Reg Edwards wrote:

Coaxial ceramic resonators are cool... they are small, extremely
stable, and have Qs in the thousands.

How do you measure the Qs of resonators in the thousands?

The three dog-bone method, perhaps?

Reg Edwards wrote:

Coaxial ceramic resonators are cool... they are small, extremely
stable, and have Qs in the thousands.

How do you measure the Qs of resonators in the thousands?

The three dog-bone method, perhaps?

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Coaxial ceramic resonators are cool... they are small, extremely
stable, and have Qs in the thousands.

How do you measure the Qs of resonators in the thousands?


Well, all the usual methods: resonance width, phase shift, ringdown,
stuff like that. I work with gadgets with Qs over 1e9, and people
measure them without difficulty.

John

Ringdown is the easist way when Qs are extremely high.

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:10:18 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Coaxial ceramic resonators are cool... they are small, extremely
stable, and have Qs in the thousands.

How do you measure the Qs of resonators in the thousands?


Well, all the usual methods: resonance width, phase shift, ringdown,
stuff like that. I work with gadgets with Qs over 1e9, and people
measure them without difficulty.

John

Ringdown is the easist way when Qs are extremely high.

Tom Bruhns wrote:

Robert Baer wrote in message ...
...
A high Q resonant circuit can be rather small.
For example, i made a tunable LC with a Q approaching 1000, and it was
not the size of a garbage can (resonant cavity); it was about 5 inches
tall and about 3 inches in diameter.

Based on an earlier P.Burridge thread, I'd say that's NOT small for
him. Of course, you didn't mention the frequency (I'd guess around
10MHz), but in the earlier thread, I was suggesting that he use a coil
at 18MHz or so with a Qu around 100, and he didn't seem to like even
the rather small size that one could make such a coil. I did it on,
um either a .68" OD or .80" OD powdered iron toroid, and that was
apparently too big. I also suggested a multi-pole filter which could
give the same effective filtering, and could use three small SMT
inductors. I gathered even that was too big. And I suppose coaxial
ceramic resonators for one-off projects at 18MHz aren't very
practical...

On one extreme, one uses standard LC parts and get fair Qs in small
size.
On the other extreme, one makes a ersonant cavity to get very high Qs
at the expense of size.
In between there is something that can be called either a "shielded
inductor" or a "resonant cavity with slow wave structure".

There seems to be a popular misconception that a helical resonator
gives better Q than an unshielded coil and capacitor. One of the key
nice things about helical resonators is that they are well
shielded...there's extremely little external field. That lets you
stack several of them side-by-side, with appropriately chosen coupling
apertures between the cavities, to make a nice, compact multi-pole
filter. But let's not assign a quality that isn't the the same
coil WITHOUT the shield will have a higher Qu, so long as it's not so
huge that radiation is a significant loss mechanism, and as Reg
suggests, that's BIG for most of the tanks we think about. In the
older editions of "Reference Data for Radio Engineers," e.g. the fifth
edition, there are some design nomographs for helical resonators in
the Transmission Lines chapter. They will give you the Qu. If you
find the Qu of the coil in air (see the same book, Fundamentals of
Networks chapter, or use Reg's coil program or WAIRCOIL), you'll see
that the coil's Qu is higher. And if you look also in the Fund. of
Networks chapter, you'll find a graph for the decrease of inductance
of a coil when shielded, and you'll find that that almost exactly
accounts for the Q lowering: same effective series resistance, but
lower inductance, gives lower Q. Is it significant? Well, I think
for a typical helical resonator, it's a 15% to 25% lowering.

Mainly I want to dispell the notion that a helical resonator is
something magic that _raises_ the Q of a given coil, because it's not.
It does have some very nice properties, but that just isn't one of
them.

Early helical resonator reference: W. W. Macalpine and R. O.
Schildknecht, "Coaxial Resonators with Helical Inner Conductor," Proc.
of the IRE, Dec. 1959 -- almost 45 years ago now.

Cheers,
Tom

Yes, but the emphasis was on small size, and a helical resonator
allows a goodly shrinkage of volume wihout a corresponding loss large of
Q.
But if the frequency is low enough, the ferite core method, if
properly wound, then becomes a "preferred" solution for small size and
high Q.
Maybe his requirements are not too realistic?

Tom Bruhns wrote:

Robert Baer wrote in message ...
...
A high Q resonant circuit can be rather small.
For example, i made a tunable LC with a Q approaching 1000, and it was
not the size of a garbage can (resonant cavity); it was about 5 inches
tall and about 3 inches in diameter.

Based on an earlier P.Burridge thread, I'd say that's NOT small for
him. Of course, you didn't mention the frequency (I'd guess around
10MHz), but in the earlier thread, I was suggesting that he use a coil
at 18MHz or so with a Qu around 100, and he didn't seem to like even
the rather small size that one could make such a coil. I did it on,
um either a .68" OD or .80" OD powdered iron toroid, and that was
apparently too big. I also suggested a multi-pole filter which could
give the same effective filtering, and could use three small SMT
inductors. I gathered even that was too big. And I suppose coaxial
ceramic resonators for one-off projects at 18MHz aren't very
practical...

