Roy Lewallen wrote:
Huh?

Huh, indeed. The scope of my statement is less than yours and my
statement is a sub-set of yours. If my statement is wrong, then
so is yours. However, it is within the bounds of logical possibility
that my statement might be correct and yours might be wrong. I'm not
asserting that is the case, just that it is within the bounds of
logical possibilities.

Reflections reach the source at my station any time the SWR isn't 1:1.
But source reflections have no effect on SWR. I explained why in a
recent posting.

Yes, but you didn't prove that source reflections have no effect
on an SWR meter.

If reflections are not allowed to reach the source (typical of
most ham installations) the source impedance cannot have any
effect on the SWR meter readings.

You say source reflections have no effect on SWR. I say if reflections
are not allowed to reach the source, the source impedance cannot have
any effect on the SWR meter readings.

My statement is a sub-set of yours and of lessor scope than yours. If
my statement is wrong, yours must also, by the rules of classical logic,
be wrong. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP