I rolled the dice on a pair of filters and received Toyocom 45E1A9Fs which show up here as two pole filters at 1200 ohm termination impedance. If I parallel those will I bring that impedance down to 600 and should that be a goal? Should I try both in parallel? I do have a modest spectrum analyzer to take a look at the results with.
John
KC9OJV
|
Warren,
>>1) 120 mVrms is far above the audio level that caused unacceptable IMD before the filter mod. IMD must be checked and the audio levels adjusted to make it acceptable.
The problem is the balanced mod easily takes that but the gain after it means the 2nd mixer gets
hit with a very high level.? With that the output of that mixer is high and that leads to the next
mixer getting overloaded.? There is too much gain after the balanced mod.? This is why the
balanced mod needs such a low input.
Allison
|
Now that I know how to make one, I like doing that if I¡¯m going to do digital. ? Common mode and unbalanced currents wreck havoc with digital systems.
But for the first 35 years that I was a ham, I didn¡¯t even know what they were. ? Somehow or another I made thousands of contacts and had a ton of ?fun.?
Here are some references that might help you with baluns (there are many good ones)?
Cheers,
Gordon kx4z
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Oh, thanks! I'm looking for an SWR-meter meanwhile. And about the balun ? Is it a "MUST HAVE" ?
|
Oh, thanks! I'm looking for an SWR-meter meanwhile. And about the balun ? Is it a "MUST HAVE" ?
|
Get an SWR meter. ? old CB types work fine. $15
Most people use 50 ohm coax , but even 75 will work fine.?
Make a dipole, test the swr, adjust as necessary
That¡¯s how many of us started out over the years.
read, read, read, read, and learn, because there are lots of myths that float ?around. ?ARRL ?has good books.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hey! I'm Daniel and a few days ago I ordered a uBitx from . I'm quite new to ham radio and I'll appreciate some advices about a suitable antenna for this transceiver. Of course I count for a dipole but I don't actually understand some facts: Shall I need a 1:1 balun or it will easily work without
? Shall I use a 75 ohm coaxial cable or stick to 50 ohm? I know that the impedance of a dipole is close to 73 ohm or so ...? I also do not have any antenna tuner, SWR-meter or antenna analyzer for the moment. Is there any chance to get on air with a properly
dimensioned antenna without these tools? Thanks!
|
Actually - that makes a lot of sense Raj b/c the two ends of the filter seem to be capacitively coupled internally according to the spec sheet. It would be great to see the ultimate results of that. Could you share those results?
|
I searched for this problem to no avail. So I am posting in case someone has an answer.
I bought a new uBitX, and installed it in the case from Amateurradiokits.in.
Upon powering up the display shows:
uBITX v4.3
LSB A: 7.149.950
If I turn the encoder to change frequency, the display shifts from 7.149.950 to 7.149.900. back and forth as I turn, either CW or CCW.
If I push the encoder, the display shows Band Select >
Turning the encoder does nothing
Push encoder again and I get display showing Band Select:
Turning the encoder now changes display between 7.349.900 and 7.149.900.
If I power off, then back on, sometimes the frequencies shown in the display are a little bit different (some times when in band select, the display will change from 7.149.900 to 6.949.900, or similar).
With an antenna attached I can hear signals from the speaker (noise, occasionally someone¡¯s transmission). So I know the receiver works. If I push the PTT the relays click. I assume transmitter works too.
I thought I had a bad encoder, so I bought a new one from Digikey. Same results.
Power supply is 13.27 volts.
Power to raduino is 5 volts.
Someone suggested pin 3 may be shorted to ground causing raduino problems, but I checked and not grounded.
All wiring triple checked (or more).
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks
73
Mark
W3MSR
|
Thanks Jerry! ?
On Sep 8, 2018, at 14:02, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io < jgaffke@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Those messing with 45mhz filters might want to revisit the code of post:? ?
That post provides an easy an intuitive way to put your USB or LSB signal into a desired spot in the 45mhz passband.
If there are two 45mhz filters involved, they should be matched.
If that code is puzzling, then check out this post:??
Jerry
|
Those messing with 45mhz filters might want to revisit the code of post:? ? /g/BITX20/message/44278That post provides an easy an intuitive way to put your USB or LSB signal into a desired spot in the 45mhz passband. If there are two 45mhz filters involved, they should be matched. If that code is puzzling, then check out this post:?? /g/BITX20/message/44515Jerry
|
|
|
Unfortunately in the uBitx design all three clocks are feeding impedance is a good bit lower than the maximum one suggested. ?
These outputs are CMOS outputs, are they not?
So they have active device up and active ?device down, and the impedance is constantly changing as one device turns on and the other turns off. ?It¡¯s a digital system made out of analog parts.
So sure, running through a 50 ohm transmission line you would get some reflections, to a higher than 50 ohm load, but the line lengths ?so tiny fractions of a wavelength here that probably doesn¡¯t make that much difference. ??
I¡¯m not familiar with ground bounce, but because of these low impedance loadings, signals are getting coupled ?from one output to the other.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Allison
Thanks.? You may have just saved me from overloading some of a recent purchase of Si5351a devices.
I too was under the impression that 50 ohms meant 50 ohms, instead of "use a 50 ohm line and a much
higher termination".? That though does raise a question regarding 50 ohm line with significantly higher
impedance termination at the extreme upper frequency limits?? Might this cause higher reflected signal
on that 50 ohm line?? Maybe it doesn't matter?
Arv
_._
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM RCBoatGuy via Groups.Io <ijnfan-HamRadio= [email protected]> wrote:
Allison,
I'm afraid if you tested the way you described in your original post on this thread, you weren't testing for crosstalk.? I believe what you measured wasn't cross-talk at all, but rather ground bounce due to current starvation of the Si5351 output buffers.
I've attached the Si5351 datasheet.? On page 5, Silicon Labs gives the following specs:
Vddox, output buffer voltage => 3 ranges, 1.8V +/- 0.9V (5%), 2.5V +/- 0.25V (10%), and 3.3V +/- 0.3V (9.09%).? ?The Raduino uses a 3.3V supply for Vddox.
Iddox -? output buffer supply current per output => 2.2mA typical, 5.6mA max
Zo, output impedence @ 3.3V => 50 ohms
Note this is output impedence, which is very misleading.? The spec is not saying to use an output load of 50 ohms (Rload).? It is saying we need to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence to reach the destination Rload.? So we need to calculate the mimimum output load
(Rload) that the output driver can drive.
Rload = Vddox/Iddox = 3.3 / 0.0056 = 589.3 ohms.? This is the minimum load the output can drive, as it gives the maximum allowed output supply current.? Exceed this spec and you enter current starvation on the power supply to the output buffer.
You stated that you used both a 50-ohm load (not impedence) and a 25-ohm load (not impedence) for your cross-talk testing.
With a 50-ohm load, Iddox = V/R = 3.3 / 50 = 66mA, which is more than 10x the maximum allowed output buffer supply current.
With a 25-ohm load, you subjected the part to 132mA Iddox!?
In both cases, the output buffers are so power starved that the chip internally can't supply enough Vddox to control the output buffers.? The result is ground bounce on all the outputs, not cross-talk.? This is typical behavior for digital chip output drivers
whose output specs are violated in such a manner.? It also explains why you didn't see as much signal on the Si5351 outputs as you expected.?
The Zo spec was meant to say that the chip was designed to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence (either a 50-ohm coax or a 50-ohm micro-strip line on a PCB) to its load (Rload), not that you could use a 50-ohm or 25-ohm termination as the Rload.? An example of this
appears on page 22 of the Si5351 datasheet.? Here the datasheet describes using the part to drive 2 clock outputs with 180 degree phase difference, but the example circuit shows driving the Si5341 clock outputs thru a 50-ohm coax to a voltage divider for the
receiving circuit that presents an Rload of 511 ohms + 240 ohms = 751 ohms to each? Si5351 output buffer.? This gives an Iddox = 3.3 / 751 = 4.4mA, well within the 5.6mA max Iddox spec.
I suggest you repeat your cross-talk tests using an appropriate Rload value at the end of a 50-ohm line for each clock output and see how much cross-talk you see.
73,
Carl,? K0MWC
|
Warren,
That IMD could be in the IF amps (Too much gain for 2n3904's at 45mhz?? Mixer overload?)
or in the power amp.? If IMD gets worse when RV1 is cranked up, that would suggest it's in the PA.
If it's in the 45mhz IF, the new filter will help but is too wide to clean up the immediately adjacent channels.
Seems it should be straightforward to clean up this IMD on v5, but may take lots of small hacks to?
clean up existing rigs.? Fortunately, at 5 or 10 watts out it seems to not be just too bothersome as
I don't recall any reports of trouble in the forum.? But it should be fixed on v5, and v3,v4
should not be used with an external high powered linear.
Jerry
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 09:30 AM, Warren Allgyer wrote:
Before the mod the radio showed terrible IMD at any input level higher that about 25 mV and, at that level, the radio produced less than 2 watts. If it turns out the filter is a 'magic bullet' and the radio can actually sustain this level of input with acceptable IMD, then the input audio stages need more gain.
|
|
|
Hi all, good job.?
1.The output? of 45-2pole in C22 position needs transformer 50/600 and small C <10 pF- it will have close to flat responce.
2.As I wrote befor as main filter I used SMD: DSF753SDF 4POLE marked as D45015GQ +/-7.5 dB. I put it on board on the back side and used transformers 4t/10t in small binocular 2402.
Best to all George.
|
Re: Right-sided relay harmonic attempted fix for v3/4 ubitx
All three relays are de-energized during received, so contacts are as shown in the uBitx schematic with a path through the 10m filter. At the start of transmit, the following routine gets called (file ubitx_20.ino of the stock HFSignals firmware) Should be readable enough even if you've never seen C code before. Jerry #########################################
void setTXFilters(unsigned long freq){
?
? if (freq > 21000000L){? // the default filter is with 35 MHz cut-off
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_A, 0);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_B, 0);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_C, 0);
? }
? else if (freq >= 14000000L){ //thrown the KT1 relay on, the 30 MHz LPF is bypassed and the 14-18 MHz LPF is allowd to go through
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_A, 1);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_B, 0);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_C, 0);
? }
? else if (freq > 7000000L){
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_A, 1);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_B, 1);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_C, 0);
? }
? else {
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_A, 1);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_B, 1);
? ? digitalWrite(TX_LPF_C, 1);
? }
}
##################################
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 09:33 AM, Brent Seres/ VE3CUS wrote:
Just a question, and I apologize if it's been covered before.
Could someone tell me the LPF relay sequencing for the existing ubitx configuration? What relays are energized for what frequency ranges? I want to figure out the logic for building an off board LPF solution using a cleaner layout and switching (ie..1 relay path only per filter...or separate relays at the input and output of each filter....basically a more symetrical, conventional layout.
Thanks for everyone's help
Brent
|
Re: Right-sided relay harmonic attempted fix for v3/4 ubitx
Just a question, and I apologize if it's been covered before.
Could someone tell me the LPF relay sequencing for the existing ubitx configuration? What relays are energized for what frequency ranges? I want to figure out the logic for building an off board LPF solution using a cleaner layout and switching (ie..1 relay path only per filter...or separate relays at the input and output of each filter....basically a more symetrical, conventional layout.
Thanks for everyone's help
Brent
|
More data...... Comparison of CW power out with SSB power out using the added 45 MHz filter:
The chart was made by adjusting RV1 to maximum key down CW power, and then keying PTT with an input tone at the specified level. There are a couple of caveats here:
1) 120 mVrms is far above the audio level that caused unacceptable IMD before the filter mod. IMD must be checked and the audio levels adjusted to make it acceptable.
2) 120 mVrms is also far above the output level of most microphones, at least without shouting. If IMD is bad at this level then the audio level must be reduced. Before the mod the radio showed terrible IMD at any input level higher that about 25 mV and, at that level, the radio produced less than 2 watts. If it turns out the filter is a 'magic bullet' and the radio can actually sustain this level of input with acceptable IMD, then the input audio stages need more gain.
Kees, I have no plan to change out the original filter at this point. It is pretty moot until we know what the IMD is.
WA8TOD
|
Allison
Thanks.? You may have just saved me from overloading some of a recent purchase of Si5351a devices. I too was under the impression that 50 ohms meant 50 ohms, instead of "use a 50 ohm line and a much
higher termination".? That though does raise a question regarding 50 ohm line with significantly higher
impedance termination at the extreme upper frequency limits?? Might this cause higher reflected signal
on that 50 ohm line?? Maybe it doesn't matter?