On one extreme, one uses standard LC parts and get fair Qs in small
size.
On the other extreme, one makes a ersonant cavity to get very high Qs
at the expense of size.
In between there is something that can be called either a "shielded
inductor" or a "resonant cavity with slow wave structure".

There seems to be a popular misconception that a helical resonator
gives better Q than an unshielded coil and capacitor. One of the key
nice things about helical resonators is that they are well
shielded...there's extremely little external field. That lets you
stack several of them side-by-side, with appropriately chosen coupling
apertures between the cavities, to make a nice, compact multi-pole
filter. But let's not assign a quality that isn't the the same
coil WITHOUT the shield will have a higher Qu, so long as it's not so
huge that radiation is a significant loss mechanism, and as Reg
suggests, that's BIG for most of the tanks we think about. In the
older editions of "Reference Data for Radio Engineers," e.g. the fifth
edition, there are some design nomographs for helical resonators in
the Transmission Lines chapter. They will give you the Qu. If you
find the Qu of the coil in air (see the same book, Fundamentals of
Networks chapter, or use Reg's coil program or WAIRCOIL), you'll see
that the coil's Qu is higher. And if you look also in the Fund. of
Networks chapter, you'll find a graph for the decrease of inductance
of a coil when shielded, and you'll find that that almost exactly
accounts for the Q lowering: same effective series resistance, but
lower inductance, gives lower Q. Is it significant? Well, I think
for a typical helical resonator, it's a 15% to 25% lowering.

Mainly I want to dispell the notion that a helical resonator is
something magic that _raises_ the Q of a given coil, because it's not.
It does have some very nice properties, but that just isn't one of
them.

Early helical resonator reference: W. W. Macalpine and R. O.
Schildknecht, "Coaxial Resonators with Helical Inner Conductor," Proc.
of the IRE, Dec. 1959 -- almost 45 years ago now.

Cheers,
Tom

Yes, but the emphasis was on small size, and a helical resonator
allows a goodly shrinkage of volume wihout a corresponding loss large of
Q.
But if the frequency is low enough, the ferite core method, if
properly wound, then becomes a "preferred" solution for small size and
high Q.
Maybe his requirements are not too realistic?

Scott Stephens wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:36:17 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:


An 8 MHz filter doesn't have to be physically large Paul,

Hi Q coils in that frequency range in compact sizes... they don't seem
to go together. :-(

A high Q resonant circuit can be rather small.
For example, i made a tunable LC with a Q approaching 1000, and it was
not the size of a garbage can (resonant cavity); it was about 5 inches
tall and about 3 inches in diameter.

That doesn't sound very small.

On one extreme, one uses standard LC parts and get fair Qs in small
size.

You can also use positive feedback (negative resistance) to sharpen Q,
if you are somewhat careful or don't mind tweaking.

Rather ingenious; ther was an IEE paper 20 years(??) ago covering the
desigh equations.
The terminology used was "Helical resonator".

The ARRL Handbook has/had a design table for them too.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

A resonant cavity for the FM band would be roughly the size of a
garbage can (which i stated); 6 inches is slightly smaller, i think.

Scott Stephens wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:36:17 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:


An 8 MHz filter doesn't have to be physically large Paul,

Hi Q coils in that frequency range in compact sizes... they don't seem
to go together. :-(

A high Q resonant circuit can be rather small.
For example, i made a tunable LC with a Q approaching 1000, and it was
not the size of a garbage can (resonant cavity); it was about 5 inches
tall and about 3 inches in diameter.

That doesn't sound very small.

On one extreme, one uses standard LC parts and get fair Qs in small
size.

You can also use positive feedback (negative resistance) to sharpen Q,
if you are somewhat careful or don't mind tweaking.

Rather ingenious; ther was an IEE paper 20 years(??) ago covering the
desigh equations.
The terminology used was "Helical resonator".

The ARRL Handbook has/had a design table for them too.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

A resonant cavity for the FM band would be roughly the size of a
garbage can (which i stated); 6 inches is slightly smaller, i think.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:43:49 GMT, Robert Baer posted
this:

John Larkin wrote:


Well, all the usual methods: resonance width, phase shift, ringdown,
stuff like that. I work with gadgets with Qs over 1e9, and people
measure them without difficulty.

John

Ringdown is the easist way when Qs are extremely high.

You must still account for the energy you extract from the circuit in
order to measure the ringdown. Even the energy needed to drive a high impedance
probe is significant when the Q gets high.

IOW, the Q without the probe will be higher than the Q when you insert
the probe to measure the Q.

Jim

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:43:49 GMT, Robert Baer posted
this:

John Larkin wrote:


Well, all the usual methods: resonance width, phase shift, ringdown,
stuff like that. I work with gadgets with Qs over 1e9, and people
measure them without difficulty.

John

Ringdown is the easist way when Qs are extremely high.

You must still account for the energy you extract from the circuit in
order to measure the ringdown. Even the energy needed to drive a high impedance
probe is significant when the Q gets high.

IOW, the Q without the probe will be higher than the Q when you insert
the probe to measure the Q.

Jim