On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:42:53 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

[snipped in the interest of brevity]

The error is even more
insignificant when there are a host of variables and confounds between
the SWR meter and the transmitted field that can (and frequently do)
affect the objective -- field strength.

Often, field strength is of zero importance. What do you do when the
device under test isn't supposed to radiate?


That device probably wouldn't make a very good radio, would it?

My "SWR Meter" is one of these:

http://users.adelphia.net/~n2pk/VNA/VNAarch.html

I have 1 mW to radiate. What kind of FSM should I use?



The simplest example of
this would be a CATV system, yet VSWR is *extremely* important in
cascaded networks.


Thank you for making my point.

Not even you have made your point.



It's much simpler (and just
plain logical) to measure the field strength directly instead of
measuring an abstract value halfway towards the objective and relying
on nothing more than speculation that the rest is working according as
expected.

More baloney and it isn't even sliced.


The word is "blarney".

My Webster's says:

baloney n (bologna) : pretentious nonsense : BUNKUM --- often used as
a generalized expression of disagreement....

I could not be more accurate.


And although the syntax of my statement was
somewhat 'convoluted',

A ray of hope

the logic is sound

smashed

-- you can dyno your engine
all day, but the only way to know for sure how fast you can get down
the quarter mile is to run the race.

Uh huh. By this convoluted "logic" I guess you would avoid any dyno
testing at all and just go do hit-and-miss tuning at the drag strip.