Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I
may have overlooked something very fundamental. I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve. What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and inductance ? I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume that the standard would be series form ? Would someone please advise me which it is ? Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then when I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L it would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's data were specified in parallel form.) Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here. Thanks in advance Regards David |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Q should be identical when transformed. Q = Xs/Rs = Rp/Xp. It's true
that Xs isn't exactly the same as Xp(*) (and therefore Ls isn't exactly equal to Lp), but for even a poor Q, they're much closer than typical component tolerances or even your ability to measure. Any design requiring this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered. Of course, a series-parallel conversion is correct only at a single frequency, and the Q also varies with frequency. So such conversions need to be applied with caution. (*) Xp/Xs = (Q^2 + 1) / Q^2, so the ratio is 1.01 when Q is 10, 1.0001 when Q is 100, etc. Roy Lewallen, W7EL David wrote: As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I may have overlooked something very fundamental. I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve. What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and inductance ? I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume that the standard would be series form ? Would someone please advise me which it is ? Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then when I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L it would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's data were specified in parallel form.) Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here. Thanks in advance Regards David |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy,
Thanks for your response. So basically it makes no real practical difference which way they specify the parameters. The lowest Q inductors I use have Q = 30 anyway. Regards David Roy Lewallen wrote: The Q should be identical when transformed. Q = Xs/Rs = Rp/Xp. It's true that Xs isn't exactly the same as Xp(*) (and therefore Ls isn't exactly equal to Lp), but for even a poor Q, they're much closer than typical component tolerances or even your ability to measure. Any design requiring this kind of accuracy should be reconsidered. Of course, a series-parallel conversion is correct only at a single frequency, and the Q also varies with frequency. So such conversions need to be applied with caution. (*) Xp/Xs = (Q^2 + 1) / Q^2, so the ratio is 1.01 when Q is 10, 1.0001 when Q is 100, etc. Roy Lewallen, W7EL David wrote: As I was re-reading Boswick's RF Design book it occurred to me that I may have overlooked something very fundamental. I often transform components from series to parallel form, and visa versa ,depending on what I am wanting to achieve. What I have over looked is. What form do manufacturer's state Q and inductance ? I took a look at a coil manufacturer's specs and they don't explicitly say whether the test circuit was series or parallel. I would assume that the standard would be series form ? Would someone please advise me which it is ? Though the Q would be same in either form, the inductance and loading could be slightly different.(ie. If I have assumed series form then when I transform into parallel form and calculate a specific Rp and L it would be incorrect if the inductance and Q in the manufacturer's data were specified in parallel form.) Hopefully someone can make sense of what I am getting at here. Thanks in advance Regards David |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... | Shortwave | |||
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... | Shortwave | |||
inductance loop versus inductance dipole ... | Shortwave | |||
mutual inductance / coupling coefficient | Homebrew | |||
mutual inductance / coupling coefficient | Homebrew |