Roy,

I am not sure Richard understands this, but I am simulating an actual
circuit. That is, the input to the simulator is a schematic diagram of the
circuit. With the present setup, a transient analysis is done by calculating
the waveform at 100 point for each cycle of the waveform. I could use more
sampling points, but it would run longer.

Tam/WB2TT
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Tarmo Tammaru wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...

The mythical lurkers should note all the effort that goes into a
perversion of a vastly simpler exercise that could be conducted easily
at the bench; and the reason for not going to the bench? Some infer
too hard (by lack of effort); others explicitly state it doesn't
matter (through reams of virtual pages gusting on about its
inconsequence); and yet others deferring it with excuses it demands
too much time for the effort.


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

And, consequently, the results you get should be exactly the same as
those of us using equations rather than modeling simulations get. I
don't see any reason why people who don't believe the equations would
believe simulation results.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL