Once again, it's not clear to me just what you're trying to prove.

Do you disagree with either of the two numbered statements made in my
posting? If so, which part(s) of which one(s) -- I'm sure I can
demonstrate their correctness. If not, we probably don't disagree.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.


Hi Roy,

No doubt. As I am not immediately interested in the reductionist art
of SWR, then the remainder seemed of little relevance to line losses
and the contribution of source Z to power determination error.

You continue, in part quote of a part quote:

representing |V(d)| as a function of d

which given you offer no more comment upon it, gives me the impression
you are unaware of what function d is. The point of the matter is that
this very equation you chose is examined in isolation, by you, but is
returned to on several occasions by Chipman where he quite
"explicitly" exhibits how V(d) ranges wildly for situations where both
ends of the line are terminated by forced mismatches. This is a
uncommon technique for determining SWR (still not my point, but
nonetheless an obvious example).

And yes, I realize

I often have a hard time understanding Richard's postings

and I often grieve over this on long winter evenings. Roy, you are
too coy by half. ;-)

However, your aside into SWR shape and the focus on reductions to
typical applications (source matches line) does leave a dilemma
because there is now conflict between your isolated quote of Chipman
and the demonstration of EZNEC as reported by my late, short lived
thread. I would offer that EZNEC fully supports Chipman's other
comments on this same quoted material you drew from him, and goes to
the matter I offered of an uncommon technique for SWR determination.
My EZNEC reports are also supported by bench results, and other
sources also recited here. All this seems to leave you on the outside
looking in. As it broaches upon topics that you have long cautioned
me that discussion would not "change your mind," I doubt this will go
any further.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC