Thread
:
An antenna question--43 ft vertical
View Single Post
#
368
July 11th 15, 08:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
An antenna question--43 ft vertical
In message ,
writes
rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 10:49 AM, Jeff wrote:
Why don't we use the RLR in all these measurements instead of SWR? Isn't
that what we are really after?
A very good question. One possible answer is that RL is normally quoted
in dB, and VSWR linear scales are perhaps easier to envisage.
eg 3:1 ~6dB RL
2:1 ~9.5dB RL
1.5:1 ~14dB RL
1.1:1 ~26dB RL
Personally I find log scales more intuitive for most things as they more
closely relates to factors of significance, no? But I see right away
that RL scales the non-intuitive way, a larger number is a less
significant value. While SWR scales the right way with 1 being no
effect. SWR can also be given in dB which would make the numbers very
intuitive.
Perhaps the world is ready for the Rickman, where Rickman = 10 * log (VSWR).
0 Rickman = 1:1 VSWR.
1.76 Rickman = 1.5:1 VSWR.
3.01 Rickman = 2:1 VSWR.
At the very least, it would eliminate any arm waving about standing waves.
Haven't you just reinvented the reflection coefficient, rho?
--
Ian
Reply With Quote
Ian Jackson[_2_]
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Ian Jackson[_2_]