On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:25:06 -0700, W5DXP
wrote:

Now, be advised that when I say "accurately" that this is of concern
only to those who care for accuracy.

That's the part I don't understand. You can assume a whole range of
impedances for the source while the forward power and reflected power
remain the same. Is "accuracy" somehow involved with efficiency?
--

Hi Cecil,

This is a real (the example of the challenge) issue of the Mismatch
Uncertainty. It is only uncertain insofar as most folks are unaware
of the contribution of error the source presents, and doubly unaware
of the phase distances between the interfaces.

Accuracy is unrelated to efficiency, both valuations exist distinct
from the other. You can be efficient but express it with poor
accuracy or good accuracy, efficiency cares not a whit about your poor
situation to resolve it. You can also be pristine accurate and
horribly inefficient, here again, accuracy is not a function of
efficiency, accuracy cares not a whit about your waste.

As for your conjecture
You can assume a whole range of
impedances for the source while the forward power and reflected power
remain the same.
I assume nothing, but I can portray the range through the same
challenge's example. It merely involves moving the SWR measurement.
I have already demonstrated that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC