I believe you might be forgetting that there can often  be more than one set oo capacitor and inductor settings that provide a low swr, but not all of those are as efficient transfer of rf to the antenna system. SWR is not the only story when it comes to an antenna system working. i have found settings that have a slightly higher indicated SWR reading, that provided a better output, presumably due to lower radiation resistance, although that is a guess. Hearing both is useful. If it were nay about reflected power, we wouldn’t need forward and reverse power metering, and the cross needle meters would not be nearly ubiquitous. I would love to give that gadget a try if you still need someone to help test.. I assume that getting qualified operators to do some testing is the point of this topic in the first place. If tha tis still true, I hereby volunteer.
On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Butch Bussen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You don't need two tones to tune a rig or a tuner.  I just tune for max 
> out.  Also, you can use the mfj noise bridge to adjust the tuner and 
> don't need to transmit at all.
> 73
> Butch
> WA0VJR
> Node 3148
> Wallace, ks.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, eric oyen wrote:
> 
>> never mind my last.
>> 
>> btw, I was thinking of an audio SWR setup that would produce 2 tones =
>> simultaneously. THis would the the audio equivalent to a cross-needle =
>> SWR setup. left channel would be reflected, right channel would be =
>> forward. tuning would then be easy with a manual tuner. just adjust =
>> until you find the lowest pitch for reflected at the same time that you =
>> find the highest pitch for forward power. this would probably best be =
>> used with headphones (for sound separation).
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Mike Keithley wrote:
>> 
>>> The original ATOM is described on the blind ham products website at =
>> www.blind-ham-products.com. There you'll find pictures of what it looks =
>> like, explanations of how it can be used, Manuals, and audio =
>> demonstrations.
>>> =20
>>> This is for the original ATOM, which sold for $90. The new ATOM is =
>> basically the same as the old one except that it can handle much more =
>> power, uses a different battery that is easier to replace, and "ticks" =
>> at no power so you'll remember to turn it off. We haven't officially set =
>> the price, but I believe it will be around $120.=20
>>> =20
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jim Gammon <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 0:31
>>> Subject: Re: Testers needed
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Am interested in this unit, but am only running a TS-480 and=20
>>>> TS-2000, both running only 100 watts.  But, would like to know=20
>>>> more about it, and the cost of such a unit.  Jim WA6EKS
>>>> =20
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Mike Keithley <[log in to unmask]
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Date sent: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:51:56 -0800
>>>> Subject: Testers needed
>>>> =20
>>>> Hello List,
>>>> =20
>>>> We are developing an ATOm that will handle up to 1 KW of power. =20
>>>> Anyone here running high power who'd like to test a prototype?
>>>> =20
>>>> The new device also has improved sensitivity at low power levels,=20
>>>> with a positive indication of 250 milliwatts.  We're also using a=20
>>>> 9-volt battery, and the device ticks with no power so you don't=20
>>>> forget to turn it off.
>>>> =20
>>>> Please email [log in to unmask]
>>>> =20
>>>> Thank you.
>> 
>>