"dave.harper" wrote in message
ups.com...
How well-defined is the gain for a cap-coil loop, like in an AM radio?
(i.e., how fast does the gain droppoff as you move up or down from the
'tuned' frequency?) Is it a function of L and C? Or just frequency?

For the L-C resonator itself, the falloff will be 6dB per octave (doubling of
frequency) once you're well outside of the center (tuned) frequency. The 3dB
bandwidth will be determined by the Q of the circuit, and this is often not
particularly well defined during the design stage -- often a well-defined
bandpass filter somewhere "down the line" (e.g., at an IF stage) will
ultimately define what the radio receives.

The 6dB/octave drop comes from just looking at the impedance or transfer
function of an LC(R) resonator -- you'll end up with an s^2 (frequency
squared) term in the denominator of the equation.

(different combinations of L and C will tune to the same frequency, but
is the gain the same?)

No, although for low Q resonators, it's often pretty close.

How come the coils on many of the CR schematics I've seen have multiple
tap locations? It seems that with a variable cap, you should be able
to tune to whatever frequency that's in your range. Is it to increase
the range of your radio's coverage? Or because the gain at certain
frequencies is better with different C/L combinations?

They're usually trying to match the impedance of the LC circuit to the input
impedance of "the next stage" (i.e., a transistor amplifier) to maximize power
transfer. So, while it's not really "gain" (we haven't amplified anything
yet -- this is more like a resistive divider), the output will be higher with
different C/L combinations.

Generally speaking, most relatively simple AM receivers are really only
intended to pick up relatively strong, nearby transmitters. As such, you can
get away with an awful lot of "cut and try" when it comes to designing the
circuit (largely ignore matching impedances, Q's, etc.) and still obtain
acceptable results.

---Joel

Joel Kolstad wrote:

No, although for low Q resonators, it's often pretty close.

Generally speaking, most relatively simple AM receivers are really only
intended to pick up relatively strong, nearby transmitters. As such, you can
get away with an awful lot of "cut and try" when it comes to designing the
circuit (largely ignore matching impedances, Q's, etc.) and still obtain
acceptable results.

Thanks for the response Joel. So if I understand correctly, Q is
basically an indicator of how well the LC circuit resonates? Could you
think of Q as the inverse of a dampening coefficient?

If so, I guess ideally you'd get the best Q with an iron-core inductor,
thick windings, and as few windings as possible?

Dave

dave.harper wrote:

Joel Kolstad wrote:


No, although for low Q resonators, it's often pretty close.

Generally speaking, most relatively simple AM receivers are really only
intended to pick up relatively strong, nearby transmitters. As such, you can
get away with an awful lot of "cut and try" when it comes to designing the
circuit (largely ignore matching impedances, Q's, etc.) and still obtain
acceptable results.


Thanks for the response Joel. So if I understand correctly, Q is
basically an indicator of how well the LC circuit resonates? Could you
think of Q as the inverse of a dampening coefficient?

If so, I guess ideally you'd get the best Q with an iron-core inductor,
thick windings, and as few windings as possible?

Dave

If I may jump in....
The case of crystal receivers is somewhat different than a "powered"
radio in that you want to keep things at as high a Q as possible to
match the high impedance of the circuit. High Q is desirable in any
case but moreso in a crystal set.

After having established a good high Q with the LC configuration you can
count on the circuit/antenna loading it down somewhat so then it becomes
a matter of selecting appropriate diodes, decoupling the ant, etc. so it
always helps to start out with as much as possible.

Textbook Q of more C/less L is dictated simply by resistance. In
practice, at least for BCB xtal radios, the dielectric of the coil, skin
effects of the wire, interwinding capacitance are the key players.
Thats why certain coil dimensions, use of litz wire and certain winding
techniques can generally be counted on for the highest Q.

The Q of a coil, and/or complete circuit, will have a curve of its own.
With BCB, what is good at 600kc may be better at 800kc and
(relatively) terrible at 1600kc.

I've had good success with ferrite toroids approaching Q=400, although
ferrites are by nature very unpredictable Q-wise. This is as good as
one can expect with something like a 3-4" diameter coil of #18 wire on a
good coil form. OTOH, the toroid stops there. That same 4" coil wound
with 660-strand litz can get up into the Q=800 stratosphere with a
basket-wind technique.

