Is it worth using a choked WG flange for lab testing?
  • Tinus Stander
    0
    Hi everyone!

    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.

    t
    Tinus Stander Options
  • madengr
    0
    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.
    madengr Options
  • Tinus Stander
    0
    ↪madengr
    Sounds promising! An no significant loss across the flange connection?
    Tinus Stander Options
  • madengr
    0
    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.
    madengr Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome!

Join the international conversation on a broad range of microwave and RF topics. Learn about the latest developments in our industry, post questions for your peers to answer, and weigh in with some answers if you can!

Sign In Create Account

Categories