Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jeff writes

Why don't we use the RLR in all these measurements instead of SWR?

Tradition!

Isn't
that what we are really after?

As long as you know what you're after, and get close to it, it doesn't
really matter.


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

Isn't there somehow something sort-of unnatural about trying to aim for
an infinite value?

As well as create something of a challenge for easy to read markings
on an analog meter.


--
Jim Pennino

On 7/11/2015 1:47 PM, wrote:
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.

I believe it would be 20 * log (VSWR)

--

Rick

On 7/11/2015 1:27 PM, wrote:

If you tell the grocer you want a pound of banannas and he gives you
2.2 kilograms of banannas because his scale is calibrated in kilograms,
are you going to get into a ****ing contest with him?

I will if he insists on charging me for 4.8501697684 pounds of bananas.

--

Rick

wrote:

snip

If you tell the grocer you want a pound of banannas and he gives you
2.2 kilograms of banannas because his scale is calibrated in kilograms,
are you going to get into a ****ing contest with him?


AMI that is nearly 5lb of bananas!

--
Roger Hayter

rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 1:47 PM, wrote:
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.

I believe it would be 20 * log (VSWR)

We could split the difference and call it 15 * log (VSWR).


--
Jim Pennino

rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 1:27 PM, wrote:

If you tell the grocer you want a pound of banannas and he gives you
2.2 kilograms of banannas because his scale is calibrated in kilograms,
are you going to get into a ****ing contest with him?

I will if he insists on charging me for 4.8501697684 pounds of bananas.

Oops.

--
Jim Pennino

On 7/11/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 1:47 PM, wrote:
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.

I believe it would be 20 * log (VSWR)

We could split the difference and call it 15 * log (VSWR).

If it is my unit, I'm not sharing with anyone! It would be dBrickman I
think with the reference value 1:1 VSWR.

--

Rick

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

In message ,
writes



As you say, it does not matter what a measurement device is actually
measuring, all that matters is that it is correctely calibrated to
display the information in the form you desire.

Quite!!



--
Ian

rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 7/11/2015 1:47 PM, wrote:
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.

I believe it would be 20 * log (VSWR)

We could split the difference and call it 15 * log (VSWR).

If it is my unit, I'm not sharing with anyone! It would be dBrickman I
think with the reference value 1:1 VSWR.

Fair enough...

--
Jim Pennino