....if already going into it, a little bit of history.
when the cows had bigger heads and the air was greener, there was no
such thing as coax. what we used was the ubiquitous ladder wire, with
an unknown impedance and with a frequency response depending on what
the Gods ate at lunch! the VSWR story was not invented yet.
What we did was one of two things: either tune the system for maximum
current in the line or else used a light bulb in conjunction with a
small light bulb and tuned for maximum brilliance. in neither case was
SWR involved in the mess.
the whole SWR uproar began after WW2 with the advent of coax and the
new fangled theories. that was also the time when all kind of
directional couplers came up.in due time a few wise guys developed all
kinds of theories on the subject, and manged to convey the impression
that SWR is king! nothing further from truth. what's really true is
that reflections can cause the apparent impedance at the network's
input to differ from Zo. SO WHAT? if you can adjust your matching
network between the transmitter and the line for a match what do you
care?
actually the hitch is that, with a high SWR on the line, the losses go
up. if the cable can take it, without melting no harm's done: whatever
remains will get radiated. this was the good pint of open feeders: the
losses were very low. an SWR fo 10 and more was insignificant from the
losses' point ov view.
Guys, leave it alone! Just make sure that the SWR is a reasonable
value, something that the transmitter can handle and leave it at that.
Saandy 4Z5KS





Reg Edwards wrote:
"Saandy wrote

you can't measure SWR.
=========================================

I am pleased you agree with me.

=========================================
You can CALCULATE the SWR using the formula.
=========================================

But of what use is the SWR it after you have calculated it?

To what transmission line does it apply? Where is it? What are the
locations of max-volts and min-volts? It does NOT apply to the line
between transmitter and antenna. I suggest it exists only in your
imagination. ;o)

It is the name of "SWR Meter" which leads to confusion,
misunderstandings and arguments. The name says the instrument does
something which it does not do. With the help of old-wives, novices
are led astray and are stuck with incorrect ideas about standing-waves
for the rest of the lives.

Just change the name to TLI (Transmitter Loading Indicator) which is
what it is and does very well. The true meaning and associations of
SWR will then emerge and all will be flooded with the light of reason.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

Saandy , 4Z5KS wrote:
What we did was one of two things: either tune the system for maximum
current in the line or else used a light bulb in conjunction with a
small light bulb and tuned for maximum brilliance. in neither case was
SWR involved in the mess.

It was around 1949 when I started hanging out at W5OLV's
shack. He had a homebrew 1625 transmitter with a parallel
tank circuit. The plug-in tank coil had a few turns of wire
wrapped around the bottom and that was the transmitter output.
He didn't use a tuner. He had a pickup loop that he slid up
and down the line until he located a current maximum point.
He cut the line at that point and fed it directly from the
transmitter. He added or subtracted turns on the plug-in coil
until he was satisfied. I didn't really understand what he was
doing until I studied the Smith Chart in college almost ten years
later. I now use that same basic technique with my 50 ohm
SGC-500 amplifier.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

....if already going into it, a little bit of history.
when the cows had bigger heads and the air was greener, there was no
such thing as coax. what we used was the ubiquitous ladder wire, with
an unknown impedance and with a frequency response depending on what
the Gods ate at lunch! the VSWR story was not invented yet.
What we did was one of two things: either tune the system for maximum
current in the line or else used a light bulb in conjunction with a
small light bulb and tuned for maximum brilliance. in neither case was
SWR involved in the mess.
the whole SWR uproar began after WW2 with the advent of coax and the
new fangled theories. that was also the time when all kind of
directional couplers came up.in due time a few wise guys developed all
kinds of theories on the subject, and manged to convey the impression
that SWR is king! nothing further from truth. what's really true is
that reflections can cause the apparent impedance at the network's
input to differ from Zo. SO WHAT? if you can adjust your matching
network between the transmitter and the line for a match what do you
care?
actually the hitch is that, with a high SWR on the line, the losses go
up. if the cable can take it, without melting no harm's done: whatever
remains will get radiated. this was the good pint of open feeders: the
losses were very low. an SWR fo 10 and more was insignificant from the
losses' point ov view.
Guys, leave it alone! Just make sure that the SWR is a reasonable
value, something that the transmitter can handle and leave it at that.
Saandy 4Z5KS





Reg Edwards wrote:
"Saandy wrote

you can't measure SWR.
=========================================

I am pleased you agree with me.

=========================================
You can CALCULATE the SWR using the formula.
=========================================

But of what use is the SWR it after you have calculated it?

To what transmission line does it apply? Where is it? What are the
locations of max-volts and min-volts? It does NOT apply to the line
between transmitter and antenna. I suggest it exists only in your
imagination. ;o)

It is the name of "SWR Meter" which leads to confusion,
misunderstandings and arguments. The name says the instrument does
something which it does not do. With the help of old-wives, novices
are led astray and are stuck with incorrect ideas about standing-waves
for the rest of the lives.

