Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Who knows about the Conjugate Match?

Thanks, Doc.
I believe you have added necessary perspective to the idea of antenna efficiency. without being aware of those things likely one could jump into the ocean of theoretical Conjugate Matching before having learned to swim only to drown.

Marconi, I've learned very little so far. I do know that if you do it on a prison visit you have to visit when it's allowed, and the guards are probably watching.
 
HomerBB said:
Thanks, Doc.
I believe you have added necessary perspective to the idea of antenna efficiency. without being aware of those things likely one could jump into the ocean of theoretical Conjugate Matching before having learned to swim only to drown.

Marconi, I've learned very little so far. I do know that if you do it on a prison visit you have to visit when it's allowed, and the guards are probably watching.
Click to expand...

Well Homer, you'll probably get more from watching too, rather than trying to understand a theory that is at the sub-sub-level of the study of energy transfer.

Even the guy's that talk and claim to understand such matters can't agree on such ideas...as they write their hieroglyphic rules of mombo-jumbo on the black boards of intelligentsia.
 
The only thing I've learned is that if the impedance on any point of the system between the source and the load is the directly opposite conjugate of each other then one is said to have a conjugate match.

So, in theory, you get this how?

I may just opt for the peep show.
 
HomerBB said:
The only thing I've learned is that if the impedance on any point of the system between the source and the load is the directly opposite conjugate of each other then one is said to have a conjugate match.

So, in theory, you get this how?

I may just opt for the peep show.
Click to expand...

According to some, you can probably buy em' at Radio Shack.
 
HomerBB said:
Does anyone know What It Is, and can they say/write it in layman's terms expressing what is being done to achieve it.
Click to expand...

Did anybody answer it in simple terms?

Take an example of the fact that power utility company drives mostly an inductive load because there are lots of motors that run on electricity. So sometimes you will see capacitors on utility poles or substations to cancel out the inductive load.

If you want to know more, look up "ELI the ICE man".
The concepts apply equally to 60Hz or RF.
 
The easiest way to understand this term in a way that applies to everyday use would be to say the load, source, and transmission line are all at the same impedance and the system is free of reactance. This would create a condition where the impedance is constant at all lengths along the transmission line and looking into either end of the line. Seeing a VSWR of 1.0:1 is about as close as we get in the real world.

There are at least three factors that make achieving the theoretical perfect conjugate match impossible to achieve. Transmitters can only reach a 50 ohm impedance at a specific power level. All modes that vary the power output cannot maintain a 50 ohm output impedance. All transmission lines (coax) have loss. All antennas have both capacitive and inductive reactance. It is the attempt to balance these properties that simulates a 50 ohm resistive load.

The key points are that technically, we cannot perfectly achieve this result even in the lab much less in the field. However, a very well tuned system can approach this condition close enough that most would not have a problem using the term to describe the match. It's nothing more then a fancy way of saying maximum power is going to transfer from the source (transmitter), through the transmission line (coax), and into the load (antenna) because they all have the same impedance. Then everything looks like a 50 ohm resistor under these specific conditions. It's just a mixture of many forms of reactance that all work together to form the simulated resistive load.
 
Oh, No :eek:, Shockwave has already written the book, Conjugate Match for Dummies. Stop the presses! and cancel the prison visits . . .

Thanks SW, I now have a firmer anchor on the concept. :unsure:

I guess they don't sell them at Radio Shack after all. I'm not surprised . . . :whistle:
 
The question is, how are you going to use any of this information anyway?

BTW, I don't buy that conjugate match is just theory. Just like in antenna modeling, you must consider all of the factors. I know people who apply these principles in real life and get expected results. They are not writing laymen's texts for the amateur community though...
 
C2 said:
BTW, I don't buy that conjugate match is just theory. Just like in antenna modeling, you must consider all of the factors. I know people who apply these principles in real life and get expected results. They are not writing laymen's texts for the amateur community though...
Click to expand...

I think this just depends on how much leeway you interpret a term that describes a perfect condition to have. I for one would apply it when I see a 1.0:1 VSWR with X=0. Conjugate match indicates that an equal amount of power is being dissipated at the source and the load because the impedance is equal. As soon as you connect any transmission line with its loss, the condition is technically impossible to achieve even when the impedance is matched.
 
A theory is like guilt.
It's is speculation until proven.
As for no layman's texts for the Amateur community, it's a shame. More would be interested if it were different. With more interest would be the consequent raising of the level of understanding and practice.
At 55 years old it is very doubtful I will ever aspire to the level of study it would take to reorient my mind to accept some of the complicated things that come more easily to younger fertile minds. I have to work on things from where I'm at, and I appreciate those who take the time to assist me in my quest.

When would I apply the conjugate match were I to accept it is more than theory?

1. When someone is able to provide some definitive proof of it being more than theory.

2. When I see at least one understandable example of how this now not just a theory conjugate match is actually working with the name, rank, and serial number of the parts, pieces, and order of those physical components used in the achievement of the conjugate match with photos and step-by-step explanation of the doing of it.

In all my reading and searching that has yet to be done. I have never yet seen anything physically evidencing it by way of photos of the system and how it was done. Just a mixture of words and mathematical symbols which express the theory, but not the reality.

I care little for formulas mimicking Star Wars robots names as proof. Z's, Q's, R's, and X's being what they are, C3PO and R2D2 remain the imaginings of their creators, and science remains theory until it is reproducible in real life.

It can be argued that one can not see an atom. Yep. The problem is, in the debate of the Conjugate Match the subatomic and atomic level of matter is not called into discussion, but the very big and real matter of matching antenna systems, which we do with physical components that follow the invisible properties at play.

So, in my innocence, and lowly layman-ship I return to the original two part request.

1. What is it?
2. And how do you do it.

If it is real then it must be do-able. If it isn't do-able it isn't real.

Or is the world still flat?
 
I have been following this thread since it was created. I tried to read some of the links post and would either begin dosing off or get a headache. Until I read Shockwaves post, I think that made the most sense to me (so thank you SW).

So after reading SW comment I SW is right we need to define "perfect" and how strogly we wish to hold to this definement. Personally to my literal interpetation of perfect conjugate match will never be achieved. Kinda like I do not think we will ever see the last number for Pi.

To Homer and your two questions. This is my opinion only nothing factual based.

Question 1
Something unachievable but should not ignore it either. Try as hard as you want to, but do not lose sleep over it, is how I'm looking at it.

Question 2
Now if I am wrong here please state and point it out to me. Is this not also why we worry about SWR? So when we try to lower our SWR or we also not trying in a way to get the Conjugate match also? Or have I missed something entirely?

Sorry Homer to answer your question with even more questions.
 
No problem, Superidgit, that's what these discussions are about.

Yep, Doc, I need some things simpler sometimes. Dumb it down for Homer. Even if i follow some things when I don't see enough development in the thread I want more.

I am a more pragmatic individual. Can it be made, has anyone? If so then maybe I can. That's me.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?
  • dxBot:
    63Sprint has left the room.


      Top Bottom
      Back