Reg Edwards wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote And for anyone doubting this dual definition of SWR,
just take a look at
Agilent, Narda, or similar web sites, and notice that their high priced
and precision terminations all come with an SWR specification. You'll
also find SWR specs for test equipment inputs and many other devices not
containing transmission lines. These are clear examples of Definition 2.

====================================
Roy,

When trying to sell high-priced instruments, including those which are not
associated with transmission lines, manufacturers would be stupid not to
communicate with prospective customers in terms which customers imagine they
understand.

Mention of SWR no doubt sounds highly technical, but is confusing, perhaps
beyond comprehension, to people who have no connection with lines.

Manufacturers are not paid to educate their customers. They may claim it's a
part of their job in the sales blurb but we are familiar with sales-blurb
writers standards of education.

For example, only suckers accept antenna performance specifications as being
definitions of anything.

Roy, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find some support
for the nonsense and confusing-to-learners waffle which fogs and enshrouds
what goes on on that short length of wire between HF transmitter and
so-called SWR meter.

Old habits die hard.

If we could wipe the slate clean and start again, RF engineering could
probably manage quite well without the term "SWR".

But we can't. In the real world of radio communication, "SWR" is used
everywhere. Even absolute beginners have already heard about it. Nothing
will change that.

Roy and I are starting from where people actually a they've already
heard about SWR, so now they need to know what it means. And in the end,
it isn't all that hard to understand.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek