On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:50:41 GMT, Gary Schafer
wrote:

SWR in itself is not necessarily bad. Power reflected back toward the
transmitter is not lost as a result of the reflection itself. When
that reflected power hits the transmitter it is re-reflected back up
to the antenna.

Simply not true. The source impedance of the output power amplifier
is, ideally 50 ohms to match the cable. This impedance absorbs
reflected power, converting it into heat in its resistive component
which is lost. The output matching network of the transmitter is
tuned to make it look resistive. Almost nothing is reflected, again.

At 150W with a couple of watts reflected, it's a no-brainer. However,
if you are running a 50KW broadcast transmitter, reflected power
greatly increases the transmitter's output amp heating problems so
they are very careful with it. A 2:1 SWR means we have another 5000
watts of heat to cool off the finals, cooking them. The normally hot
finals simply cook themselves.

So a 3:1 swr with 6.25 watts of reflected power and 25 watts of
forward power, still delivers 25 watts to the antenna to be radiated.
That is of course when there is no feed line loss.

Too bad this isn't true. If the final amp were purely reactive, it
would be, but then there would be no match between the transmitter and
feed line to begin with so there'd be no power output if it were
purely reactive.

With feed line loss involved (as there always is) you will get a false
SWR reading. The more loss your cable has the better your SWR will
look.

Finally something that is true. SWR should be measured at the antenna
if the line is long and lossy. However, this isn't that important in
a boat with 50' of RG-58 at VHF.



73 de Larry W 4 C S C
h h o a
i a u r
s r t o
k l h l
e e i
y s n
t a
o
n

NNNN