Why are the S11 and S22 dips different in my microstrip resonator measurement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter uWave_Matt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Variation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the unexpected differences in S11 and S22 dips in a microstrip resonator designed for 10GHz. The resonator's dimensions were altered due to over etching, with the gap now closer to 10um instead of the intended 5um. Users suggest that the discrepancies could be due to feed line length, coupling gap variation, or potential issues with the VNA. The importance of switching ports for accurate reflection measurements is emphasized, as is the need for proper calibration over the frequency range. The resonator is made from high-temperature superconducting material, which could lead to significant changes in S-parameters upon cooling.
uWave_Matt
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I've fabricated a simple half-wave microstrip resonator with gap-coupled microstrip feed lines. It's designed to operate around 10GHz, but due to slight over etching, the half-wave portion is 5-10um shorter than I intended. What might be more significant is that the gap, which was originally designed to be 5um, is now closer to 10um.

I'm not sure if any of the aforementioned is relevant to my question...when I characterize the device on the "trusty" HP8510, my S22 dip (9.7GHz) occurs at a slightly lower frequency than my S11 dip (10.5GHz) and has a significantly greater (more negative) magnitude.

So far, I've double checked all of my calibrations.

I suspect feed line length (where my contact touch the feed line), coupling gap variation, or perhaps a problem with the 8510. Does anyone have any other thoughts?

I've posted this question on another forum and it was suggested that I use "stepped" mode instead of "swept" mode. Does anyone know where these settings are?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
If the resonator is symmetric S11 should be indentical to S22, meaning your result doesn't make physical sense which in turn would point to a problem with the VNA.
Have you tried switching ports? I.e. connected port 1 to "port B" of the resonator and vice versa. The result of a reflection measurement should obviously not depend on which port of the VNA you use.

Also, it can't be a calibration issue as such; when you calibrate a VNA you calibrate the magnitude and not the frequency (although if the calibration if way off the position of the peak might appear to move; simply becaue the magnitude is wrong).

What is the Q (roughly) of your resonator?
 
f95toli said:
If the resonator is symmetric S11 should be indentical to S22, meaning your result doesn't make physical sense which in turn would point to a problem with the VNA.
Have you tried switching ports? I.e. connected port 1 to "port B" of the resonator and vice versa. The result of a reflection measurement should obviously not depend on which port of the VNA you use.

I've rotated the jig that the resonator is in which effectively causes S11 and S22 to switch. This is just the room temperature measurement. I'm dealing with HTSC material so the S-parameters should be significantly different after I cool the chamber.


f95toli said:
Also, it can't be a calibration issue as such; when you calibrate a VNA you calibrate the magnitude and not the frequency (although if the calibration if way off the position of the peak might appear to move; simply becaue the magnitude is wrong).

But you have to calibrate the magnitude over a certain frequency range.

f95toli said:
What is the Q (roughly) of your resonator?

Since it's an HTSC, the Q-should be just about humongous. Another HTSC resonator fabricated in this lab had Q>10000 and I've calculated the Q of this one to be close to that.

I should also mention that one of the coaxial lines from the VNA to the jig is 4-5 time longer than the other, although I'd assume calibration would take care of this.
 
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...

Similar threads

Back
Top