There's always a downside. A big, hi-Q coil needs to be kept well away
from ANYTHING or else the Q will take a nosedive and then lead
capacitance starts biting you from the backside.

I find xtal sets fascinating. I've been radioing for 35-40 years and
never gained a full appreciation for L, C and Q until I got into DXing
with xtal sets. Logged 105 BCB stations in the competition earlier this
year including two in Brazil!

-Bill

-ex- wrote:

I've had good success with ferrite toroids approaching Q=400, although
ferrites are by nature very unpredictable Q-wise.

Is this the reason a lot of coils are air coils? Easy of calculations?
I assume you can get higher performance from ferrite coils than
air-core coils, right?

Thanks again!
Dave

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, dave.harper wrote:

Date: 18 Jul 2005 14:18:03 -0700
From: dave.harper
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew, rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Simple questions on receivers

-ex- wrote:

I've had good success with ferrite toroids approaching Q=400, although
ferrites are by nature very unpredictable Q-wise.

Is this the reason a lot of coils are air coils?

1. Air core coils will be cheaper, lighter in weight, easier to make.

Easy of calculations?

2. Definitely.

I assume you can get higher performance from ferrite coils than
air-core coils, right?

You don't need as much ampere-turns to get a given amount of inductance
and thus, ohmic resistance will be less, therefore higher Q (in theory).

caveat: the magnetizable material you use for the core (i.e. iron,
ferrite, and other stuff that I think other guys here surely know better
than I) will have a big effect on useable frequency on up to some cut-off
threshold that may be sharp or spread out. Pure solid sheet iron, for
example, might be good at audio frequencies and maybe up to x00,000 Hertz,
but you need powdered iron to go into the megacycle range. There are other
core substances that get you up higher. Anyone else care to add to this?

Don't forget that winding a torroidal coil is not so easy. Some cores are
available in halves so you can make "pies", otherwise the "bobbin"
carrying the wire has to pass through the hole of the doughnut many times.

Thanks again!
Dave




Art, W4PON

My comments are interspersed.
-Bill

straydog wrote:



On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, dave.harper wrote:


Is this the reason a lot of coils are air coils?


1. Air core coils will be cheaper, lighter in weight, easier to make.

A typical medium-sized ferrite toroid coil for BCB use, FT-82-61 for
instance, costs about US$1 and can't weigh more than an ounce and uses
up about 4-5 feet of wire.


Easy of calculations?


2. Definitely.

Different calculation but one is as easy as the other. Just look for an
online calculator

iron, for example, might be good at audio frequencies and maybe up to
x00,000 Hertz, but you need powdered iron to go into the megacycle
range. There are other core substances that get you up higher. Anyone
else care to add to this?

True. There are two main substances used in ferrite toroids - and I
can't quote either name - and they have vastly different permeability
characteristics. I think the CWS-Bytemark website goes into some of
these details.


Don't forget that winding a torroidal coil is not so easy. Some cores
are available in halves so you can make "pies", otherwise the "bobbin"
carrying the wire has to pass through the hole of the doughnut many times.

I've been referring to the simple doughnut cores. A BCB coil takes
around 50 turns on -61 material. Even with my fat fingers it only takes
about 10 minutes.

-Bill

dave.harper wrote:
-ex- wrote:


I've had good success with ferrite toroids approaching Q=400, although
ferrites are by nature very unpredictable Q-wise.


Is this the reason a lot of coils are air coils? Easy of calculations?
I assume you can get higher performance from ferrite coils than
air-core coils, right?

Thanks again!
Dave

Most crystal radio builders go with air core coils...partly because
thats the way it has been always done and such plans are available and
thats the way its supposed to 'look'
And you CAN make a better Q air coil than what is attainable with
ferrite.

When I say unpredictable about the toroids, the calculated
turns/inductance comes out the same but not the Q. I've wound the same
coil on half-dozen 'exact same' ferrite cores and gotten Q ranging from
below 200 to nearly 400. Those numbers (in my set) cover the range of
not-so-good to pretty-darn-good. I'm not sure why that is other than
its not something intended to be. You won't readily find Q charts for
ferrites like you do for iron powder cores. As a consequence of this
you don't have any guarantee that the cores you get are going to make it
to the p-d-g range.

