"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
news
Reg Edwards wrote:
Or they find a line which does exist but on which it is
impossible for the thing to measure anything because it is located
in
the wrong place.

Reg, the SWR meter may be smarter than you think. Here's
an experiment for you. The system is lossless.

XMTR--a--1WL 50 ohm--b--1WL 75 ohm--c--1WL 92 ohm--d--load

An SWR meter calibrated for 50 ohms will read the SWR on
the 50 ohm feedline when installed at points a,b,c, or d.

An SWR meter calibrated for 75 ohms will read the SWR on
the 75 ohm feedline when installed at points a,b,c, or d.

An SWR meter calibrated for 92 ohms will read the SWR on
the 92 ohm feedline when installed at points a,b,c, or d.

Now Reg, you have to admit that an SWR meter that can read
the SWR on the 92 ohm feedline when installed at point 'a'
is a darned smart meter. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
=========================================

Cec, as usual your message is full of implied "ifs".

Of what use is a meter which tells you what you already know?

It can be dispensed with.
---
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:
Now Reg, you have to admit that an SWR meter that can read
the SWR on the 92 ohm feedline when installed at point 'a'
is a darned smart meter. :-)

Of what use is a meter which tells you what you already know?

I don't already know it, Reg. The impedance of the load is
unknown so the SWR is unknown until measured.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Reg, I think you're tilting at windmills.

=======================================
Dave,

First I am called Punchinello, and now Don Quixote is implied.

Yet you have repeatedly said "Reg is correct".

The only thing I have ever asked is to change the NAME.

It is the NAME itself which causes ill-educated IEEE members and
befuddled university professors to become old wives. They are
reduced
to CB-ers who perhaps can be forgiven for being fooled just by a
NAME.
They actually believe the thing measures SWR on a line which does
not
exist. Or they find a line which does exist but on which it is
impossible for the thing to measure anything because it is located
in
the wrong place. Their contorted imaginations somehow allow them to
argue interminably between themselves but without ever coming to
sensible conclusions on which they can agree. The evidence of
battles
about waves, reflections, re-reflections, virtual reflections,
conjugate matches, etc, etc, is littered around these newsgroups.
And
it's all due to a misnomer.

Just change the name of the so-called SWR meter and 50 years of
bitter
warfare will revert once again to blessed peace and an understanding
of how things really work. Sack your lawyers.

Reg, G4FGQ

========================================

Now, after several days of silence except for larks in the cloudless,
azure blue sky, all appears to be "Quiet on the Western Front".

Let the blood-red poppies bloom in memory.
----
Reg.