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.

--

Rick

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.


--
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

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

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

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

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