Just change the name to TLI (Transmitter Loading Indicator) which is
what it is and does very well. The true meaning and associations of
SWR will then emerge and all will be flooded with the light of reason.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

"Saandy , wrote
Guys, leave it alone! Just make sure that the SWR is a reasonable
value, something that the transmitter can handle and leave it at
that.
========================================
Saandy,

You are a man after my own heart.

I would further simplify it. No need to mention SWR. It is
meaningless. Just make sure the transmitter is loaded with about 50
ohms and leave it at that.

To make things nice and tidy, just change the name of the meter to TLI
= Transmitter Loading Indicator.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Saandy , 4Z5KS wrote:
...if already going into it, a little bit of history.
when the cows had bigger heads and the air was greener, there was no
such thing as coax. what we used was the ubiquitous ladder wire, with
an unknown impedance and with a frequency response depending on what
the Gods ate at lunch! the VSWR story was not invented yet.
What we did was one of two things: either tune the system for maximum
current in the line or else used a light bulb in conjunction with a
small light bulb and tuned for maximum brilliance. in neither case was
SWR involved in the mess.
the whole SWR uproar began after WW2 with the advent of coax and the
new fangled theories. that was also the time when all kind of
directional couplers came up.in due time a few wise guys developed all
kinds of theories on the subject, and manged to convey the impression
that SWR is king! nothing further from truth. what's really true is
that reflections can cause the apparent impedance at the network's
input to differ from Zo. SO WHAT? if you can adjust your matching
network between the transmitter and the line for a match what do you
care?
actually the hitch is that, with a high SWR on the line, the losses go
up. if the cable can take it, without melting no harm's done: whatever
remains will get radiated. this was the good pint of open feeders: the
losses were very low. an SWR fo 10 and more was insignificant from the
losses' point ov view.
Guys, leave it alone! Just make sure that the SWR is a reasonable
value, something that the transmitter can handle and leave it at that.
Saandy 4Z5KS

Some of what you say is very true. Especially in the world of HAM
radio. How ever, this being an open forum, truth is of great
importance. Your thesis on the "whys" of the importance of vswr
measurements are incorrect in some areas.
Yes, importance grew with the advent of coaxial lines simply because of
the relatively small distances between inner and outer conductors. That
part is true.

However, until you've seen a 6" universal coaxial transmission line with
no insulators or inner conductor remaining over a 350" run, I guess you
can't really appreciate the need for monitoring and maintaining good
"system" vswr characteristics.

Now to the measuring of said vswr. It can be done. In the broadcast
world it's accomplished through the measurement of "Return Loss". By
measuring the system return loss at the line input (generator end) and
deducting twice the line attenuation, we get an indication of the load
return loss thesis value is easily converted to vswr.

Return Loss:
This is the dB value of absolute reflection coefficient.
It is rather curious concept of transmission engineering.
This loss value becomes 0 for 100% reflection and becomes infinite for
an ideal connection.

RL = 20log((VSWR+1) / (VSWR-1))


Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR):
This is the ratio of maximum voltage to minimum voltage
in standing wave pattern.
It varies from +1 to infinite.

VSWR = (1+(10^RL/20)) / ((10^RL/20)-1)

These are good and valid measurements which should be performed at
initial installation of the system and periodically verified throughout
the system life.

Return Loss/VSWR is only one of many measurements that should be
periodically done. DC measurements such as megger. LO-Ohms are also
very important.




--
Over The Hill
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

The question of whether computers can think is like the question of
whether submarines can swim.

***Edsgar Dijkstra***

"Reg Edwards" wrote in news:dmf4fr$4cu$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:


"Saandy wrote

you can't measure SWR.
=========================================

I am pleased you agree with me.

=========================================
You can CALCULATE the SWR using the formula.
=========================================

But of what use is the SWR it after you have calculated it?

To what transmission line does it apply? Where is it? What are the
locations of max-volts and min-volts? It does NOT apply to the line
between transmitter and antenna. I suggest it exists only in your
imagination. ;o)

Heh heh. I remember one time a friend of mine was wailing that his fancy
new outdoor 2m antenna wasn't working as good as the indoor mag-mount on
a pie plate that he had been using.

I asked about his installation and he informed me that the antenna was
properly installed and that the SWR was 1 to 1. So I inquired further.
He was using a bridge to measure reflected power at the transmitter. And
there really wasn't any. Then I asked him what he was using for
transmission line. Turns out it was about 75 feet of cheap RG58. So I
told him to take it off the antenna and see what the bridge said with no
antenna. It climbed all the way to 1.2 to 1. In short, the coax was
simply eating the power. Changing it out to better quality line proved
to be the answer there.

SWR is so overrated. I'm in the process of putting together a modest
balcony-based HF station. I'm much more interested in the efficiency of
loading coils than in actual SWR on the coax. A 3-to-1 SWR on coax is
meaningless at 80 meters. It adds only a fraction of a decibel to
losses, even in RG58. But your transmitter might not like the complex
load it is seeing at the end of that coax, hence the utility of a tuning
device. Back in the day, I used to just ignore such issues because my
transmitters had pretty good output tuning networks. But with the advent
of broadbanded solid state finals, it is necessary to match the radio to
the transmission line's complex input impedance.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667