rf everywhere

Discussion in 'Misc Electronics' started by RichD, Mar 6, 2013.

  1. RichD

    RichD Guest

    Wireless is everywhere now, miniaturized to an astounding degree.

    Recently, I saw a report on a button size gardening
    gadget - stick it in the soil, it reports on moisture.
    Bluetooth earphones, etc.

    Who's designing these things? In my experience, RF
    designers are a rare breed, and with the digital market
    vastly larger, they're even rarer.

    I'll guess, the IC have been perfected to the no-brainer
    level. But still, you need need amps, filters, antenna, plus
    issues of noise and layout, yes/no? That stuff isn't obsoleted.

    I don't work in this area, but I'm curious, so can anyone
    elaborate on what's going on, from a system viewpoint?
    What are the chip functions, options, price, trade-offs?
    In which situations would you reject them, to roll your own?

    Is it simple on/off keying, or more sophisticated? Currently,
    in communications theory, sensor networks are a hot topic,
    where thousands of sensors are competing for bandwidth,
    but for mundane consumer apps, I doubt those issues arise.

    I'm looking to pick the brains of any gurus here -


    --
    Rich
     
    RichD, Mar 6, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichD

    Tim Williams Guest

    Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.

    Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    whatever. Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    magic, anything incorporating that block will also work. Monolithic
    inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    oscillators" and stuff. Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go. Want a
    DDS? Just chuck some more IP at it! Then whatever ancillary function
    (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    transistors and functions.

    Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere. I
    suppose Bluetooth would've taken up a whole rack, back in the 70s, and
    that's assuming the computing power to provide whatever spread spectrum,
    encoding, error detection, etc. functionality is required.

    Tim

    --
    Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
    Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

    "RichD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wireless is everywhere now, miniaturized to an astounding degree.
    >
    > Recently, I saw a report on a button size gardening
    > gadget - stick it in the soil, it reports on moisture.
    > Bluetooth earphones, etc.
    >
    > Who's designing these things? In my experience, RF
    > designers are a rare breed, and with the digital market
    > vastly larger, they're even rarer.
    >
    > I'll guess, the IC have been perfected to the no-brainer
    > level. But still, you need need amps, filters, antenna, plus
    > issues of noise and layout, yes/no? That stuff isn't obsoleted.
    >
    > I don't work in this area, but I'm curious, so can anyone
    > elaborate on what's going on, from a system viewpoint?
    > What are the chip functions, options, price, trade-offs?
    > In which situations would you reject them, to roll your own?
    >
    > Is it simple on/off keying, or more sophisticated? Currently,
    > in communications theory, sensor networks are a hot topic,
    > where thousands of sensors are competing for bandwidth,
    > but for mundane consumer apps, I doubt those issues arise.
    >
    > I'm looking to pick the brains of any gurus here -
    >
    >
    > --
    > Rich
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tim Williams, Mar 7, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. On 7/3/2013 8:05 AM, RichD wrote:
    > Wireless is everywhere now, miniaturized to an astounding degree.
    >
    > Recently, I saw a report on a button size gardening
    > gadget - stick it in the soil, it reports on moisture.
    > Bluetooth earphones, etc.
    >
    > Who's designing these things? In my experience, RF
    > designers are a rare breed, and with the digital market
    > vastly larger, they're even rarer.
    >
    > I'll guess, the IC have been perfected to the no-brainer
    > level. But still, you need need amps, filters, antenna, plus
    > issues of noise and layout, yes/no? That stuff isn't obsoleted.
    >
    > I don't work in this area, but I'm curious, so can anyone
    > elaborate on what's going on, from a system viewpoint?
    > What are the chip functions, options, price, trade-offs?
    > In which situations would you reject them, to roll your own?
    >
    > Is it simple on/off keying, or more sophisticated? Currently,
    > in communications theory, sensor networks are a hot topic,
    > where thousands of sensors are competing for bandwidth,
    > but for mundane consumer apps, I doubt those issues arise.
    >
    > I'm looking to pick the brains of any gurus here -
    >
    >
    > --
    > Rich
    >
    >
    >

    You are right, but seems like someone has solved the RF problems once
    for each of the useful bands, then its a piece of cake to interface with
    sensors and one end and display/alarm at the other.

    For an example, the tyre pressure monitor systems at 433 MHz. 10 gram
    package, including battery, you screw on a tyre valve. Monitors tyre
    pressure and temperature for about 1-2 years of operation. Reports real
    time, every minute or so, to in-car readout.

    --
    Regards,

    Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
    Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
     
    Adrian Jansen, Mar 7, 2013
    #3
  4. On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:49:27 +1000, the renowned Adrian Jansen
    <> wrote:

    >You are right, but seems like someone has solved the RF problems once
    >for each of the useful bands, then its a piece of cake to interface with
    >sensors and one end and display/alarm at the other.
    >
    >For an example, the tyre pressure monitor systems at 433 MHz. 10 gram
    >package, including battery, you screw on a tyre valve. Monitors tyre
    >pressure and temperature for about 1-2 years of operation. Reports real
    >time, every minute or so, to in-car readout.


    Frequently fails mechanically, causing loss of tire pressure, allows
    tire shops to charge for a "rebuild kit" whenever they swap a tire,
    requires a trip to the dealer (or specialized equipment/knowledge) to
    replace, even with an OEM replacement part.. other than that, they're
    just spiffy.


    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
    --
    "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
    Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
    Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
     
    Spehro Pefhany, Mar 7, 2013
    #4
  5. RichD

    Trevor Guest

    "Spehro Pefhany" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:49:27 +1000, the renowned Adrian Jansen
    > <> wrote:
    >>For an example, the tyre pressure monitor systems at 433 MHz. 10 gram
    >>package, including battery, you screw on a tyre valve. Monitors tyre
    >>pressure and temperature for about 1-2 years of operation. Reports real
    >>time, every minute or so, to in-car readout.

    >
    > Frequently fails mechanically, causing loss of tire pressure, allows
    > tire shops to charge for a "rebuild kit" whenever they swap a tire,
    > requires a trip to the dealer (or specialized equipment/knowledge) to
    > replace, even with an OEM replacement part.. other than that, they're
    > just spiffy.


    So pretty much like many of the new gadgets on modern cars, something else
    to go wrong that costs you money, even if you never wanted it in the first
    place :-(

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Mar 7, 2013
    #5
  6. In sci.electronics.misc Tim Williams <> wrote:
    > Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.
    >
    > Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    > whatever. Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    > streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    > magic, anything incorporating that block will also work. Monolithic
    > inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    > usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    > oscillators" and stuff. Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    > zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go. Want a
    > DDS? Just chuck some more IP at it! Then whatever ancillary function
    > (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    > transistors and functions.
    >
    > Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    > silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    > thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    > cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere. I


    years ago I was given a box of microwave "plumbing" from what may have
    been a broadcast engineer. The stuff would have worked with microwaves or
    hydraulic fluid. The guy who made the stuff seemed to be really good with
    a jewelers saw, copper pipe, brass discs rods and solder.
     
    Cydrome Leader, Mar 7, 2013
    #6
  7. RichD

    Guest

    On Mar 7, 1:51 am, "Tim Williams" <> wrote:
    > Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.
    >
    > Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    > whatever.  Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    > streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    > magic, anything incorporating that block will also work.  Monolithic
    > inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    > usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    > oscillators" and stuff.  Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    > zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go.  Want a
    > DDS?  Just chuck some more IP at it!  Then whatever ancillary function
    > (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    > transistors and functions.


    I remember working on making bluetooth in a "single chip"
    we had a working radio and build an evolution of an existing SOC to
    stack
    on top of it in a single package

    Everything worked great when we tested the first samples, but then
    the
    software guys started running their code in ROM then the sensitivity
    dropped

    turned out that the ROM being in a different corner of the SOC coupled
    noise
    into the radio VCO inductors, but the RAM where the test code was run
    didn't


    >
    > Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    > silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    > thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    > cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere.  I
    > suppose Bluetooth would've taken up a whole rack, back in the 70s, and
    > that's assuming the computing power to provide whatever spread spectrum,
    > encoding, error detection, etc. functionality is required.
    >
    > Tim
    >


    I worked on one of the very first bluetooth implementations, it was;
    a DSP, a flash, an FPGA, an RF chip, a saw filter, a whole bunch of
    passives
    it was probably 5*5cm PCB fully packed on both sides

    -Lasse
     
    , Mar 7, 2013
    #7
  8. In sci.electronics.misc <> wrote:
    > On Mar 7, 1:51?am, "Tim Williams" <> wrote:
    >> Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.
    >>
    >> Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    >> whatever. ?Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    >> streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    >> magic, anything incorporating that block will also work. ?Monolithic
    >> inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    >> usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    >> oscillators" and stuff. ?Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    >> zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go. ?Want a
    >> DDS? ?Just chuck some more IP at it! ?Then whatever ancillary function
    >> (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    >> transistors and functions.

    >
    > I remember working on making bluetooth in a "single chip"
    > we had a working radio and build an evolution of an existing SOC to
    > stack
    > on top of it in a single package
    >
    > Everything worked great when we tested the first samples, but then
    > the
    > software guys started running their code in ROM then the sensitivity
    > dropped
    >
    > turned out that the ROM being in a different corner of the SOC coupled
    > noise
    > into the radio VCO inductors, but the RAM where the test code was run
    > didn't
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    >> silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    >> thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    >> cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere. ?I
    >> suppose Bluetooth would've taken up a whole rack, back in the 70s, and
    >> that's assuming the computing power to provide whatever spread spectrum,
    >> encoding, error detection, etc. functionality is required.
    >>
    >> Tim
    >>

    >
    > I worked on one of the very first bluetooth implementations, it was;
    > a DSP, a flash, an FPGA, an RF chip, a saw filter, a whole bunch of
    > passives
    > it was probably 5*5cm PCB fully packed on both sides


    In the 1988 to 1990s ish time, there was a story in popular mechanics or
    popular science about a digital ghost canceler for television signals that
    bounced off buildings. It was huge PCB made using an array of DSPs and
    have to have pounds of gold plated ceramic chips on it. It was a pretty
    looking board, that must have screamed at like 16MHz or something like
    that.

    What would that take these days, to basically subtract patterns from a
    NTSC signal? A couple chips?
     
    Cydrome Leader, Mar 7, 2013
    #8
  9. On 7/3/2013 1:44 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
    > On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:49:27 +1000, the renowned Adrian Jansen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> You are right, but seems like someone has solved the RF problems once
    >> for each of the useful bands, then its a piece of cake to interface with
    >> sensors and one end and display/alarm at the other.
    >>
    >> For an example, the tyre pressure monitor systems at 433 MHz. 10 gram
    >> package, including battery, you screw on a tyre valve. Monitors tyre
    >> pressure and temperature for about 1-2 years of operation. Reports real
    >> time, every minute or so, to in-car readout.

    >
    > Frequently fails mechanically, causing loss of tire pressure, allows
    > tire shops to charge for a "rebuild kit" whenever they swap a tire,
    > requires a trip to the dealer (or specialized equipment/knowledge) to
    > replace, even with an OEM replacement part.. other than that, they're
    > just spiffy.
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Spehro Pefhany
    >


    Really I was commenting on the RF stuff. Certainly that seems to work
    as well as needed. Whether the rest of the design is as good as the RF
    section is a different kettle of fish.

    The aftermarket units using sensors like Tyredog seem to have a learning
    mode to accomodate sensor changes without special tools.

    Personally I would be happy if the system just warned that a tyre is
    going down, before it wrecks the tyre. Identifying which tyre is at
    fault is a secondary, and usually very easy, job.

    --
    Regards,

    Adrian Jansen adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
    Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.
     
    Adrian Jansen, Mar 7, 2013
    #9
  10. RichD

    MrTallyman Guest

    On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:14:39 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    <> wrote:

    >In sci.electronics.misc Tim Williams <> wrote:
    >> Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.
    >>
    >> Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    >> whatever. Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    >> streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    >> magic, anything incorporating that block will also work. Monolithic
    >> inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    >> usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    >> oscillators" and stuff. Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    >> zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go. Want a
    >> DDS? Just chuck some more IP at it! Then whatever ancillary function
    >> (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    >> transistors and functions.
    >>
    >> Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    >> silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    >> thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    >> cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere. I

    >
    >years ago I was given a box of microwave "plumbing" from what may have
    >been a broadcast engineer. The stuff would have worked with microwaves or
    >hydraulic fluid. The guy who made the stuff seemed to be really good with
    >a jewelers saw, copper pipe, brass discs rods and solder.
    >
    >
    >

    Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.

    Semi-rigid and a few others abound.
     
    MrTallyman, Mar 9, 2013
    #10
  11. In sci.electronics.design MrTallyman <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:14:39 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>In sci.electronics.misc Tim Williams <> wrote:
    >>> Hmmm, not a big deal I suspect.
    >>>
    >>> Build a general purpose RF block for, say, 2.45GHz BT or 802.11(etc), or
    >>> whatever. Give it handles to talk with anything (modulations, bit
    >>> streams, etc.), design and build it on a particular fab process, and like
    >>> magic, anything incorporating that block will also work. Monolithic
    >>> inductors can be fabricated with not very good Q at 2.45GHz (I think they
    >>> usually peak around Q = 10 or 20 around 5GHz), but enough to do "silicon
    >>> oscillators" and stuff. Voltage regulation (bandgap, or old school buried
    >>> zener) and temperature compensation are no-brainers, as ICs go. Want a
    >>> DDS? Just chuck some more IP at it! Then whatever ancillary function
    >>> (moisture, temperature sensor, etc.) simply plugs into this mess of
    >>> transistors and functions.
    >>>
    >>> Quite crazy, as all that circuitry is squeezing into a few milimeters of
    >>> silicon, when a few decades ago it was, well of course it was migrating to
    >>> thick film before monolithic, but before that, it was all machined
    >>> cavities, hand-soldered RF transistors, and microstrip everywhere. I

    >>
    >>years ago I was given a box of microwave "plumbing" from what may have
    >>been a broadcast engineer. The stuff would have worked with microwaves or
    >>hydraulic fluid. The guy who made the stuff seemed to be really good with
    >>a jewelers saw, copper pipe, brass discs rods and solder.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.


    this stuff was pretty darn old.

    are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?

    > Semi-rigid and a few others abound.
     
    Cydrome Leader, Mar 10, 2013
    #11
  12. RichD

    Guest

    On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    <> wrote:

    >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.

    >
    >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    >
    >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?


    In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    large, due to the low frequency.

    DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    much need for waveguides any more.
     
    , Mar 10, 2013
    #12
  13. RichD

    Don Pearce Guest

    On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    <> wrote:

    >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?


    As much to do with frequency as power level. I've recently completed
    the design of a Ka band transceiver for satellite (30GHz uplink, 20GHz
    down). It is a domestic product for delivery of broadband to rural
    areas. All of the internal RF filtering is done in waveguide, as is
    the external combining of the transmit and receive signals into a
    single horn. The transmitter power is just 3W.

    d
     
    Don Pearce, Mar 10, 2013
    #13
  14. RichD

    Don Pearce Guest

    On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 04:21:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.
    >> >
    >> >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    >> >
    >> >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?

    >>
    >> In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    >> implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    >> large, due to the low frequency.
    >>
    >> DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    >> consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    >> much need for waveguides any more.

    >
    >
    >How do you get that to the antenna without waveguide? Coax losses are
    >much higher than waveguide, and is less likely to have problems since
    >there is no dielectric to break down.


    Andrew's Heliax is pretty low loss, and good for VHF and UHF runs.
    Dielectric amounts to nothing more than a thin spiral spacer - the
    rest is all air.

    d
     
    Don Pearce, Mar 10, 2013
    #14
  15. RichD

    Don Pearce Guest

    On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:15:56 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Don Pearce wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 04:21:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?
    >> >>
    >> >> In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    >> >> implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    >> >> large, due to the low frequency.
    >> >>
    >> >> DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    >> >> consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    >> >> much need for waveguides any more.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >How do you get that to the antenna without waveguide? Coax losses are
    >> >much higher than waveguide, and is less likely to have problems since
    >> >there is no dielectric to break down.

    >>
    >> Andrew's Heliax is pretty low loss, and good for VHF and UHF runs.
    >> Dielectric amounts to nothing more than a thin spiral spacer - the
    >> rest is all air.

    >
    >
    > Heliax for 10 KW? Ever had the filter fail on the compressor and get
    >water in Heliax? I had a stupid SOB for a boss 30 years ago who was too
    >sheap to replace filtes on schedule and ruined a piece of 3" Heliax used
    >at 4 GHz. Waveguide is better at high power, and better than Heliax. I
    >had over 1700 feet of it at one TV transmitter. It carried about 195 KW
    >of RF to the top of the tower. We had to maintain a set pressure of dry
    >nitrogen on the waveguide to keep from compressing the sync pulses.


    No, not at 10kW. At 100W or so it is fine. On a long run I would
    always opt for waveguide - tower dimensions permitting.

    d
     
    Don Pearce, Mar 10, 2013
    #15
  16. RichD

    T Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.
    > > >
    > > >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    > > >
    > > >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?

    > >
    > > In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    > > implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    > > large, due to the low frequency.
    > >
    > > DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    > > consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    > > much need for waveguides any more.

    >
    >
    > How do you get that to the antenna without waveguide? Coax losses are
    > much higher than waveguide, and is less likely to have problems since
    > there is no dielectric to break down.


    Hardline! In essence it's a solid shield with a center conductor. That's
    enogh for RF into the 900MHz and 1.2GHz range.
     
    T, Mar 12, 2013
    #16
  17. In sci.electronics.misc Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >
    > Don Pearce wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 04:21:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?
    >> >>
    >> >> In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    >> >> implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    >> >> large, due to the low frequency.
    >> >>
    >> >> DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    >> >> consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    >> >> much need for waveguides any more.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >How do you get that to the antenna without waveguide? Coax losses are
    >> >much higher than waveguide, and is less likely to have problems since
    >> >there is no dielectric to break down.

    >>
    >> Andrew's Heliax is pretty low loss, and good for VHF and UHF runs.
    >> Dielectric amounts to nothing more than a thin spiral spacer - the
    >> rest is all air.

    >
    >
    > Heliax for 10 KW? Ever had the filter fail on the compressor and get
    > water in Heliax? I had a stupid SOB for a boss 30 years ago who was too
    > sheap to replace filtes on schedule and ruined a piece of 3" Heliax used
    > at 4 GHz. Waveguide is better at high power, and better than Heliax. I
    > had over 1700 feet of it at one TV transmitter. It carried about 195 KW
    > of RF to the top of the tower. We had to maintain a set pressure of dry
    > nitrogen on the waveguide to keep from compressing the sync pulses.


    what exciting things happens when you get moisture ingress?

    how hot can coax or waveguides run at high powers? I've never been by
    large transmitters, so the concept of anything but a power cord running
    warm is just strange to me.
     
    Cydrome Leader, Mar 12, 2013
    #17
  18. In sci.electronics.misc Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >
    > T wrote:
    >>
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >> >
    >> > wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
    >> > > <> wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > >> Not many folks making hard coax runs anymore.
    >> > > >
    >> > > >this stuff was pretty darn old.
    >> > > >
    >> > > >are there power levels where they stil use wavegides and the like?
    >> > >
    >> > > In countries still using analog TV, the UHF final amplifier is often
    >> > > implemented with klystron in the 100 kW range. The waveguide is quite
    >> > > large, due to the low frequency.
    >> > >
    >> > > DVB-T digital TV transmitters typically operate with only 1-10 kW,
    >> > > consisting of multiple redundant solid state modules, so there is not
    >> > > much need for waveguides any more.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > How do you get that to the antenna without waveguide? Coax losses are
    >> > much higher than waveguide, and is less likely to have problems since
    >> > there is no dielectric to break down.

    >>
    >> Hardline! In essence it's a solid shield with a center conductor. That's
    >> enough for RF into the 900MHz and 1.2GHz range.

    >
    >
    > There are many types of hardline, and more in use by CATV systems
    > than anything else. I engineered in that field for four years and
    > designed extensions and upgrades. I also designed community loop
    > systems.
    >
    >
    > Specify a brand, type length, frequency and power level. There is a
    > reason they have so damn many trunk amplifiers in a system.
    >
    >
    > I found a link to some 5.5" heilical air dielectric that doesn't look
    > too bad, but the specs stop before a GHz. look at the power handling
    > spec at .5 MHz, and at 894 MHz. It drops from 1890 KW to 43 KW. The
    > insetion loss goes from .0045 dB to .215 dB over that range.
    >
    > http://www.rfsworld.com/dataxpress/Datasheets/pdf/?q=HCA550-50J


    how does one terminate such cables? What sort of wiring goes on inside a
    giant transmitter or the antenna end of such a monster?
     
    Cydrome Leader, Mar 13, 2013
    #18
  19. RichD

    Guest

    On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:16:45 -0700, dave <>
    wrote:

    >On 03/12/2013 05:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
    >>
    >> dave wrote:
    >>>
    >>> On 03/12/2013 09:09 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>> IR losses turn current into heat, the frequency doesn't matter. RF
    >>>> power costs a lot more than power from the utility company, and using a
    >>>> bigger transmitter to turn that RF into heat costs more for the hardware
    >>>> & air conditioning.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The reason we use 6" line for 20 KW at 500 MHz is the skin effect, which
    >>> is quite frequency "dependent".

    >>
    >>
    >> No, it's because of losses caused by the corrugated conductors. The
    >> conductors aren't that thick to start with that the depth of the skin
    >> effect cause all the attenuation. I've had to scrap thousands of
    >> dollars worth of internally oxidized Heliax.
    >>
    >> Dielectric losses go up with frequency, as well. Compare the loss
    >> similarly constructed teflon & foam coax at 1.2 GHz. The silver plating
    >> helps reduce the resistance of the braid, but the main purpose is to
    >> prevent the copper from oxidizing due to trapped air and ingression of
    >> oxygen through the plastic jacket.
    >>
    >> That's why the rigid 6.125" O.D. coax isn't corrugated. Neither can
    >> withstand a hard vacuum, so they need to be properly pressurized with
    >> dry gas and Nitrogen gas is not only cheap, but it won't oxidize the
    >> conductor surfaces inside the coax.
    >>
    >> Look at the losses in braided VS foil 75 Ohm coax as frequency
    >> increases. The rough surface of the braid has higher losses because the
    >> path is longer and the resistance is slightly higher.
    >>

    >Why is there less loss with bigger air dielectric line at UHF?


    In a coaxial cable the EM field propagates in the dielectric, not
    in/on the inner and/or outer conductor. The outer surface of the inner
    conductor and the inner surface of the outer conductor will just
    confine the EM field into the dielectric as does the inner surface of
    a waveguide.

    For this reason, the quality of the dielectric is critical, dry air is
    nearly as good as vacuum at lower frequencies (below a few hundred
    GHz).

    In addition, the metallic surfaces should have infinite conductivity,
    but of course, skin effect and oxidation will degrade the performance.

    The 15 cm coax is not very usable at frequencies well above 1 GHz,
    since the EM field starts to propagate in some strange waveguide mode
    above these frequencies.

    For lower frequencies, coaxal cables work OK even with much larger
    dimensions, such as 50 cm coaxial "cables" at a 500 kW short wave
    station.
     
    , Mar 15, 2013
    #19
  20. RichD

    Guest

    On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:50:02 -0700, dave <>
    wrote:

    >On 03/14/2013 11:10 PM, wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:16:45 -0700, dave <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 03/12/2013 05:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> dave wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 03/12/2013 09:09 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> IR losses turn current into heat, the frequency doesn't matter. RF
    >>>>>> power costs a lot more than power from the utility company, and using a
    >>>>>> bigger transmitter to turn that RF into heat costs more for the hardware
    >>>>>> & air conditioning.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The reason we use 6" line for 20 KW at 500 MHz is the skin effect, which
    >>>>> is quite frequency "dependent".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it's because of losses caused by the corrugated conductors. The
    >>>> conductors aren't that thick to start with that the depth of the skin
    >>>> effect cause all the attenuation. I've had to scrap thousands of
    >>>> dollars worth of internally oxidized Heliax.
    >>>>
    >>>> Dielectric losses go up with frequency, as well. Compare the loss
    >>>> similarly constructed teflon & foam coax at 1.2 GHz. The silver plating
    >>>> helps reduce the resistance of the braid, but the main purpose is to
    >>>> prevent the copper from oxidizing due to trapped air and ingression of
    >>>> oxygen through the plastic jacket.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's why the rigid 6.125" O.D. coax isn't corrugated. Neither can
    >>>> withstand a hard vacuum, so they need to be properly pressurized with
    >>>> dry gas and Nitrogen gas is not only cheap, but it won't oxidize the
    >>>> conductor surfaces inside the coax.
    >>>>
    >>>> Look at the losses in braided VS foil 75 Ohm coax as frequency
    >>>> increases. The rough surface of the braid has higher losses because the
    >>>> path is longer and the resistance is slightly higher.
    >>>>
    >>> Why is there less loss with bigger air dielectric line at UHF?

    >>
    >> In a coaxial cable the EM field propagates in the dielectric, not
    >> in/on the inner and/or outer conductor. The outer surface of the inner
    >> conductor and the inner surface of the outer conductor will just
    >> confine the EM field into the dielectric as does the inner surface of
    >> a waveguide.
    >>
    >> For this reason, the quality of the dielectric is critical, dry air is
    >> nearly as good as vacuum at lower frequencies (below a few hundred
    >> GHz).
    >>
    >> In addition, the metallic surfaces should have infinite conductivity,
    >> but of course, skin effect and oxidation will degrade the performance.
    >>
    >> The 15 cm coax is not very usable at frequencies well above 1 GHz,
    >> since the EM field starts to propagate in some strange waveguide mode
    >> above these frequencies.
    >>
    >> For lower frequencies, coaxal cables work OK even with much larger
    >> dimensions, such as 50 cm coaxial "cables" at a 500 kW short wave
    >> station.
    >>

    >What is the advantage (if any) to using co-ax v. open-wire feed for
    >above HFBC example?


    Coax has the fields contained within the cable, open-wire does not.
    Structures, people, and critters in proximity to coax don't matter.
    It's a different matter with open-wire. Open wire usually requires a
    BalUn, as well.
     
    , Mar 15, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.