There's some advantages and disadvantages with using ferrite cores. The
size is the most obvious advantage. Among other advantages - they are
not affected by nearby components and do not pickup signals from the air
(self-shielding). Thats why I got started with them...I have a 5kw BCB
tower about 1600 feet from my QTH! With air core coils the band is
totally swamped.

On the negative side...the ultimate Q-limitation seems to be about 400,
inability to have variable loose-coupling to traps and other stages are
most notable. They also don't have the "looks cool" factor like a big
coil

Now back down to earth. A random ferrite core inductor is going have a
MUCH higher Q than the average coil wrapped around a toilet tissue tube.
You're lucky to get 80-100 with that type of coil. It may not play out
as being important in a very simple circuit that has other shortcomings
but as mentioned before it also helps to have a high starting point on
as many of the components as possible.

Anyhow...its something else to tinker with!

-Bill

From: "dave.harper" on Thurs 14 Jul 2005 18:55

Joel Kolstad wrote:

No, although for low Q resonators, it's often pretty close.

Generally speaking, most relatively simple AM receivers are really only
intended to pick up relatively strong, nearby transmitters. As such, you can
get away with an awful lot of "cut and try" when it comes to designing the
circuit (largely ignore matching impedances, Q's, etc.) and still obtain
acceptable results.

Thanks for the response Joel. So if I understand correctly, Q is
basically an indicator of how well the LC circuit resonates? Could you
think of Q as the inverse of a dampening coefficient?

In a way, you might think that. For going to more advanced things
besides "simple AM receivers," I'd suggest thinking of Q as a
built-in LOSS element.

For parallel-tuned circuits, the loss can be modeled as a resistor
in parallel with the L and C. This equivalent resistor value is
the reactance of either L or C (they are equal at resonance)
multiplied by Q. A high Q indicates least loss in a parallel
circuit, a high value of equivalent parallel resistance.

But, for series-tuned circuits, the loss is equal to a resistor
in series with L and C. That resistor value is equal to the
reactance of either L or C divided by Q. A high Q in a series-
tuned resonance would have the lesser value of series resistance.

If so, I guess ideally you'd get the best Q with an iron-core inductor,
thick windings, and as few windings as possible?

Yes and NO. Q will vary by MANY things. Generally, physically
big coils will have higher Q, physically big windings will have
higher Q. Shape factor, like length versus diameter of a
solenoidal winding has an optimum value. Nearby shielding will
tend to reduce Q; one reason why toroidal forms have higher Q
than solenoidal or cylindrical windings.

CORE MATERIAL IS FREQUENCY SENSITIVE! "Iron core" has to be
defined. Power transformer laminations are okay at up to
about 10 KHz and then become more lossy with increasing
frequency. Special iron (tape shape, usually) is used for
higher frequencies in the supersonic range. At LF and higher,
various kinds of iron POWDER are used to enhance Q (within
their specified frequency range).

Q applies to capacitors also...and is affected by things like
plate area, plate material, dielectric if other than air, and
(to some degree) physical shape factors. Generally, though,
the Q of most resonating capacitors is 10 to 100 times larger
than inductors and can usually be neglected in most
calculations of tuned circuits. Inductor Q rules! :-)

For self-education, I'd suggest spending some time with a good
Q Meter and trying out measurements on various kinds of
inductors. That will probably give you the best Q picture in
your mind.

dave.harper wrote:

Thanks for the response Joel. So if I understand correctly, Q is
basically an indicator of how well the LC circuit resonates? Could you
think of Q as the inverse of a dampening coefficient?

Just about exactly. You'll find the term "damping factor" (sometimes
"damping ratio" or "damping coefficient") often used in many situations
involving network analysis and control systems, usually represented by
the lowercase Greek letter zeta. And it's numerically equal to 1/(2Q),
so Q is exactly 1/2 the inverse of the damping factor.

When the damping factor is 1 (Q = 0.5), a second order circuit is said
to be critically damped.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL