Introduction: The lab experiment on Fabrication and Microwave Frequency Measurement of a ring Resonators was about finding the relative dielectric constant and the response of a ring resonator. These values are found by using a ring resonator and setting a frequency signal to the ring to resonate the signal. This lab also shows how to make the ring resonators from paper or any type of electric device from fabrication. Fabrication is used to print electric devices such as printed circuit boards. Printed circuit boards can be used for just about anything from power dividers to filters. Ring resonators are used to find microwave substrates produced in the ring resonators and can be antennas to circuit boards. The FR4 Ring Resonator is used for
…show more content…
To find these values that are two devices, which have to be used to find the data for to calculate for what is being asked in the lab. The first part of the lab was to measure the ring resonator dimensions and other information. To do this an Optical Comparator and Dial indicator will be used. The Optical Comparator is able to measure the rings diameter by magnifying the ring and the use of a grid system to find the diameter and the width of the strip. The dial indicator found the thickness by placing the ring under a needle and measuring the distance from the original place of the needle found the thickness. From these devices I was able to acquire the Microstrip Width, Ring Diameter and Substrate thickness. Since I had the FR4 ring resonator my data was different due to my ring being bigger and made differently. The next part of the lab was finding the frequency …show more content…
The effective permittivity from equation 1, calculated from the experiment was Ɛeff =3.31, the class average was Ɛeff =3.31, and the literature value was Ɛeff =3.28. The class average is the same as my value due to the measurements calculated for the effective permittivity were close and did not have an number that was wrong and was due to error. The literature value shows that the value found in the lab has error in involved, but is accurate enough to be considered. The Loaded Quality (Q) Factor from equation 2, calculated from the experiment was QL= 45.51and the class average was QL= 41.2. It seems the percent error of the class average versus my value was 10.43 %. Which makes sense because my loaded Q factor was higher than most values because my 3db delta f has a lower value than the other values in the column. The first graph shown on the Anritsu 37369D was to see what the peak frequencies created looked like and the relationship between them. The relationship is that the peak frequencies double as the peaks (nodes) increase. The Relative permittivity value from equation 3, calculated from the experiment was εr = 4.39, the class average was εr = 4.38, and the literature value was εr =4.45. The Relative permittivity value had a percent error of .23% compared to the class average which shows my calculations seem to be accurate for the experiment
To find these values that are two devices, which have to be used to find the data for to calculate for what is being asked in the lab. The first part of the lab was to measure the ring resonator dimensions and other information. To do this an Optical Comparator and Dial indicator will be used. The Optical Comparator is able to measure the rings diameter by magnifying the ring and the use of a grid system to find the diameter and the width of the strip. The dial indicator found the thickness by placing the ring under a needle and measuring the distance from the original place of the needle found the thickness. From these devices I was able to acquire the Microstrip Width, Ring Diameter and Substrate thickness. Since I had the FR4 ring resonator my data was different due to my ring being bigger and made differently. The next part of the lab was finding the frequency …show more content…
The effective permittivity from equation 1, calculated from the experiment was Ɛeff =3.31, the class average was Ɛeff =3.31, and the literature value was Ɛeff =3.28. The class average is the same as my value due to the measurements calculated for the effective permittivity were close and did not have an number that was wrong and was due to error. The literature value shows that the value found in the lab has error in involved, but is accurate enough to be considered. The Loaded Quality (Q) Factor from equation 2, calculated from the experiment was QL= 45.51and the class average was QL= 41.2. It seems the percent error of the class average versus my value was 10.43 %. Which makes sense because my loaded Q factor was higher than most values because my 3db delta f has a lower value than the other values in the column. The first graph shown on the Anritsu 37369D was to see what the peak frequencies created looked like and the relationship between them. The relationship is that the peak frequencies double as the peaks (nodes) increase. The Relative permittivity value from equation 3, calculated from the experiment was εr = 4.39, the class average was εr = 4.38, and the literature value was εr =4.45. The Relative permittivity value had a percent error of .23% compared to the class average which shows my calculations seem to be accurate for the experiment