On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:32:33 -0400, "Tarmo Tammaru"
wrote:

Richard,

A simulation of a circuit is better than the "bench". I have components with
0% tolerance, 0 length leads, no parasitic components, and no power limits.
It does precisely what a physical meter is a compromise of.

It does not care whether there is a piece of coax connected to the circuit
or not. Neither does the physical meter. Both find SWR by calculating the
deviation of the load impedance from 50 Ohms.

Tam/WB2TT


Hi Tam,

Simulations conform to nature, they do not enforce their own rules and
try to mimic someone's notion of "what should be."

If it does not care about coax, this kind of response is an implicit
statement of its being "too hard to manage" so-forget-about-it
approach to changing the problem to suit the answer. In other words,
a model of what? Nothing closer to the original than the oft-quoted
humor of "What is the definition of an elephant? A mouse built to
government specification!"

And so I return to the statement I objected to:
source impedance does not affect SWR.
which is shown no where to have been attempted, and is shown nowhere
to have been proven. What SWR? Where?

I note the total absence of technical answers to these specific
questions with proofs of unrelated doodling offered instead.

The condescension of
A simulation of a circuit is better than the "bench".
is absurd, especially when that same simulation fails to confirm bench
experience. I would challenge you to offer the testimony of any
single (credible) author of a simulator to stand by this profundity.

I note this last effort of yours is one of several iterations - which
simulation was the most perfect? The first or the last? Who is to
know? How is it to be known? Simulation did not describe to you what
you had to change in the simulation to achieve Nirvana. None of your
rationale for change emanated from the data, it sprang from the
experience of someone's bench providing superior results. If this
exercise is so much better, it should have taken only one pass to
accomplish. The negation of that is found in the failed attempts.
Thus the assertion of:
A simulation of a circuit is better than the "bench".
has been shown to be absurd through successive failures by the author
of that statement.

As I have offered before, there is humor to be found in the disconnect
and this *******ization by Cecil reigns supreme in examples. But to
its credit, it keeps me amused and offers considerable fodder for the
mythical lurker to observe where the logical landmines are (or in
counting the field's litter of amputees attempting pirouettes). ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC