Who knows about the Conjugate Match?

[HomerBB]

I have nothing useful to post to this thread except an observation, and perhaps a question.

I watch the late night show on truTV sometimes where the repo guys go after a vehicle. There is this somewhat muscled up fellow named Matt who talks really tough until the action starts, then his retreat gear kicks in. A whole lot of talk, and then he runs. THe females on the show are actually tougher than this fellow.

Ok, here's the deal. Across the www. I see threads going well and then someone mentions the Conjugate Match (sounds strangely like a girlfriend/wife prison visit in boxing gloves). At that point the thread makes a sudden plunge to its death. Over. Zip.

It seems this topic is the Bermuda Triangle of antenna systems. Topics go here to disappear forever. Additionally, any info I can find seems to be written in a language known only to the initiates of The Society Of Those Who Have Nothing Better To Do Than To Hear Themselves Breathe. The effort to read the stuff bores a pragmatist like myself to death. I quit reading when I start smothering.

Here's the 2-part Question:

Does anyone know What It Is, and can they say/write it in layman's terms expressing what is being done to achieve it.

Most of us want to build antenna systems, not write new college level math books.

I know it's controversial. So? We on this forum argue over whether poop stinks.

Call me a dummy, just try to answer the question as requested and we'll sort the dummies out as we go.

Thanks,
Homer

 

[Marconi]

Homer, maybe the theoretical conjugate match is right on point as Maxwell and other's have described, but for me it's like looking at a bowl of corn meal and trying to describe to someone what I see in terms of the sub-atomic level of the atoms present.

This is a subject much like when I hear guys talk about things making a difference and then not describing what that difference means in understandable terms.

Most of the time, it turns out that these differences are so insignificant as to go totally unnoticeable in real world practical applications, and for sure if I can't see the difference in operations of my radio from one end of a >2.0:1 bandwidth to another, there is no difference unless we are studying nature and its elementary processes.

The term "conjugate match" refers to just such a difference, and I ask what does the difference mean to me? The answer is Nothing!

Sorry, I don't have the definition you wanted.

 

[Kamikaze]

A conjugate match is a device which contains components possesing an equal and opposite reactance of that in an AC load.

Example:

Your short mobile antenna is capacitively reactive. It has an impedance of 65 -22j. An inductor with a reactance of +22j will allow all of the RF power to reach the 65 ohm load if placed inseries with the feed to the load. This assumes lossless components.

Note the 65 ohm load is now entirely resistive. It behaves exactly like a 65 ohm resistor. Something still must be done to match to a 50 ohm source if the SWR cannot be tolerated.

If you want the rest from the horse's mouth do a google on W2DU. He explains it a whole lot better than I ever could.

 

[AudioShockwav]

Hommer, here is a good read....on the theory
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/temp/conjugate_match/conjugate_match_theorum.pdf

73
Jeff

 

[HomerBB]

Thanks, everyone.
Will I smother to death if I read those links? Been having a little bronchial issues lately . . .

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

"The Society Of Those Who Have Nothing Better To Do Than To Hear Themselves Breathe."

sorry i can't help with your question . but i had to comment on your line above
i am looking forward to comments on your topic tough .
the $20-$100 words leave me lost and wanting a nap too :headbang

 

[HomerBB]

Booty, when my kids were young my very intelligent daughter used big words in everyday conversations not because she showed off, but because she understood them and they came first to her mind when talking. Her brother, less inclined in vocabulary though quite intelligent otherwise finally said to her, "You don't have to use words as long as a crowbar".
Hopefully, some sense can be made of the subject at the common level. If not, I have doubts of its value as Marconi said.

As for now, there seems to be a vacuum either in the Book for Dummies series, or there is a whole passel of folks out there who appear to be educated beyond their own intelligence.

 

[Marconi]

Homer as an example, Kamikaze gave us a matching scenario of 65 -22J at some point in his antenna system. Now he isn't resonant there and we know that the match is not perfect, so I'll ask what difference will that make?

I would also argue that a conjugate match is not a device, but maybe Kamikaze didn't mean it that way.

 

[Robb]

Homer, when you finish reading it - maybe you can explain how it differs from impedance matching . . .

