RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Homebrew (https://www.radiobanter.com/homebrew/)
-   -   Hi-Q RF filters, anyone? (https://www.radiobanter.com/homebrew/20867-hi-q-rf-filters-anyone.html)

Tim Shoppa July 27th 03 12:54 AM

Paul Burridge wrote in message . ..
I've decided to bite the bullet and try to build an RF filter for
40Mhz. This filter will ideally have a very, very sharp characteristic
at one single spot frequency +-20Khz and attenuate the crap out of
anything either side of this. It'll need to be tunable over a range of
say 200Khz. Can anyone give me a steer on what type of arrangement
would be best suited to fit this purpose?


It'll need to be a crystal filter, and your requirement that it must
be tunable means that you will convert down/up to an IF frequency and back
up/down again. (Well, you may not have to convert back up again but you
don't tell us your application).

Problem with the IF and conversion is the production of images. Images
won't be a killer problem because your tuning range is really quite narrow.

If you wanted to really cheapskate out some ceramic IF filters also seem
to meet your stated needs.

Tim.

John Crighton July 27th 03 02:25 AM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:55:40 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:50:45 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

This is a strange way of achieving your aim. You should be going for
adjacent channel selectivity in the IF, not the front end. That way
you can use a fixed frequency filter, and it can be as lossy as you
like - and it will be lossy to achieve these kinds of selectivity with
achievable unloaded Q.

If you put this filter at the RF stage where it will help with
adjacent channel selectivity,m it must be before the first amplifier,
and that will have killed your hoped-for sensitivity increase. If you
put it after that amplifier, then you may as well leave it where it
belongs - in the IF.


Thanks, Don. I'm aware this is a daft way of doing it, but I don't
have much choice. The IF stages of this rx are not accessable and no
schematic is available, either. The makers have declined to make them
available and threatened any service personel who do so with
termination of their contracts. Faced with these obstacles, I don't
see any other option, apart from boosting the tx power instead; a
solution which just brings a different load of problems.
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill



Hello Paul,
it is time to dump that receiver and start again. It is too
small and tiddly and I know you do not like surface
mount size components. I would imagine that you
have plenty of room inside that robot of yours to
take a fairly large die cast box. My suggestion is
find a radio control receiver that you can get
circuit diagrams for or build one from scratch
on large pieces of printed circuit board using
"ugly construction" or "dead bug construction".
Google those terms and you will see what I am
talking about.

You can then build the various stages of the
receiver on separate boards and try all the
different things you have been wishing to do
but couldn't due to miniature parts, lack of access
and lack of information.
After you have a prototype ugly construction
receiver working, you can miniaturize if you
wish on the the next unit. You will need spares
anyway. Heh heh heh......it is fighting machine.

Have a look at National semiconductor application
notes for radio control receiver, they might even give
you half a dozen chips as free samples.

Google search for radio control receiver schematics.

"Buy" is a dirty word for me, but you might be able
to buy a receiver in kit form with all the information on
construction and alignment as well as a "how it works"
description.

Have Fun,
John Crighton
Sydney


John Crighton July 27th 03 02:25 AM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:55:40 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:50:45 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

This is a strange way of achieving your aim. You should be going for
adjacent channel selectivity in the IF, not the front end. That way
you can use a fixed frequency filter, and it can be as lossy as you
like - and it will be lossy to achieve these kinds of selectivity with
achievable unloaded Q.

If you put this filter at the RF stage where it will help with
adjacent channel selectivity,m it must be before the first amplifier,
and that will have killed your hoped-for sensitivity increase. If you
put it after that amplifier, then you may as well leave it where it
belongs - in the IF.


Thanks, Don. I'm aware this is a daft way of doing it, but I don't
have much choice. The IF stages of this rx are not accessable and no
schematic is available, either. The makers have declined to make them
available and threatened any service personel who do so with
termination of their contracts. Faced with these obstacles, I don't
see any other option, apart from boosting the tx power instead; a
solution which just brings a different load of problems.
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill



Hello Paul,
it is time to dump that receiver and start again. It is too
small and tiddly and I know you do not like surface
mount size components. I would imagine that you
have plenty of room inside that robot of yours to
take a fairly large die cast box. My suggestion is
find a radio control receiver that you can get
circuit diagrams for or build one from scratch
on large pieces of printed circuit board using
"ugly construction" or "dead bug construction".
Google those terms and you will see what I am
talking about.

You can then build the various stages of the
receiver on separate boards and try all the
different things you have been wishing to do
but couldn't due to miniature parts, lack of access
and lack of information.
After you have a prototype ugly construction
receiver working, you can miniaturize if you
wish on the the next unit. You will need spares
anyway. Heh heh heh......it is fighting machine.

Have a look at National semiconductor application
notes for radio control receiver, they might even give
you half a dozen chips as free samples.

Google search for radio control receiver schematics.

"Buy" is a dirty word for me, but you might be able
to buy a receiver in kit form with all the information on
construction and alignment as well as a "how it works"
description.

Have Fun,
John Crighton
Sydney


Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun' July 27th 03 05:20 AM

In article , mentioned...

Take a look at lowband filters and duplexers from CellWave, Telewave,
etc.
Your filter is going to be a coaxial cavity about 2mx20cm with piston
for tuning.
I am sure there are some better approaches to your task :)


How about a helical resonator. They're smaller than a cavity, maybe
not as high Q, but still higher than lumped constant tuned circuit.
They're tunable, but I'm not sure how much.


Vladimir Vassilevsky, Ph.D.


Paul Burridge wrote:

Hi chaps,

I've decided to bite the bullet and try to build an RF filter for
40Mhz. This filter will ideally have a very, very sharp characteristic
at one single spot frequency +-20Khz and attenuate the crap out of
anything either side of this. It'll need to be tunable over a range of
say 200Khz. Can anyone give me a steer on what type of arrangement
would be best suited to fit this purpose?
Thanks,

p.
--


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@ h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/e...s/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 at hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@ u@e@n@t@@

Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun' July 27th 03 05:20 AM

In article , mentioned...

Take a look at lowband filters and duplexers from CellWave, Telewave,
etc.
Your filter is going to be a coaxial cavity about 2mx20cm with piston
for tuning.
I am sure there are some better approaches to your task :)


How about a helical resonator. They're smaller than a cavity, maybe
not as high Q, but still higher than lumped constant tuned circuit.
They're tunable, but I'm not sure how much.


Vladimir Vassilevsky, Ph.D.


Paul Burridge wrote:

Hi chaps,

I've decided to bite the bullet and try to build an RF filter for
40Mhz. This filter will ideally have a very, very sharp characteristic
at one single spot frequency +-20Khz and attenuate the crap out of
anything either side of this. It'll need to be tunable over a range of
say 200Khz. Can anyone give me a steer on what type of arrangement
would be best suited to fit this purpose?
Thanks,

p.
--


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@ h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/e...s/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 at hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@ u@e@n@t@@

vlad July 27th 03 05:53 AM

Paul Burridge wrote in message . ..
Hi chaps,

I've decided to bite the bullet and try to build an RF filter for
40Mhz. This filter will ideally have a very, very sharp characteristic
at one single spot frequency +-20Khz and attenuate the crap out of
anything either side of this. It'll need to be tunable over a range of
say 200Khz. Can anyone give me a steer on what type of arrangement
would be best suited to fit this purpose?
Thanks,

p.


Filter at 40 MHz with 40 KHz BW means a very high Q, up to 1000.
Cavity filter at 40 MHz is big! You can try active RF tuned stage (at
40 MHz) with a positive feedback, also known as Q-multiplier. In
addition to high selectivity this will also result in a high gain,
which may overload your actual receiver. In this case you can
attenuate the signal at the output of the RF stage. You have to make
sure Q-multiplier would start to oscillate. It is an issue by itself.
73,
Vlad
kb9olm

vlad July 27th 03 05:53 AM

Paul Burridge wrote in message . ..
Hi chaps,

I've decided to bite the bullet and try to build an RF filter for
40Mhz. This filter will ideally have a very, very sharp characteristic
at one single spot frequency +-20Khz and attenuate the crap out of
anything either side of this. It'll need to be tunable over a range of
say 200Khz. Can anyone give me a steer on what type of arrangement
would be best suited to fit this purpose?
Thanks,

p.


Filter at 40 MHz with 40 KHz BW means a very high Q, up to 1000.
Cavity filter at 40 MHz is big! You can try active RF tuned stage (at
40 MHz) with a positive feedback, also known as Q-multiplier. In
addition to high selectivity this will also result in a high gain,
which may overload your actual receiver. In this case you can
attenuate the signal at the output of the RF stage. You have to make
sure Q-multiplier would start to oscillate. It is an issue by itself.
73,
Vlad
kb9olm

budgie July 27th 03 01:20 PM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:20:18 -0700, Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'
wrote:

In article , mentioned...

Take a look at lowband filters and duplexers from CellWave, Telewave,
etc.
Your filter is going to be a coaxial cavity about 2mx20cm with piston
for tuning.
I am sure there are some better approaches to your task :)


How about a helical resonator. They're smaller than a cavity, maybe
not as high Q, but still higher than lumped constant tuned circuit.
They're tunable, but I'm not sure how much.


I'd like to live long enough to see a helical at 40MHz that can
'attenuate the hell" out of signals outside the Fr+/-20kHz channel.

budgie July 27th 03 01:20 PM

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:20:18 -0700, Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'
wrote:

In article , mentioned...

Take a look at lowband filters and duplexers from CellWave, Telewave,
etc.
Your filter is going to be a coaxial cavity about 2mx20cm with piston
for tuning.
I am sure there are some better approaches to your task :)


How about a helical resonator. They're smaller than a cavity, maybe
not as high Q, but still higher than lumped constant tuned circuit.
They're tunable, but I'm not sure how much.


I'd like to live long enough to see a helical at 40MHz that can
'attenuate the hell" out of signals outside the Fr+/-20kHz channel.

Paul Burridge July 27th 03 01:46 PM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:25:11 GMT, (John Crighton)
wrote:

Hello Paul,
it is time to dump that receiver and start again. It is too
small and tiddly and I know you do not like surface
mount size components. I would imagine that you
have plenty of room inside that robot of yours to
take a fairly large die cast box. My suggestion is
find a radio control receiver that you can get
circuit diagrams for or build one from scratch
on large pieces of printed circuit board using
"ugly construction" or "dead bug construction".
Google those terms and you will see what I am
talking about.


Thanks for the suggestion, John. It *does* make a lot of sense, I must
admit. Hadn't considered that possibility, to be honest. I've never
been a fan of dead bug construction - there's no satisfaction in
seeing the finished job - so may well have a stab at using regular,
proper-sized discretes along the same lines. And yes, there's no
shortage of space, either. Way to go over the long term, I reckon.
Thanks again.
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com