Is it worth using a choked WG flange for lab testing?
We're planning some experiments on AM'ed waveguides, and I just noticed that our WG cal kit uses a flat, square WR42 flange (FBP).
Is it worth printing a choke on the DUT's flange? We're not pressurizing, of course, but if the performance degradation from mating two flat flanges is significant, we might need to consider it seriously.
I had some WR-15 and WR-10 AM waveguides made on the Protolabs AlSi10Mg high-res process. I did not use a choke but I did have the flanges polished; they will do that.
Sounds promising! An no significant loss across the flange connection?
The WR-15 worked well. For a 3” length, the insertion loss was 0.3 dB, compared to 0.2 dB for the 3” reference. The WR-10 did not work well.
The surface roughness models in the 3D simulators do not work well; they overestimate the loss for the rather rough surface.
I had previously stated the flange was polished. It was just machined flat. I suppose you could polish it, but the machining is probably adequate.
I don’t know how high-Q structures would perform. I’d like to make a WR-15 filter or resonator; just no time.
Sign in or register to add a comment.
Add a Comment
About Our Site
Biological Effects and Applications
Computer Aided Design
Emerging Applications and Technology
Filters and Passives
MMIC and RFIC
Packaging and Materials
Sources and Receivers
Test and Measurement
What are popular Benchtop Thermal Testing Requirements?
Rectangular WG transitions - which Z applies?
Terms of Service
Useful Hints and Tips
Created with PlushForums
© 2021 Microwaves 101 Discussion Board