On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:25:47 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
If, as you insist, the source impedance affects the SWR on the line,
please provide an equation that gives the SWR on the line, with source
impedance being one of the variables.

Hi Roy,

Your crafted requirement reveals the shortfall inherent in the
problem. It is distance based too, and without that discussion there
is no way to forecast what SWR or Power reading you would obtain from
simply knowing both the load and source's Z's. This is why it is
called Mismatch Uncertainty.

I have provided NBS and NIST documents both recently and in the past.
Recent offerings are obscure, as I have already admitted. The earlier
citations I provided were direct and to the point and serve as the
basis of the recent work. I have provided data that exhibits the
effect. I have provided the test protocol in how to achieve that
data. I have also described that this data is also, theoretically,
achievable through standard interference math also presented by me in
the past.

It takes little imagination to observe that there is a zone of
confusion that lies between two reflecting interfaces when the path is
not fully described. My data showed that path in one foot increments
of transmission line over an interval of a quarter wavelength or more.

We have been offered evidence of this Mismatch Uncertainty by Dr.
Slick if I am to trust his postings - be that as it may, because it
requires no further proof.

Simply put, bald assertions that SWR is unaffected when read between
two discontinuities is wrong without a concomitant description of all
paths leading to the SWR meter. This is a commonplace of interference
plain and simple. I have observed no one describing this detail
(except Dr. Slick).

As all this is part of the historical record entitled:
"The Cecilian Gambit, a variation on the Galilean Defense revisited"
I do not see how its repetition here brings anything new to the mix.

None the less, this recent example has been fun. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC