SWR meters are designed to operate and provide indications of SWR, Rho,
Fwd
Power, Refl.Power, on the ASSUMPTION that the internal impedance of the
transmitter is 50 ohms. It makes the same INCORRECT assumption as a lot
of
people do. This should not be surprising because it was people who
designed
it.

So SWR meters nearly always give FALSE indications about what actually
exists.

------------------------------------------------------
Reg,

BTW, I did force the SWR meter to see a different source impedance. There
was no difference in SWR readings for either the 1:1 or 2:1 case.

------------------------------------------------------

Tarmo,

And of course, as you and I know, on whatever line there is between the
meter and transmitter, the swr is neither the indicated 1:1 nor 2:1 because
the input impedance looking back towards the tranmitter is not the assumed
50 ohms. Both readings are false, even meaningless. There may in fact be no
standing waves to measure.

To avoid confusing novices and budding engineers, retarding education,
rename the meter the TLI (Transmitter Loading Indicator) which is what it
really is.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

SWR meters are designed to operate and provide indications of SWR, Rho,
Fwd
Power, Refl.Power, on the ASSUMPTION that the internal impedance of the
transmitter is 50 ohms. It makes the same INCORRECT assumption as a lot
of
people do. This should not be surprising because it was people who
designed
it.

So SWR meters nearly always give FALSE indications about what actually
exists.

------------------------------------------------------
Reg,

BTW, I did force the SWR meter to see a different source impedance. There
was no difference in SWR readings for either the 1:1 or 2:1 case.

------------------------------------------------------

Tarmo,

And of course, as you and I know, on whatever line there is between the
meter and transmitter, the swr is neither the indicated 1:1 nor 2:1 because
the input impedance looking back towards the tranmitter is not the assumed
50 ohms. Both readings are false, even meaningless. There may in fact be no
standing waves to measure.

To avoid confusing novices and budding engineers, retarding education,
rename the meter the TLI (Transmitter Loading Indicator) which is what it
really is.
----
Reg, G4FGQ


Reg, can you furnish a a mathematical expression that includes source resistance
as a required parameter for determining SWR?

Walt, W2DU

Reg, can you furnish a a mathematical expression that includes source
resistance
as a required parameter for determining SWR?

--------------------------------------------

No Walt. Can you ? Why do you ask ?

Reg.

Reg, can you furnish a a mathematical expression that
includes source resistance as a required parameter for
determining SWR?

--------------------------------------------

No Walt. Can you ? Why do you ask ?

Reg.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

SWR meters are designed to operate and provide indications of SWR, Rho,
Fwd
Power, Refl.Power, on the ASSUMPTION that the internal impedance of the
transmitter is 50 ohms.

Reg, G4FGQ

Well, Reg, the reason I asked for an expression that includes the source
resistance in measuring SWR is that you said above that the internal impedance
of the transmitter is ASSUMED to be 50 ohms. This implies that the SWR is
dependent on the internal impedance of the source, does it not ?

AsI have understood Richard C., he also asserts that SWR is dependent the
internal impedance of the source.

This concept is foreign to me, so if I'm wrong I'd like to have some proof that
the source impedance can have any influence on SWR.

Walt

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:40:27 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:


This concept is foreign to me, so if I'm wrong I'd like to have some proof that
the source impedance can have any influence on SWR.

Walt

Hi Walt,

I have not seen any correspondence from you. However, as to proof,
that has been tendered to you, you simply lack the facilities to test
it at this time. That much has already been established and further
elaboration is unnecessary. Debate can continue without resolution, a
simple hour's work at the bench can put the cap to it.

My data stands un-refuted (barring the usual cackle of nay-saying
sneer review), and even more, without test at ANY other bench. I can
only conclude that:
1.) My data is bullet-proof;
2.) others lack the ability to perform the task;
3.) 1&2 above, but narcissistic debate is the real focus of critics.

