them put out, are a lot
more than AROC and its national magazine. In addition to the Alfa Owner and
newsletter material we included, with Wes' permission, what was then the
latest version of Wes Ingram's manual; he has gone beyond that now, but at
that time it included everything he would say in print. Beyond that, we
included ARI's publications on Theory and Technical Description of the
systems,, and abstracts of their Instruction and Maintenance Manuals for
various versions, and finally the observations and criticisms of David Rogers,
who was then the National Service Operations Manager for ARDONA. Finally my
wife, who had been a professional librarian before going into museum
administration, did an index which will be useful for those who appreciate and
use a structured approach to information. It should be clearly understood (and
is stated in the introduction) that Fred and I were using a wide broom; it was
intended to be somewhat analogous to what the alfa digest is, an unmoderated
forum in which diverse advice and opinion based on a broad range of
experiences could stand or fall on its merit, without our choosing what to
include or exclude.

Ian Lomax' reference to it "as more of a 'history' book" is legitimate and
important; ARI's concern about legal responsibility for owner 'tampering', and
Joe Benson's equally sincere concern about facilitating owner maintenance,
speak volumes about the company's problems in this market at that time.

Peter Fugedi asked "Can someone who's seen both let me know what the
differences are?  What is the general consensus, which one is preferable?" My
opinion is that one is best off with both. No one could question that Wes
Ingram knows as much as any one person, with one viewpoint, can know about the
subject today. The AROC publication includes all he or Alfa would say about
the subject a few years ago, plus a lot more, some of it obsolete, some of it
undoubtedly wrong (at least in the opinions of some people) and a lot of it
interesting for some of us. For somebody who enjoys the digest - where you can
often get more than one opinion, and sometimes some very good information, but
have to do your own selection - I would think that "both" is the only good
answer. For people who prefer a single good up-to-date opinion, Wes has to be
it. Personally, I think two is always better than one, even if one of the two
is dead wrong.

Cheers

John H.
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided