• Admin
    0
    sm4rzw created the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    Hi all,
    In an attempt to create a ad-hoc bandpass filter (or, usable as highpass) I bolted together two WR137 waveguide-to-coax adapters. Works ok, but transmission below the theoretical cut-off is surprisingly high; Fcutoff is 4.301 GHz and at 4 Ghz I only get -17 dB -ish. Could this be improved by adding a straight piece of waveguide between them to surpress evanescent transmission ? Or some trick with an iris..?
  • Admin
    0
    Desert Sage replied the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    Yes, small length of waveguide should work. WG below cutoff is surprisingly effective as HPF. Surprised how little rejection you are getting. If I wasn't lazy I could calculate how much guide you need but you forgot to say how much rejection you were looking for. As a guess, a couple inches should give you plenty.
  • Admin
    0
    sm4rzw replied the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    Thanks for quick reply :) Not that used to waveguides, but I'll learn. Those wg-to-coax adapters are quite short, so the radiators inside them get's quite close, thats why I had that thought. Will try to track down a 3" or 4" WG on ebay and try it out.
  • Admin
    0
    sm4rzw replied the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    With 3" WR137 the attenuation improved from -17 to -28 dB. Still too much. Tried the trick with a steel ball and a magnet, but every position only made it worse... Desperately, I ac-hoc'ed a stub notch out of .141 semirigid and tuned to 4100 MHz. In cascade with the waveguide adapter filter it became perfect. The combination of a file and a network analyzer is great sometimes ;)
  • Admin
    0
    Desert Sage replied the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    Thank you for closing the loop and letting us know results. Couple of thoughts. I should have checked dimensions. You are operating only about 7.5% below cutoff. The next smaller guide would have worked better. The steel ball sounds too large. BB to pea sized I estimate. But your solution works. Thanks again.
  • Admin
    0
    sm4rzw replied the topic: waveguide cut-off and the attenuation below that

    Yes, I 've learned that cut-off frequency doesn't mean totally stop, but rather like -20 loss. My first mistake. The steel ball, yes it was a small bearing ball, like 4mm.
    I just took a SMA-T-coupling, (which I normally hate because people connect things without having a clue of the impedance), put a peice of .141 in one female port, soldered the shield to the threads, hooked it to the VNA and started with the file ;) It's great fun!
    As for the smaller waveguide, that would have been WR112. But I needed the passband down to 5.7 GHz. But yes, it would probably worked better, it's easier to handle 10 dB loss in passband and -80 to kill the carrier power than 2dB loss in passband, and -20 to kill the carrier.. I guess it all cooks down to the meaning of Fco, repeating to myself " It doesn't mean totally silent, but -20 dB loss" Once more, thanks for helping
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!