The triumph of the nay-sayers is in my admission that I know that I am
in error. They undoubtedly grasp that statement as the chalice of
their noble musings leaving them undisturbed to step up to the bench.
It also is revealed in their piteous cries of the calamity of Amateur
Radio's future that awaits us. This last comes as no surprise to the
rising tide in the kulture of institutionalized ignorance where the
supreme technical achievement is enacted by pushing a credit card
across the display case.

I am bound to be in error through my own admission, but my admission
comes with a bounds of accuracy. To others here, my error is absolute
and demonstration to attest that is unnecessary. This unsullied
nobility is then undercut by the jejune debate they indulge in over
issues of a philosophical nature - actually a mystical assignation
with metaphysics.

I suppose I frustrate many because I am not afraid to be wrong. The
frustration is often railed in terms of my style (their being
outgunned on two fronts) and compounded by their inertia for doing
simple things well (the loss of yet another, third front). You guys
need more threads devoted to the definition of weight so you can
devastate the farmer's mud-logic. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
My data stands un-refuted (barring the usual cackle of nay-saying
sneer review), and even more, without test at ANY other bench. I can
only conclude that:
1.) My data is bullet-proof;
2.) others lack the ability to perform the task;
3.) 1&2 above, but narcissistic debate is the real focus of critics.

I offered an experiment that might prove you right, Richard, but so
far you, nor anyone else, has offered any response.

Source---coax---(+j500)---SWR meter---(-j500)---50 ohm load

Seems to me the resonant reactances, in series or parallel, on each side
of the SWR meter, might add an equal magnitude of energy to the forward
energy and reflected energy seen by the SWR meter thus changing the SWR
reading. I suspect the above condition is representative of what you are
seeing in your measurements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:37:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I offered an experiment that might prove you right
... I suspect the above condition is representative of what you are
seeing in your measurements.

Hi Cecil,

Your memory of those measurements alternately gains clarity and fades
by the passage of each moment. I need no further examples, as flawed
or superlative as they may be, to support my thesis that stands by
simple resistive loads. Your gilding of the Lily and painting the
Rose is performed off the bench as a means to yet again force the
world into a speculation that your xeroxed page of Chipman responds
to. No further analysis is required, it has been performed and data
taken has demonstrated it.

If you choose to put forward a variant employing reactance, you could
at least step up to the bench to offer confirmatory or rejecting
evidence as I did. This is a simple example of offering a complete
analysis to peers for study and review. Some problems defy such
completeness, others defy analysis at the bench. This issue that I
have presented, and to which you toss in a variant are wholly germane
and within the capacity of any Ham to attempt to support or refute
through scientific method.

It is equally obvious that such methods and manners are an alien
concept competing with sneer review. As such, this disregard
constitutes the kulture of institutionalized ignorance that dominates
"debate."

Cecil, I seriously doubt your protestations of effusive gushing
I offered an experiment that might prove you right, Richard
in that of your crafted "might" (which certainly offers no prospect of
you actually performing any deed) is weighed with condescension. Such
passivity merely conforms to the existing kulture and hardly rises to
the effort and reportage I have already offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
No further analysis is required, it has been performed and data
taken has demonstrated it.

Nuff said! Guess that settles it - and you don't want or need to
understand the underlying physics. Why do you keep posting?

If you choose to put forward a variant employing reactance, you could
at least step up to the bench to offer confirmatory or rejecting
evidence as I did.

I don't understand how to set up your experiment. Your verbal
description was extremely confusing. How about a decent diagram?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:56:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I don't understand how to set up your experiment. Your verbal
description was extremely confusing. How about a decent diagram?

Hi Cecil,

Then argue what constitutes a decent diagram? Cecil, you are a
goldbrick. Frankly, I have no interest in explaining it to you. That
is why I offered it only once. All that need be said was said, and I
responded to every technical enquiry you put to me. That you are
confused is your own problem and not my responsibility.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC