Neil Wyatt | 27/03/2017 21:28:17 |
![]() 19226 forum posts 749 photos 86 articles | Posted by Michael Gilligan on 27/03/2017 14:12:42:
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 27/03/2017 11:29:40:
... So why is it done? I'm starting to suspect that even engineers, who should know that "quality" is meaningless without a well specified purpose, may have fallen into "the expensive one must be the best" trap. Or is it just that the 'obvious' benefits of silver's low conductivity became 'industry best practice' and no-one's ever challenged it? . I think that it's because electro-plated Silver is of consistently high purity and quality ... whereas the undelying Copper is almost certainly not super-dooper mono-crystalline stuff. MichaelG. They keep that for ICE systems and wiring up HIFI |
Neil Wyatt | 27/03/2017 21:30:30 |
![]() 19226 forum posts 749 photos 86 articles | Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 27/03/2017 20:17:19:
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/03/2017 11:29:10:
May be a silly question, but does the diameter of the rods matter? A 1% increase in diameter will give a 3% increase in surface area, bringinging nearly all the improvement silver would give (assuming Russell's calculation is correct). Neil Yes, the diameter of the rod matters but a 1% increase in diameter will only reduce the resistance by 1%. The current is flowing within a thin skin, the skin depth doesn't change with the diameter so the cross sectional area of the conduction region will also change by 1%. The length of the rod remains the same. So the resistance will drop by 1% and the Q will increase by 1%. The box size would also need to be increased to maintain the same characteristic impedance of the resonators. So, scaling the design up by 4% should give the same reduction in passband loss as the silver plating. Russell. Ahem, skin depth may not change, but a diameter increase of 1% means circumferential change of 3.14%m, therefore an area change of 3.14% Neil
|
SillyOldDuffer | 27/03/2017 21:44:10 |
10668 forum posts 2415 photos | Posted by Steve Withnell on 27/03/2017 21:09:03:
... Changing the rod diameter does not change the Q ...
Steve ...
That's a bit suspicious. Perhaps the calculator only does an approximation? I know nothing about designing filters but that seems counter-intuitive. I may have a book somewhere. Dave |
Russell Eberhardt | 28/03/2017 07:58:19 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/03/2017 21:30:30:
Ahem, skin depth may not change, but a diameter increase of 1% means circumferential change of 3.14%m, therefore an area change of 3.14% Neil
Circumference = pi x D pi is constant so circumference is proportional to D Russell |
Andrew Johnston | 28/03/2017 09:08:27 |
![]() 7061 forum posts 719 photos | I doubt there will be much of a material difference in performance by using silver plating. Agreed that the resistivity of silver is slightly better than copper. However, to make use of the increase the plating thickness will need to be higher than quoted in the original post. While AC currents tend to flow on the outer surface of a conductor they do not all flow within the skin depth. Only around 63% of the current flows in the skin depth. However, most of the current (>98%) does flow in a band 4 times the skin depth. So ideally the silver plating would need to be around 8µm thick. I'll be interested to know how the performance of the filter will be assessed. In my experience measuring small percentage changes at RF is pretty tricky, even with a bench full of HP test gear. The diameter of the tubes will certainly have an effect on the tuning of the filter. A long time ago I made some ground probing radar antennas, and we had to change the resonator length slightly as they were designed using imperial rod, but I could only get metric diameters. Andrew |
Russell Eberhardt | 28/03/2017 09:12:41 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 27/03/2017 21:44:10:
That's a bit suspicious. Perhaps the calculator only does an approximation? Agreed. Unfortunately I cleared out my text books when I retired and moved to France so have to rely on memory. Russell (former RF engineer) |
Ian S C | 28/03/2017 12:41:35 |
![]() 7468 forum posts 230 photos | Just having a look in one of my ARRL publications, and they suggest that there is a plating powder that is applied with a damp cloth, it's called COOL-AMP, made by a company of that name,8603 S>W> 17th Ave., Portland, Oregon. Unfortunately it is only sold in 1lb jars, and that will cover 6000 sq inches. This method is considered an alternative to the normal electrolytic method with cyanide. After plating the ARRL recommend that you spray with lacquer to protect the surface(doesn't effect soldering). At UHF it's probably worth while going the silver plating way. Ian S C
Edited By Ian S C on 28/03/2017 12:47:09 |
Russell Eberhardt | 28/03/2017 17:28:16 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | You can buy the same powder on ebay; silvering powder I've used it successfully on clock faces but I am dubious that the thickness will be adequate to make any significant difference. Russell. |
SillyOldDuffer | 28/03/2017 17:50:25 |
10668 forum posts 2415 photos | Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 28/03/2017 09:12:41:
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 27/03/2017 21:44:10:
