UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Test Gear and Workshop Equipment

Notices

Vintage Test Gear and Workshop Equipment For discussions about vintage test gear and workshop equipment such as coil winders.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 3:40 pm   #61
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

I think you could use the shunt 'insertion loss' method with your sig gen if you built a basic log amp detector using an AD8307 chip. This would be a cheap alternative.

However, to define the 50R test port accurately you would need to use at least a 10dB attenuator on the sig gen side and I'd recommend an attenuator on the AD8307 (detector) side as well. As Hayward mentions, the accuracy of the port impedance of the detector is less important with this method but I would still use an attenuator here too. The disadvantage with this logamp method is that it will be harder to find the null because you can't see a swept display. Something like the Analog Discovery 2 plus a suitable jig would also work well here I think because it would provide a swept display and excellent log accuracy. The log accuracy of the AD8307 is very good but not in the same class as the AD2 with its 100MSa/s 14 bit ADC.

I have an old 'power meter' I made over 20 years ago that uses the AD8307. It was made when the AD8307 was first released and I recall that the log accuracy is quite good over a range of >60dB. I put a decent attenuator and compensation network inside it to get a very low port VSWR.

Otherwise, if you stick with an E/e or a -3dB Q measuring system that needs a high impedance detector that connects directly to the test circuit then you will always be battling against the limitations of the detector. HP obviously managed to make a high Z detector that behaves up to 70MHz but their circuit is quite complicated. The spec for the Marconi TF1245 detector shunt resistance is 12Meg at 1MHz. This drops to 0.3Meg by 100MHz. They achieve this with a valve (diode) detector and presumably they manage it without any negative resistance issues anywhere.

As others have said already, you will probably be fine with an Advance T2 Q meter if you only want to look at LW and MW stuff with moderate Q. It will probably give respectable performance at higher frequencies too. The homebrew meters shown on this thread would probably give reasonable results when used within these limits. However, try and measure higher Q coils at higher frequencies and they will all have significant issues I think.
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 4:59 pm   #62
Bazz4CQJ
Dekatron
 
Bazz4CQJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,924
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Although this thread is about a Q-Meter, the problem which is cropping up is actually with the high-impedance voltmeter which needs to be at the back end of it. Consequently, we are covering the same ground as we did in Skywave’s thread back in 2016, and other threads about RF probes.

Let me put my head above the parapet and ask the question, what if we forget about FET’s and think Vintage Radio… a valve, possibly a Nuvistor? Could we steal any ideas from Tek’s oscilloscope designs which used Nuvistors? I did spend some time playing with Nuvistors back in 2016, but I just don’t have the expertise to design circuits so didn’t get a result, but I’m sure someone else might well do better.

B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch.
Bazz4CQJ is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 7:17 pm   #63
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by G0HZU_JMR View Post
I think you could use the shunt 'insertion loss' method with your sig gen if you built a basic log amp detector using an AD8307 chip. This would be a cheap alternative.


As others have said already, you will probably be fine with an Advance T2 Q meter if you only want to look at LW and MW stuff with moderate Q. It will probably give respectable performance at higher frequencies too. The homebrew meters shown on this thread would probably give reasonable results when used within these limits. However, try and measure higher Q coils at higher frequencies and they will all have significant issues I think.
Only if someone wants to sell me the Advance T2

There are lots of advanced technical materials in this thread. I think it will take me a while for me to digest and "sink in". With regard to log amp detector I think you are referring to something like this:

http://www.crystal-radio.eu/enqmeting.htm

His high impedance, low capacitance FET amp schematic:

http://www.crystal-radio.eu/fetamp/enfetamp.htm


I don't have a degree in electronics or know much about modern electronics. I am still reading vintage valve books published 80 years ago. But I am familiar with the Q measurement using the ring-down method which is the same technique that I often use during the flight tests of the damped oscillation of an aircraft (my background is aerospace engineering). This is the ring-down method with a 10M coupling resistor and 10:1 probe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3mRAVo5n0


In this test(video), the voltage sensitivity of the scope is important. With this method, both 10:1 and 100:1 probes won't work with low-end basic scopes having poor vertical sensitivity mV per division. I have tried the above ring-down method with my West German Hameg HM203-6 (given to me free), it simply does not have enough vertical sensitivity.

This is the cheap Ukrainian active probe I am talking about (I dont' care about care how rubbish it is at 1GHz. It is good enough at MW frequency):

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-mic...obe-from-ebay/

My new, cheap Picoscope has died and I will have to return it. I am toying with the
idea of getting a Rigol DS1054Z or Siglent SDS1202X-E 200MHz, but I am fighting the urge

Last edited by regenfreak; 2nd Mar 2019 at 7:37 pm.
regenfreak is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2019, 7:30 pm   #64
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,800
Default Re: Q-meter questions

For those frequencies there are plenty of valves which can offer high impedances. The nuvistorishness of nuvistors doesn't really offer any electrical advantages. Tek and HP used them because of their small size.

However, the equations Jeremy's been using relating to the creation of negative resistance and instability for FETs also apply to bipolar transistors and to valves. With thermionics, you run into the same tradeoffs.

The HP FET Q-meter in order to follow the magnified voltage in the tank used higher than usual supply rails of + and - 25v to allow the FET to follow the tank voltage. Fancy bootstrapping was used to keep Z high even at the upper end of the frequency range (and this was only 70MHz) The higher voltages inherent in valve circuitry will help in this respect. But heater/cathode C is a limitation transistors don't have.

Many organisations have developed a lot of radio stuff and never owned a Q meter.

You can measure components with vector network analysers, with Rx meters, with vintage GR RF bridges (Wayne Kerr did one too) but these start getting very inaccurate at measuring the losses of high Q components. And so do Q meters! but the Q meters are useful a bit higher in Q.

Quartz crystals have Qs in the 10,000 to 1 million region and frequencies to well over 100MHz. So based on the difficulties with a simple Q meter, then measuring these must be impossible...... so there's a puzzle

David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done
Radio Wrangler is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 3:01 am   #65
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Here is the article that I was referring to..by Jacques Audet about the transmission method using the 1pF coupling caps, shunt mode transmission and reflection transmission SWR analyser method :

http://hb9abx.no-ip.biz/VE2AZX-Q-factor.pdf

Here is the "Pennywise" active probe that is the same design as the the Ukrainian one:

https://elektrotanya.com/files/forum...10/e04a036.pdf
regenfreak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 5:21 am   #66
Bazz4CQJ
Dekatron
 
Bazz4CQJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,924
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Given the admiration that's being aimed at the Advance T2, I was pleased to find that this was discussed in some detail and the full manual for it published on our very own forum, post 9 here https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/...ad.php?t=70138. Looks like it could be copied?

B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch.
Bazz4CQJ is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 8:04 am   #67
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,800
Default Re: Q-meter questions

There are a few awkward areas in it. The tapping on the mains transformer HT isn't at a disclosed voltage, but the pot following it compensates.

Note that this instrument amplitude modulates its oscillator, then detects and amplifies the modulation found at different places in the test tank. It might be a bit susceptible to the distorted mains waveforms we get today, but setting the oscillator reading should compensate.

The big uncertainty is duplicating the low inductance bar and that loop inductor.

David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done
Radio Wrangler is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 2:35 pm   #68
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenfreak View Post
Here is the article that I was referring to..by Jacques Audet about the transmission method using the 1pF coupling caps, shunt mode transmission and reflection transmission SWR analyser method :

http://hb9abx.no-ip.biz/VE2AZX-Q-factor.pdf
In that document, method #3 (Figure 4) is the method I've been suggesting that you use with a sig gen and AD8307 log amp. It's one of the two main methods I use here although I use a VNA in place of the sig gen and log amp.

As long as the sig gen has low harmonics (-50dBc would be good) and the test ports have attenuators on them to define an accurate 50 ohms then this method should be very accurate.

At resonance, the LC network reduces to just a resistor so this method becomes a potential divider. If the AD8307 has good log accuracy then you should be able to measure Q at least as well as any other method mentioned so far. You could check the accuracy using a series of 1% metal film resistors in place of the LC network. You should get very pleasing results

The only method that can (usually) compete is my other method that measure the 3dB bandwidth using E and H field probes but this is fiddly to use and is best done with a VNA. I also semi automate this method using some software I wrote to control the VNA and it measures the 3dB bandwidth.
With this method there is no source impedance error and no load impedance error. The ESR of the capacitor needs to be low and I usually use 3 ATC caps in parallel up at VHF.
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 2:55 pm   #69
Al (astral highway)
Dekatron
 
Al (astral highway)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 3,496
Default Re: Q-meter wanted

Quote:
Originally Posted by regenfreak View Post
I am only interested in unloaded Q prediction up 10 MHz for MW tank/oscillator radio and tesla coils design.
Hello, I've built quite a few Tesla coils and more recently started designing my own. The physically dominating dimensions of a well-designed main inductor ('secondary coil', airwound) for any decent power output means that it's pretty simple to accurately predict the Q using a formula.


