[amsat-bb] Re: 1/2 Wave "cavity" filter design?
domenico.i8cvs at tin.it
Sun Jul 21 11:42:54 PDT 2013
If the the classic 1/2 wave cavity filter you need is for 144 MHz you will
find the answere to all your questions in my article:
"Filter and Receiver Front End Protection Device for 144 MHz EME "
published with all building details into the AMSAT Journal May/June
If it is for 70 cm you will find the description ,drawings and application
in the following address.
BTW in a separate email I have sent to you a pdf file of my article for
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga at usna.edu>
To: "amsat bb" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 6:33 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] 1/2 Wave "cavity" filter design?
> Given the classic 1/2 wave cavity filter, what is the relationship
> between inner cavity and center conductor sizes? Of course bigger is
> better, but what is "OK".
> This is a 1/2 wavelength tube with a center conductor shorted at each
> end. The input is loop coupled at one end, an output is loop coupled
> at the other end. In the middle is a tiny variable capacitor (usually
> just a screw) to tune to resonance.
> In the limit, as the cavity size shrinks, you can end up with what
> could be considered as just a piece of 1/2wave coax.
> Im looking for a really cheap Home-Depot plumbing design that 15
> people can reproduce to give them good front end antenna filtering
> when operating on mountain tops adjacent to other RF souces. (say
> within 100 yards, not permanent installations which of course should
> spare no expense at getting the best cavities possible).
> We just finished our 4th annual Golden Packet attempt from Maine to
> Georgia along the Appalachian trail and many stations were plagued
> with front end overload. http://aprs.org/at-golden-packet.html
> I'd like to come up with a 3/4" copper pipe design that is robust,
> provides sevral dB of out of band rejection. Im trying to understand
> the parameters that drive the size of the center conductor. Normally
> bigger is better for better bandwidth, but I think smaller will give
> me steeper skirts and better rejection? I dont mind say 2 or more dB
> insertion loss, because as it is, front end-overload is making us
> totally deaf and anything would be bettter.
> Lastly, I think such a 1/2wave filter will also pass as a 1.5wave pass
> filter on UHF. We need dual band, since we use dual band rigs and
> coordinate on UHF voice from the same antennas and coax used for the
> VHF packet.
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
More information about the AMSAT-BB