Re: a simple spur fix

#61625

Both the 74LVC1G126 and the 74LVC1G14 look good to me in this application.
Bypass each power pin well with a couple caps, and maybe even add an inductor at each,
you don't want crosstalk between those three chips.? Or those chips and the si5351.

Neither part expects a 50 ohm load.? PCB traces over a ground plane are usually well over 100 ohms,,
so a higher load impedance would actually cut down on the reflections.
In Jim's PI attenuator, I'd start with removing R101 entirely, set R102 to 150 ohms, and R103 to 75 ohms.
More or less as per this post:? ?/g/BITX20/message/61587
except that I assume there is not a 50 ohm internal source resistor in those 74LVC1G* parts.
(There will be some internal source resistance, I don't know what.? And the mixer ports are
not likely to be exactly 50 ohms either. )

Jim's post has four images, the last one shows something like a spectrum analyzer.
Can Jim tell us what we are looking at there?

Jerry

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 04:48 PM, Glenn wrote:

Similar though Jim,. I used 74LVC1G126 devices. Plenty of level and I see you have put a pad in there. I am yet to actually fit my board as my uBITX is in bits right now..... pcb out of case etc.
glenn

Expected voltage levels on VOL-H for S-Meter #ubitx #smeter

#61624

Hi,

I build my second uBITx now in v4 for digital modes only. After checking out the different s-meter solutions, I will go with the Raduino pin A7. Which voltage levels can be expected at VOL-H?

Thanks, Uwe HB9FZG

Re: a simple spur fix

#61623

Similar though Jim,. I used 74LVC1G126 devices. Plenty of level and I see you have put a pad in there. I am yet to actually fit my board as my uBITX is in bits right now..... pcb out of case etc.
glenn

Re: a simple spur fix

jim

#61622

A bit more elegant than my "interim" solution

Jim

On Saturday, November 10, 2018, 1:33:54 PM PST, Glenn <glennp@...> wrote:

Jerry, for what it's worth i did a small pcb for Si5351 buffering in an old post:- buffer board

It was designed to fit on the uBITX board adjacent to the "Raduino1" socket. Cut the 3 tracks from Si5351 and connect to the pads on the pcb. Then the outputs of the board are linked to adjacent points, now buffered.

Glenn

Clock cables.jpg

Chip and Regulator.jpg

Mod Schematic.jpg

Clk 02 into SA.jpg

Re: the cause for the spurs, found!

#61621

Holy cow, Allison - I just worked through your RF power chain thread and you've covered all of the swaps and biasing there.
/g/BITX20/topic/rf_power_chain_mods_and/19399962?p=Created,,,20,1,240,0&jump=1

THANK YOU for teaching enough to get me off the porch!

Show quoted text

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 09:26 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:

AndyH,

Yes rebias.

Allison

Re: a simple spur fix

#61620

Jerry, for what it's worth i did a small pcb for Si5351 buffering in an old post:- buffer board

It was designed to fit on the uBITX board adjacent to the "Raduino1" socket. Cut the 3 tracks from Si5351 and connect to the pads on the pcb. Then the outputs of the board are linked to adjacent points, now buffered.

Glenn

Re: a simple spur fix

#61619

A quick recap, as I recall the spur fix thing thing thus far:

Allison noted that the LO's had too low of an injection level, the mixers were overloaded with signal,
the 45mhz IF amp was not amping quite enough, there was coupling from the power amp into the IF's
due to poor board layout, and that most multiband HF rigs would have a filter for each band of use at L1,2,3,4.
All of this contributing to spurs, and suggesting a significant redesign was needed.
?
Raj then found that the spurs were reduced by inserting a 45mhz crystal filter in series with C22.
Alternate placements and some impedance matching schemes were proposed, in part to bring the transmit power
back up to what it was.? Resonant freq of any new 45mhz filter would have to match the old 45mhz filter at Y1.
This fix seemed to bring spurs down to where they about met regs in most cases, but still borderline.

