Having issues series resistive and reactive impedance matching

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the challenges of achieving impedance matching in a dual-band RF harvester circuit, specifically at a frequency of 900 MHz. The user calculated values for inductive (XL) and capacitive (XC) reactance, arriving at 545 and 550 respectively, while also considering the effects of stray capacitance from diodes. The matching network, identified as an L-match, is configured to step down impedance rather than the required step up, complicating the matching process. The user references a research paper for further insights and expresses a need to explore RF signal addition techniques.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of impedance matching techniques in RF circuits
  • Familiarity with L-match networks and their configurations
  • Knowledge of reactance calculations (XL and XC) at RF frequencies
  • Basic principles of stray capacitance and its effects in circuits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of RF signal addition techniques
  • Research the design and implementation of L-match impedance matching networks
  • Explore the effects of stray capacitance in RF circuits
  • Read the referenced research paper for advanced impedance matching strategies
USEFUL FOR

Electrical engineers, RF circuit designers, and hobbyists working on impedance matching in RF applications, particularly those dealing with dual-band RF harvesting systems.

mechorigin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Having issues with getting the same series resistive and reactive impedance of the coil and cap they did in the figures
Relevant Equations
reactance equations, angular frequency, and Q
The only thing I could think of was using Q=sqrt(6000/50)-1 = 10.9, which then gets me XL=545 and XC=550, or 96.4nH, and 0.32pF at resonance of 900Mhz. I tried seeing if Zin=Zout equation would bring me close, so I tried Z=545+(50-550)=45, then XL for 38.5nH was 217.7, and XC for 2.4pF was 74. Of course Z=217+(50-74) equals 193. so 45 does not equal 193. but then I realized there was an absorption method for the stray capacitance inherent in the diodes. totaling roughly 0.36pF for 0.18pF each diode. So from here I tried calculating the two capacitance I had as if they were in parallel, giving me around 0.68pF total. With an XL of 220, and XC of 260 I tried Z=220+(50-260)=10. Closer, but not quite. The full research paper I am referencing doing my homework on: https://www.aimspress.com/article/id/274
 

Attachments

  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    57.4 KB · Views: 200
  • 2.PNG
    2.PNG
    20.4 KB · Views: 176
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the antenna is a quarter wave vertical, presumably 50 Ohms, although I cannot see the impedance of the antenna stated. But I notice that the matching network shown, which is an L-match, is configured to produce a step down in impedance to the diodes rather than the required step up.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mechorigin
I also tend to think that it might be better to add the signals at RF rather than at DC. Adding the signals at RF gives a higher RF peak voltage.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mechorigin
Interesting, I could give that a try, although I will have to dig through my textbooks, I forgot how to add the signals at RF cause I usually do it at DC. Though I've never had to analyze something this complex before.

Yeah I would presume it was at 50 ohms as well, as well as the paper suggests it to be used with (~λ/4 at 900 MHz, and 2200?) and because the diodes have such a low forward voltage and the junction capacitance is roughly 0.18pF each, I would assume the matching circuit might have to match down as to not add more components due to parasitic effects.

Still having issues with getting the same results they did, especially in the dual-band RF harvester circuit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K