This online calculator
from M0UKD is excellent, and measurement of the as-built just confirms that the coil is fit for purpose - the labour is already done and is irreversible (so you'd have to scrap one that was no good and start over again).

You'll usually converge on a Q of between 400-500.

Interesting thread,though!
__________________
Al
Al (astral highway) is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 3:06 pm   #70
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
This is the ring-down method with a 10M coupling resistor and 10:1 probe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3mRAVo5n0
I had a go at that method last night. I 'end fed' an LC circuit via a 0.072R source so this introduces a slight error but see below for a graph from an excel sheet containing the captured data from my old HP digital scope.

I must confess that I was too lazy and tired last night to count the number of cycles to the point where the level drops by half. But I estimated it using the X axis scale because the ringing frequency is about 547kHz. So I think the method indicates that the Q is about 330 at 547kHz. The inductor is a 50uH coil wound on an old Siemens pot core. It's a very small coil, about the size of a sugar lump. I resonated it with three 560pF Suflex caps in parallel.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Q_Ringdown0.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	71.3 KB
ID:	179319  
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 3:54 pm   #71
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

I measured the same coil and capacitor combo using the classic series LC in shunt method on my VNA. It predicts the Q is 376 at 547kHz. There is no source impedance error to correct for here because the jig has a very accurate 50R source and load impedance. There is the ESR of the caps to consider but this affects both methods the same.

If I use the Rowe formula to correct for the 0.072R source impedance then the ringdown Q of 330 corrects to 382.5. So this is very close to the Q of 376 I got with the VNA. However, I didn't measure the 50% point very accurately with the ringdown method and I'm not sure how accurate my 0.072R source is at 547kHz. So there is a lot of uncertainty here even though the numbers agree quite well once corrected.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Rowe330c.gif
Views:	52
Size:	9.5 KB
ID:	179327  
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 4:26 pm   #72
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,800
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by G0HZU_JMR View Post
The ESR of the capacitor needs to be low and I usually use 3 ATC caps in parallel up at VHF.
ATC capacitors aren't the lowest ESR around. I've found some of the 0805 AVX U family to be better than ATC 100A family.

Where the ATC caps win is in robustness. They survive things that would flash red lesser components. I stick 300W GHz bursts throuch ATC capacitors.

David
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done
Radio Wrangler is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 4:53 pm   #73
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Yes, the 100 series aren't that great. I generally use either the ATC 600S series or the 800B series for stuff like this although we do sometimes use the 100B and 600F series at work.

At work we recently received a bumper sample kit of PPI caps and these seem to be very good as well.

They sent us a shoebox full of sample bags. 10 of each value including lots of 'in between' values. This was across several series of caps so there was probably over 1500 caps in the sample box. Mainly the equivalent of 100 series ATC and also 0805 and 0603 and 0402 series.

I've used these a lot for casual dev stuff at work and they seem to be close to the ATC equivalents.

http://www.passiveplus.com/kits.php
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 5:04 pm   #74
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

I tried a quick lashup of the AD8307 method using the same inductor and cap combination. I used precision 10dB attenuators on the jig (easily made using 1% resistors) and this improves the accuracy of the 50R port impedance.

I used a sig gen that had harmonics at -45dBc or better so I didn't need a LPF to remove these. I used my 20 year old AD8307 based power sensor as the detector.

I've attached an image of a quick and dirty excel sheet to show how I calculated the Q based on the test frequency that gives a null, the test capacitance, the Jig Z of 50R, the gain slope of the AD8307 (0.025V/dB as per the datasheet) and the AD8307 RSSI voltage readings for through calibration and also the RSSI voltage when the LC resonator is added.

It gives good results as you can see in the excel sheet image below. It predicts the Q is just over 380.

The datasheet spec for the gain slope is 0.025V/dB +/- 0.002 but you could prove this using several precision (or even just 1%) shunt resistors in the jig to see if the AD8307 reports this correctly. But for most people measuring inductors with moderate Q this method should be fine without doing this. However, there will be some coils that have an ESR up towards 50 ohms or more and the jig won't be as accurate here. But you could make a jig with a higher port impedance or just accept a bit more uncertainty in the result.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AD8307_jig_excel.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	78.5 KB
ID:	179335  
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU

Last edited by G0HZU_JMR; 3rd Mar 2019 at 5:10 pm.
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 5:42 pm   #75
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Awesome Jeremy
Quote:
I had a go at that method last night. I 'end fed' an LC circuit via a 0.072R source so this introduces a slight error but see below for a graph from an excel sheet containing the captured data from my old HP digital scope.
Why does the source resistance matter? The LC tank in the ring down method is loaded and damped regardless of the 10M resistor. The 10:1 scope probe and coaxial cable have both variable impedance with increasing frequency and not quantifiable. See figure 2 below:

https://www.digikey.co.uk/en/article...loscope-probes

I have measured the DC resistor of my generic Chinese 10:1 probe set at 1:1, it is 100 Ohms. This is what I call the "Black Magic" of transmission line optimised design.

