Reg Edwards wrote:
Reg spoke of the SWR meter as a resistance bridge. It is
possible to
build a
meter that is a bridge
===================================

The so-called SWR meter is ALWAYS a resistance bridge (although it
may
be described in other terms).

Utter nonsense.

There are numerous ways to measure SWR without using a bridge of any
kind.

A bridge implementation is mearly a simple and cheap way to do it
and
hence the most likely to be found in use by a hobbiest.

=====================================

I'm sorry to say you are all banging your heads against a brick wall.

It feels that way when trying to discuss SWR with you.

The so-called SWR meter does NOT measure SWR.

Depends on what you call a SWR meter and what you mean by measure,
but this has already been hashed to bits.

For starters, there is no transmission line on which to measure
anything. Can you find one? It is NOT the one which goes between
tuner and antenna.

It depends on how you implement the hardware to measure SWR, but you
are so obsessed with bridge circuits you have little chance of
understanding there is more in the world.

What do tuners have to do with anything? Tuners are irrelevant to
the original post. Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue
or do tuners confuse you?

To measure SWR on THAT line the meter has to be located in the air at
the antenna end of the line and has to be read using an astronomical
telescope mounted on a tripod. But it would still give the wrong
answers.

Go and think about it some more.

I did in EE class about 30 years ago and numerous times since. Guess
what, the physics hasn't changed.

You are so obsessed on this issue that the small nugget of information
you have to offer is swamped by the enormous amount of arm waving
and babble.

----
Reg, G4FGQ



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.