Arv _._
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM RCBoatGuy via Groups.Io <ijnfan-HamRadio= [email protected]> wrote: Allison,
I'm afraid if you tested the way you described in your original post on this thread, you weren't testing for crosstalk.? I believe what you measured wasn't cross-talk at all, but rather ground bounce due to current starvation of the Si5351 output buffers.
I've attached the Si5351 datasheet.? On page 5, Silicon Labs gives the following specs:
Vddox, output buffer voltage => 3 ranges, 1.8V +/- 0.9V (5%), 2.5V +/- 0.25V (10%), and 3.3V +/- 0.3V (9.09%).? ?The Raduino uses a 3.3V supply for Vddox.
Iddox -? output buffer supply current per output => 2.2mA typical, 5.6mA max
Zo, output impedence @ 3.3V => 50 ohms
Note this is output impedence, which is very misleading.? The spec is not saying to use an output load of 50 ohms (Rload).? It is saying we need to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence to reach the destination Rload.? So we need to calculate the mimimum output load (Rload) that the output driver can drive.
Rload = Vddox/Iddox = 3.3 / 0.0056 = 589.3 ohms.? This is the minimum load the output can drive, as it gives the maximum allowed output supply current.? Exceed this spec and you enter current starvation on the power supply to the output buffer.
You stated that you used both a 50-ohm load (not impedence) and a 25-ohm load (not impedence) for your cross-talk testing.
With a 50-ohm load, Iddox = V/R = 3.3 / 50 = 66mA, which is more than 10x the maximum allowed output buffer supply current.
With a 25-ohm load, you subjected the part to 132mA Iddox!?
In both cases, the output buffers are so power starved that the chip internally can't supply enough Vddox to control the output buffers.? The result is ground bounce on all the outputs, not cross-talk.? This is typical behavior for digital chip output drivers whose output specs are violated in such a manner.? It also explains why you didn't see as much signal on the Si5351 outputs as you expected.?
The Zo spec was meant to say that the chip was designed to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence (either a 50-ohm coax or a 50-ohm micro-strip line on a PCB) to its load (Rload), not that you could use a 50-ohm or 25-ohm termination as the Rload.? An example of this appears on page 22 of the Si5351 datasheet.? Here the datasheet describes using the part to drive 2 clock outputs with 180 degree phase difference, but the example circuit shows driving the Si5341 clock outputs thru a 50-ohm coax to a voltage divider for the receiving circuit that presents an Rload of 511 ohms + 240 ohms = 751 ohms to each? Si5351 output buffer.? This gives an Iddox = 3.3 / 751 = 4.4mA, well within the 5.6mA max Iddox spec.
I suggest you repeat your cross-talk tests using an appropriate Rload value at the end of a 50-ohm line for each clock output and see how much cross-talk you see.
73,
Carl,? K0MWC
|
Indeed THIS ....Explains why I'm seeing 0.6 volts (p-p) at R103? on the 45 Mhz mixer thingie
Jim
On Saturday, September 8, 2018, 9:03:33 AM PDT, RCBoatGuy via Groups.Io <ijnfan-HamRadio@...> wrote:
Allison,
I'm afraid if you tested the way you described in your original post on this thread, you weren't testing for crosstalk.? I believe what you measured wasn't cross-talk at all, but rather ground bounce due to current starvation of the Si5351 output buffers.
I've attached the Si5351 datasheet.? On page 5, Silicon Labs gives the following specs:
Vddox, output buffer voltage => 3 ranges, 1.8V +/- 0.9V (5%), 2.5V +/- 0.25V (10%), and 3.3V +/- 0.3V (9.09%).? ?The Raduino uses a 3.3V supply for Vddox.
Iddox -? output buffer supply current per output => 2.2mA typical, 5.6mA max
Zo, output impedence @ 3.3V => 50 ohms
Note this is output impedence, which is very misleading.? The spec is not saying to use an output load of 50 ohms (Rload).? It is saying we need to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence to reach the destination Rload.? So we need to calculate the mimimum output load (Rload) that the output driver can drive.
Rload = Vddox/Iddox = 3.3 / 0.0056 = 589.3 ohms.? This is the minimum load the output can drive, as it gives the maximum allowed output supply current.? Exceed this spec and you enter current starvation on the power supply to the output buffer.