Quote:
If I use the Rowe formula to correct for the 0.072R source impedance then the ringdown Q of 330 corrects to 382.5.
Forgive my ignorance, what is the Rowe formula?

The theory of log Amp AD8307 is very involved.I would probably stay away from it.

I have come across no less than 10 methods of measuring Qu. For me the ring-down method is the easiest.

If you are a Ham guy and own MFJ-259C
SWR antenna analyser, the Reflection measurement method in Jacques Audet's article is the way to go.
regenfreak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 5:51 pm   #76
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
Hello, I've built quite a few Tesla coils and more recently started designing my own. The physically dominating dimensions of a well-designed main inductor ('secondary coil', airwound) for any decent power output means that it's pretty simple to accurately predict the Q using a formula.
Al I gather you are the expert on tesla coils as I have seen your threads I use Javatc to predict Q for spark-gap tesla coils and for the vacuum tube tesla coil, I calculate the loaded Q using the rule of thumb in Steve Ward's VTTC page. I have not tried HF tesla coil. I don't like handling MOTs, they are one-touch killers and they make neon sign transformers and flyback transformers rather "safe"

Quote:
This online calculator from M0UKD is excellent, and measurement of the as-built just confirms that the coil is fit for purpose - the labour is already done and is irreversible (so you'd have to scrap one that was no good and start over again).
How do you measure your Q? I know some coilers like to use ring-down method...or ring up and ring down
regenfreak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 7:32 pm   #77
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

I know nothing about transmission line theory as it is like antenna theory; they are like witchcraft and voodoo, on page 5, the characteristic impedance of a non-ideal coaxial cable is given. The signal behaves like wave, scary stuff! The skin effect resistance is proportional to square root of angular frequency:

http://pmaweb.caltech.edu/~ph77/hand..._11-2-2017.pdf
regenfreak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 7:38 pm   #78
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Quote:
Why does the source resistance matter?
In my case, the ESR of the 50uH inductor is about 0.45R at 547kHz.

So the 0.072R impedance of my test source is something like 15% of this. It adds to the ESR of the 50uH inductor and spoils its Q.

So if I don't correct my measured Q (after doing the ring down method with the 0.072R source) then I'll get a result that is a bit lower than it should be.

Quote:
Forgive my ignorance, what is the Rowe formula?
It's an equation that corrects for the low reading due to the 0.072R source impedance. It is equation (10) in the link Argus25 gave to the Rowe homebrew Qmeter. See the image below.

A similar damping error obviously occurs if you damp the LC circuit using probes as the probes will place a shunt resistance across the circuit under test and this spoils the Q. However, you would need a revised version of the equation to cope with shunt damping as the Rowe equation is for series damping.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	RoweEquation10.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	105.7 KB
ID:	179367  
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 9:10 pm   #79
regenfreak
Heptode
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: London SW16, UK.
Posts: 655
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Thanks Jeremy
I will go away and think about it

This explains the mystery of why scope cable has the dc resistance of 50 to 200 ohms:

https://www.dfad.com.au/links/THE%20...ES%20OCt09.pdf

I must say it is a very good article

Last edited by regenfreak; 3rd Mar 2019 at 9:32 pm.
regenfreak is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2019, 11:41 pm   #80
G0HZU_JMR
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: Q-meter questions

Yes, a typical x10 scope probe will often prove to be unsuitable as a high impedance sniffer.

At RF frequencies, the equivalent shunt resistance of a x10 scope probe will drop quite quickly. By 5 or 6MHz it could be as low as 100,000 ohms in parallel with about 12pF. By 20MHz that will drop to maybe 8,000 ohms in parallel with 12pF. So this is not good at all and will usually damp a tuned circuit.
For example, a 1uH inductor wound on a T50-6 powdered iron toroid might have a Qu of about 200 at 20MHz and this would have an Rp of 25,000 ohms. So that is about three times the Rp of a x10 scope probe at the same frequency! So the x10 scope probe would damp the Q of the inductor from 200 to about 50 at 20MHz.
__________________
Regards, Jeremy G0HZU
G0HZU_JMR is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 am.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.