That's a bit suspicious. Perhaps the calculator only does an approximation? Agreed. Unfortunately I cleared out my text books when I retired and moved to France so have to rely on memory. Russell (former RF engineer) Did a bit of swotting and found that Q can be calculated from: Q = f0 / (f1 - f2) where: f0 is the centre frequency, and f1 and f2 are the frequencies either side of f0 where the response falls to 0.71 of maximum. I guess the online calculator crunches an expected response curve and then suggests a likely Q from that. As such perhaps it's unlikely to account for small differences in Q caused by less significant factors. I haven't found anything (yet) in my amateur library on either Intradigital Filters or any evidence supporting silver plating. (Though it's frequently recommended.) A new mystery. My 1938 Admiralty Wireless Telegraphy Handbook says that antenna wire performance is damaged by funnel smoke and that they should be cleaned regularly. Insulators yes, but cleaning the wires themselves? Dave
|
Neil Wyatt | 28/03/2017 18:09:44 |
![]() 19226 forum posts 749 photos 86 articles | Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 28/03/2017 07:58:19:
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 27/03/2017 21:30:30:
Ahem, skin depth may not change, but a diameter increase of 1% means circumferential change of 3.14%m, therefore an area change of 3.14% Neil
Circumference = pi x D pi is constant so circumference is proportional to D Russell DOH! However, my intuitive feeling that skin cross sectional area increases more than diameter is correct. Imagine a 10mm rod with a 5mm skin - the skin occupies the whole cross section of the rod. Increase rod diameter to 20mm, rod area is now four times as great, and the skin reaches all but a 10mm diameter in the middle so its cross-sectional area has tripled. BUT my mistake was to extrapolate this effect to thinner skins and larger diameters. For a thin skin in relation to the diameter the effect is much smaller. A 150% increase in the diameter of a 10mm rod with a 0.1mm skin increases the skin cross section by 152%.
|
Russell Eberhardt | 29/03/2017 08:00:27 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 28/03/2017 17:50:25:
Did a bit of swotting and found that Q can be calculated from: Q = f0 / (f1 - f2) where: f0 is the centre frequency, and f1 and f2 are the frequencies either side of f0 where the response falls to 0.71 of maximum. Rather than being a method of predicting Q that is a method of measuring Q but it only applies to a single tuned circuit not coupled resonators. To calculate the performance of a coupled resonator filter you need to know the Q of each resonator (usually assumed to all be the same) and plug the numbers into the mathematics of the circuit design. The main determinant of the Q of the resonators is the effective series resistance at the working frequency hence the need to know the resistivity of the material and the skin depth. Russell. |
Michael Gilligan | 29/03/2017 08:37:15 |
![]() 23121 forum posts 1360 photos | Posted by Neil Wyatt on 28/03/2017 18:09:44:
[...] BUT my mistake was to extrapolate this effect to thinner skins and larger diameters. . Or perhaps the mistake was to assume that the thick layer you described would qualify as a skin. MichaelG. . I am way out of my depth here [please forgive the inevitable pun] but ... I think this 'calculator' may be of interest: http://chemandy.com/calculators/skin-effect-calculator.htm
|
Clive Hartland | 29/03/2017 09:55:46 |
![]() 2929 forum posts 41 photos | While working on a VHF equipment we had lots of problems due to humidity, solved it by making a tray with 2 x 100 watt bulbs under the stack of trays that made up the equipment. Obviously the moisture affected the Rf in some way making it unusable? Clive |
Russell Eberhardt | 29/03/2017 10:26:50 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/03/2017 08:37:15:
... I think this 'calculator' may be of interest: http://chemandy.com/calculators/skin-effect-calculator.htm
That seems to tie up fairly well with the results from my Excel spreadsheet that I wrote some 30 years ago Russell |
Russell Eberhardt | 29/03/2017 10:31:13 |
![]() 2785 forum posts 87 photos | Posted by Clive Hartland on 29/03/2017 09:55:46:
While working on a VHF equipment we had lots of problems due to humidity, solved it by making a tray with 2 x 100 watt bulbs under the stack of trays that made up the equipment. Obviously the moisture affected the Rf in some way making it unusable? Clive Yes, apart from corrosion, a high level of water in the air is likely to change its permittivity and thus any capacitance effects. Russell |
Michael Gilligan | 29/03/2017 11:11:01 |
![]() 23121 forum posts 1360 photos | Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 29/03/2017 10:26:50:
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/03/2017 08:37:15:
... I think this 'calculator' may be of interest: http://chemandy.com/calculators/skin-effect-calculator.htm
That seems to tie up fairly well with the results from my Excel spreadsheet that I wrote some 30 years ago Russell . That's encouraging, Russell MichaelG. . [quote] From Transmission Lines and Networks by Walter C. Johnson, McGraw-Hill 1963 p58. |
Ian S C | 29/03/2017 12:33:28 |
![]() 7468 forum posts 230 photos | Dave, I think the reference to funnel smoke may be because of the corrosive action of wet sulphurous coal soot on the copper wire, Bunker oil also has a high sulphurer content. Ian S C |
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.