| ![]() | ![]() | |||||||
| |||||||||
Comments: Dear Rafi, thanks for this great description. I have implemented a similar approach but have not yet understood the theory enough to find out how to tune the filters. Due to your explanation I do know how to now. One questions remains: What is the temperature stability for the industrial temperature range? Chris Christian Honegger, Siemens Building Technologies Reference Guide Winner Comments: Given the challenge of converting an optimized netlist (equivalent circuit) into a physical design, I find it easier to start with a physical design that can be optimized for electrical performance according to physical attributes. Viewing the netlist topology and values may be better for understanding how component values (i.e. shunt capacitance or series inductance) affect filter performance, but I think it may be better to obtain first pass values from a lumped element version but quickly move over to a physical version before investing alot of time optimizing. I also agree on the importance of EM design validation before fabricating any prototypes. Of course, my work is mostly in microstrip, so this approach may not be for everyone. Thanks for the info, Rafi. Mike Michael Fallon, BAE Reference Guide Winner Comments:Dear Rafi, I was glad I caught your presentation in the MicroApps in IMS2007, and now this article which provides some valuable insight to the design of diplexers. We're trying to design some diplexers and multiplexers using LTCC technology, as part of a integrated microwave module development. For the narrowband signals (e.g. point frequencies) we can do it reasonably fast using loop directional filters, but we're facing some problems with those requiring more than 30% fractional bandwidth for the passband (some about up to 50%), as loop filters will not be appropriate for such bandwidth. One approach we are considering is to use 3D planar LC implementation for the wider passband requirements (centered at, say, X-band). Can you can offer us some advice on the potential pitfalls for this intended approach, and advice on how to tune the bandpass & bandstop separately? Another approach we're considering is to use a pair of wideband 3-dB couplers (maybe using re-entrant coupling for the mid coupling section) with a pair of conventional "reflective" filters to form a directional filter. We have noticed from past measurements that we can't implement bandpass filters with high rejection (i.e. beyond 40 dB rejection)at high frequencies (X-band and beyond) unless we have proper chassis for the housing of the filter (i.e. implementing the side "PEC" walls). If we wish to implement this approach completely in LTCC (i.e. having the pair of conventional filters and 3 dB couplers desiged as embedded passive components in the stackup and without any mechanical chassis surrounding the passive components), and we want the filters to have up to, say, 65 to 80 dB of rejection, will we still face the same problem as mentioned above (i.e. not able to obtain high rejection without the side "PEC" walls), or will this problem be minimised since the pair of filters are now part of a directional filter, which is an absorptive filter (i.e. should not be facing the same problems as a more commonly found reflective filter)? Your advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you, and best regards. Kevin Kevin Ho, DSO National Laboratories
Comments: Dear Rafi, your presentation is very interesting and well focused on to highlight interference/spurious mitigation aspects about Mixer/Up Down Converter chains. In my experience, I`ve found that in order to BRF the "Holy Bible" of the Filter Design (Matthei, Young) is not as reach of pratical design aspects as BPF. So, facing the need to design two tunables Band Reject cavity filters (Frequency Band 5 GHz and 8 GHz), and giving the difficult to full model and optimize a consistent equivalent circuit which can match the "real" performance of the BRF, I`ve implemented a solution using a three port device (circulator). The incoming signal feeds the port One of the circulator, the port 2 is connected to the input port of a BPF(1) (the output port of the filter is connected to a 50 Ohm Wide Band Industrial Load). The output port of the signal is the third port of the circulator and is connected to a BPF(2). The BPF(1) is optimized from the point of view of the S11 (input matching) into the band where unwanted signals are present, providing Band Stop effect onto incoming signal, as needed, and low loss and good power handling. Up to 35% of the fractional Bandwidth is achievable, in addition it is possible separatly tuning of the BPF(1) and (2). The jointly effect of BPF(1) and BPF(2) allows to maximize attenuation of unwanted signals in a localized Band. Moreover this approach enables to focus the simulation and optimization on a BPF model, which has a great coverage in the literature. My work is mostly focused in cavity filters, but I think this approach may be extended to the others technologies. What do you think about this? Many thanks for your attention and cooperation Andrea Costa Selex Communications Andrea Costa, Selex Communications | Disclaimers: Responses submitted to Expert Advice are collected for sole use by Microwave Journal and www.MWJournal.com. Names and company affiliations may be published with responses according to our editorial policies. Email addresses are collected in case we need to contact you. Mailing address information submitted for the delivery of the Engineer's Handbook is collected solely for this purpose. Email addresses and mailing addresses are not published and are not shared with any third party. This form is not a magazine subscription application nor a Website registration. For magazine registration services, please click here. Individuals may continue to respond beyond the prize limit (5 total per month) but will not be eligible for receiving the complimentary Engineer's Handbook. | ||||||||
![]() |