The point is, that the simulator determines the voltage and current at
each instant by solving the differential equations which are well known
to us. Solving those very same equations for transmission lines and
loads, then mathematically moving to the steady state frequency domain,
gives us the familiar transmission line equations we use to calculate
such things as SWR. So you're really doing the same thing as people who
are calculating SWR from common equations. Doing the modeling does show
that the common equations are being applied properly, but otherwise it
should produce the same answer. The conclusion that SWR is affected by
source impedance isn't supported by the theory established and verified
in around 100 years of use -- that same theory that leads to the
equations used by your simulator and to the common transmission line
equations we use, so both tell us it isn't so. As usual, I'm having
trouble understanding what Richard is saying, but he seems to be basing
his premise solely on measurements he's made. If that's so, it would be
foolish to toss out a hundred years of well-established theory on the
basis of his measurements. As far as I can tell, he's offered no
rational, logical, or mathematical explanation for his anomalous
results, only taunts and insults, so the only rational conclusion is
that there's something amiss with his measurement technique or
instrumentation. Re-proving well-established theory every time a
measurement seemingly contradicts it is a fool's errand of the first
magnitude. Time is virtually always better spent in determining what's
wrong with the measurements.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tarmo Tammaru wrote:
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