It was just your use of "wanted" which implied you realized the problem with your post but went ahead and posted it anyway that confused me.

Yep...

i can't remember what the findings were (they barely matter in real world use anyway)
but i think one of those chain drive efficiency studies found a marginal improvement with certain size combinations..

it was either best when both rings were near to the same size or perhaps better with smaller rings
i'm not much help as i can't remember specifically but i think the findings were a bit counter-intuitive

A big ring wears the chain less, possibly makes pedaling easier (not as much chain flex), but most importantly, it makes you look badass. Why push that huge gear if you're going to hide it with a tiny ring? If you can find a 60t, use that. If not, settle for the 52.

Although your point makes sense, that's not in the context I used it. The first part of my post was in response to the question roughly two posts above mine. The second part was what I typed as an independent post, a general comment on my own gearing change. I should have omitted "I wanted to say" and wrote my own experience as its own separate post instead of combining it with my reply to the other question.

the tense is the issue.

The ratio of the chainring teeth to cog teeth should govern these things, but I believe larger chainrings and cogs, of the same ratio, have a slight mechanical advantage.
I don't know whether this advantage cancels the weight gain of larger hardware.

I have experimented a lot with chainrings and cogs, and I THINK the same ratio with larger hardware FEELS smoother and easier to pedal.

Purely subjective.

I could have experienced what I expected to experience or hoped to experience.

In any event, I ride 53 X 19 for 73 gear inches.

I could accomplish the same number of gear inches with a smaller (and lighter) chainring and cog, but this present combo feels good to me.

I asked this same question of Sheldon Brown once and he suggested using the bigger hardware and that the weight increase was minimal compared to the cost savings from worn out equipment. I ride an SS MTB and I wore out an indestructable white industries 18T stainless steel freewheel in a year. When I went up a couple teeth and matched the chainring to keep my ratio I noticed a big difference in the life of the ($90--eeks!) freewheel. My first chainring (Surly--stainless steel) never wore so badly as the freewheel. Of course for a fixed gear a chainring is expensive and a cog is cheap so it probably doesn't matter if you burn out cogs unless you intend to have everything wear together (which is recommended).

On my roadbike conversion, I've got a perfect chainline with the 42 on the inside of the crankarms. It just clears the chainstays. To get more gear inches, I'd have to get a smaller cog.

I have a feeling that it's just an issue with conversions, and not a proper track frame. Can anyone confirm that?

Mount the ring in the outer position. The couple mm difference isn't a big deal with the chainline.

bigger ring = bigger balls

This is a really good point, especially since you will be running a big gear and may wish to eventually gear down.