 

[AudioShockwav]

Lol, Keep breathing homer....
Here is a little Snip from the Page

One Last Consideration About the Conjugate Match
Consider the situation I posed in the July 2001 issue of QST in the “QST Workbench, The
Doctor is IN” column, on p 64. (Yes, I’ve blown my cover—I’m one of a number of people who
contribute answers to this column.) Rather tongue-in-cheek, I posed a hypothetical situation. Let’s say I bought a very unusual transmitter at a hamfest somewhere. Instead of working into
50-Ω like all my friends’ transmitters, mine is designed to work into a 120 –j 400 Ω impedance.
Yes, this is a very weird impedance, but bear with me. Let’s say that I want to operate on 40
meters one night, so I check my antenna system, just to be sure, with my trusty impedance meter.
At 7.1 MHz, I measure an impedance of 120 –j 400 Ω at the input of the transmission line
going to my Super-Duper Signal Scooper all-band antenna. Boy, am I ever lucky — that’s just
what I need for my transmitter! So I directly connect the end of the transmission line to my
transmitter, and when I fire it up, I get full rated power output, at the rated distortion level.
Everything is just fine and dandy.
Now, did you find any hint of a conjugate match mentioned anywhere in this hypothetical
scenario? Of course you don’t, because there is very obviously no conjugate match involved here.
There’s no antenna tuner involved, and there’s no pi-network in my unique, make-believe
transmitter.
And unless you have a really unusual feed line with zero loss, and unless you have an antenna
tuner with zero loss, you won’t find a conjugate match in any other antenna system either because
a conjugate match doesn’t exist in anything but theory.
Let me be clear: I agree that the concept of conjugate match is useful for introducing the
subject of wave reflections to a very technical audience. I do not consider it the best way to
present the subject to hams. Both I and other ARRL technical staff consider the concept of
representing a transmission line as a transformer much more relevant to hams than the conjugate
match.
However, for those very technical hams, we have left references to Walt Maxwell’s books and
articles in The ARRL Antenna Book. That’s only fair.
73,
Dean Straw, N6BV
Senior Assistant Technical Editor, ARRL
Editor, The ARRL Antenna Book

 

[HomerBB]

Homer, when you finish reading it - maybe you can explain how it differs from impedance matching . . .

If possible, I must first gather a mass of either eggheads and translators, or take my aged last dying gasp with a pile of technical references around me. Don't hold your breath!

 

[HomerBB]

Lol, Keep breathing homer....
Here is a little Snip from the Page

One Last Consideration About the Conjugate Match
Consider the situation I posed in the July 2001 issue of QST in the “QST Workbench, The
Doctor is IN” column, on p 64. (Yes, I’ve blown my cover—I’m one of a number of people who
contribute answers to this column.) Rather tongue-in-cheek, I posed a hypothetical situation. Let’s say I bought a very unusual transmitter at a hamfest somewhere. Instead of working into
50-Ω like all my friends’ transmitters, mine is designed to work into a 120 –j 400 Ω impedance.
Yes, this is a very weird impedance, but bear with me. Let’s say that I want to operate on 40
meters one night, so I check my antenna system, just to be sure, with my trusty impedance meter.
At 7.1 MHz, I measure an impedance of 120 –j 400 Ω at the input of the transmission line
going to my Super-Duper Signal Scooper all-band antenna. Boy, am I ever lucky — that’s just
what I need for my transmitter! So I directly connect the end of the transmission line to my
transmitter, and when I fire it up, I get full rated power output, at the rated distortion level.
Everything is just fine and dandy.
Now, did you find any hint of a conjugate match mentioned anywhere in this hypothetical
scenario? Of course you don’t, because there is very obviously no conjugate match involved here.
There’s no antenna tuner involved, and there’s no pi-network in my unique, make-believe
transmitter.
And unless you have a really unusual feed line with zero loss, and unless you have an antenna
tuner with zero loss, you won’t find a conjugate match in any other antenna system either because
a conjugate match doesn’t exist in anything but theory.
Let me be clear: I agree that the concept of conjugate match is useful for introducing the
subject of wave reflections to a very technical audience. I do not consider it the best way to
present the subject to hams. Both I and other ARRL technical staff consider the concept of
representing a transmission line as a transformer much more relevant to hams than the conjugate
match.
However, for those very technical hams, we have left references to Walt Maxwell’s books and
articles in The ARRL Antenna Book. That’s only fair.
73,
Dean Straw, N6BV
Senior Assistant Technical Editor, ARRL
Editor, The ARRL Antenna Book

Now that's funny, the WHOLE thing, I don't care who you are.

Answered that part of the question - it's a condition based on theoretical hypothesis, doable online, in texts, and in the ARRL Handbook, but completely vacant from all the annals of human history.

Next part of the qestion. How do those who lust for the Conjagating Matches propose to sneak around and accomplish them - in theory, of course. (Remember, Jesus said if you look on and lust for conjugating you are guilty of it in your heart already)

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

"And unless you have a really unusual feed line with zero loss, and unless you have an antenna
tuner with zero loss, you won’t find a conjugate match in any other antenna system either because
a conjugate match doesn’t exist in anything but theory."

if it doesn't exist in the real world i'm not gonna concern myself with it .

 

[C2]

In this context, there is no need to concern oneself with such complex theorems as there is little practical application. Much of Ham and all of CB radio are still working in the spark-gap ages.

 

[HomerBB]

C2, I think you're on to something . . . Sixteen publications and a few mixed consonants and numbers beside your name and we will be scratching our heads over just what it is you've said, too.

Right now, all you get is a nod.