You stated that you used both a 50-ohm load (not impedence) and a 25-ohm load (not impedence) for your cross-talk testing.
With a 50-ohm load, Iddox = V/R = 3.3 / 50 = 66mA, which is more than 10x the maximum allowed output buffer supply current.
With a 25-ohm load, you subjected the part to 132mA Iddox!?
In both cases, the output buffers are so power starved that the chip internally can't supply enough Vddox to control the output buffers.? The result is ground bounce on all the outputs, not cross-talk.? This is typical behavior for digital chip output drivers whose output specs are violated in such a manner.? It also explains why you didn't see as much signal on the Si5351 outputs as you expected.?
The Zo spec was meant to say that the chip was designed to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence (either a 50-ohm coax or a 50-ohm micro-strip line on a PCB) to its load (Rload), not that you could use a 50-ohm or 25-ohm termination as the Rload.? An example of this appears on page 22 of the Si5351 datasheet.? Here the datasheet describes using the part to drive 2 clock outputs with 180 degree phase difference, but the example circuit shows driving the Si5341 clock outputs thru a 50-ohm coax to a voltage divider for the receiving circuit that presents an Rload of 511 ohms + 240 ohms = 751 ohms to each? Si5351 output buffer.? This gives an Iddox = 3.3 / 751 = 4.4mA, well within the 5.6mA max Iddox spec.
I suggest you repeat your cross-talk tests using an appropriate Rload value at the end of a 50-ohm line for each clock output and see how much cross-talk you see.
73,
Carl,? K0MWC
|
Allison,
I'm afraid if you tested the way you described in your original post on this thread, you weren't testing for crosstalk.? I believe what you measured wasn't cross-talk at all, but rather ground bounce due to current starvation of the Si5351 output buffers.
I've attached the Si5351 datasheet.? On page 5, Silicon Labs gives the following specs:
Vddox, output buffer voltage => 3 ranges, 1.8V +/- 0.9V (5%), 2.5V +/- 0.25V (10%), and 3.3V +/- 0.3V (9.09%).? ?The Raduino uses a 3.3V supply for Vddox.
Iddox -? output buffer supply current per output => 2.2mA typical, 5.6mA max
Zo, output impedence @ 3.3V => 50 ohms
Note this is output impedence, which is very misleading.? The spec is not saying to use an output load of 50 ohms (Rload).? It is saying we need to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence to reach the destination Rload.? So we need to calculate the mimimum output load (Rload) that the output driver can drive.
Rload = Vddox/Iddox = 3.3 / 0.0056 = 589.3 ohms.? This is the minimum load the output can drive, as it gives the maximum allowed output supply current.? Exceed this spec and you enter current starvation on the power supply to the output buffer.
You stated that you used both a 50-ohm load (not impedence) and a 25-ohm load (not impedence) for your cross-talk testing.
With a 50-ohm load, Iddox = V/R = 3.3 / 50 = 66mA, which is more than 10x the maximum allowed output buffer supply current.
With a 25-ohm load, you subjected the part to 132mA Iddox!?
In both cases, the output buffers are so power starved that the chip internally can't supply enough Vddox to control the output buffers.? The result is ground bounce on all the outputs, not cross-talk.? This is typical behavior for digital chip output drivers whose output specs are violated in such a manner.? It also explains why you didn't see as much signal on the Si5351 outputs as you expected.?
The Zo spec was meant to say that the chip was designed to drive thru a 50-ohm impedence (either a 50-ohm coax or a 50-ohm micro-strip line on a PCB) to its load (Rload), not that you could use a 50-ohm or 25-ohm termination as the Rload.? An example of this appears on page 22 of the Si5351 datasheet.? Here the datasheet describes using the part to drive 2 clock outputs with 180 degree phase difference, but the example circuit shows driving the Si5341 clock outputs thru a 50-ohm coax to a voltage divider for the receiving circuit that presents an Rload of 511 ohms + 240 ohms = 751 ohms to each? Si5351 output buffer.? This gives an Iddox = 3.3 / 751 = 4.4mA, well within the 5.6mA max Iddox spec.
I suggest you repeat your cross-talk tests using an appropriate Rload value at the end of a 50-ohm line for each clock output and see how much cross-talk you see.
73,
Carl,? K0MWC
|
YO8UFO
George
Brent Seres/ VE3CUS