On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:38:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

+++On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:03:02 GMT, james wrote
+++in :
+++
+++On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:46:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
+++
++++++But you are still ignoring the fact that a conjugate match is nothing
++++++more than an impedance match using a conjugate impedance, which is
++++++often not necessary.
+++**********
+++
+++True
+++
+++Sometimes it is the easiest and cheapest method though
+++
+++
+++I tend to disagree with that, too, but I'll drop it because it could
+++revive the great coax length debate..... AARGGHHH!!!
+++
************

I use conjugate matches with active devices and crystal filters. In
that aspect they are easier and cheaper.

james