Then Raj found he got better results by replacing L5 and L7 with a particular brand of 1210 sized shielded surface mount inductor.
Then found that the same treatment to L1,2,3,4 made it even better.
So forget the 45mhz crystal filter.

Now Farhan says forget all the above, he's doing better still with a couple series LC traps
at TP13 and C202 for 90mhz and 12mhz respectively.
And the discussion continues from there.

By all means, jump in and try any of the above if so inclined
and you have the instrumentation?to measure spurs.?
Otherwise, sit on your hands a bit longer.
Allison is right, a complete redesign of about half the uBitx is not a bad idea.
But Farhan and Raj appear close to finding a spur fix for v3 and v4 uBitx boards that is very easy and cheap.

Spurs are at frequencies more or less unrelated to the operating frequency.
On a stock rig, in some cases they can be stronger than allowed by regulations, though at QRP levels
are reasonably low compared to the typical 100W hf transceiver.

Harmonics are a separate issue, solved by either adding external low pass filters
or hacking the relays and traces around the existing transmit LPF's.

Jerry, KE7ER
Jerry, KE7ER

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:09 AM, <behlmer@...> wrote:

I remember a relatively simple fix using a 45 MHz crystal across 2 points with a ground on the center wire. Has anyone done this? ?What were the connection points? ?Thanks. Steve. KE7GO?

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61618

Congrats Tim.

Show quoted text

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:11 AM Tim K <marshalldtk@...> wrote:

Paul,?
? YOU ARE A GENIUS SIR!!
That was it!? I looked under a mag glass and I saw one of the tension prong on the top of the connector pushed down.? After I moved it out of the way the USB completely seated and recognized by the computer.? Thanks all for your help!??

Tim
KF7VUT

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61617

Or a bad 340 chip. I had a Uno with a bad 340 chip.

73

Ken VA3ABN

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:56 AM Tim K <marshalldtk@...> wrote:

Thanks Sarma,
I tried as you suggested and still it is as no device is connected.? I think the connector must be bad.? This board will not show up at all under the device manager when two other boards do without problem.? I was hoping for an easy fix but I believe I have exhausted all possibilities and narrowed it down to a faulty usb connector.

Thank you much for your help.? I really do appreciate it.

Tim
KF7VUT

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61616

Paul,?
? YOU ARE A GENIUS SIR!!
That was it!? I looked under a mag glass and I saw one of the tension prong on the top of the connector pushed down.? After I moved it out of the way the USB completely seated and recognized by the computer.? Thanks all for your help!??

Tim
KF7VUT

Re: a simple spur fix

Vince Vielhaber

#61615

Take an existing raduino and disable the si5351.  Bring the i2c lines off to an external si5351 board, like the adafruit.  Put the buffers on that board.  Get the display and nano away from the si5351.  Audio beat problem is gone.  Design of a new raduino or redesign of the old is no longer necessary.

Now you can find out of the buffers will solve any of the problems.  If it does, moving the si5351 to the main board (with buffers) will solve the need of another board.  Add a header to the raduino board for i2c for now for an external board.

Vince.

Show quoted text

On 11/10/2018 10:37 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io wrote:
This might be an opportunity for somebody to create yet another new Raduino
Add buffer amps to all three clocks from the si5351 to help solve the
spur problem.
Choose a processor clock that won't beat with the BFO, creating audio
tones cases
where the Nano's 16mhz ceramic resonator happens to fall on an unlucky
frequency .
Communicate with a host processor via well filtered 3v UART lines
that go off to a well shielded USB-to-UART dongle.
Processor is a little beefier, something like an STM32F*, not pressed
for memory space,
more IO pins, and with the horsepower for a few simple digital modes
such as PSK31.

This could easily be used to upgrade old v3 and v4 uBitx's.

Jerry, KE7ER

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 06:41 AM, Jerry Gaffke wrote:

    Unless we add an amp to each of the three clocks between the si5351
    and the mixers,
    we are trading off si5351 crosstalk, local oscillator injection
    level, and reflections due to
    driving the mixer from a source impedance higher than 50 ohms.
    All three of these factors will contribute to spurs.

-- 
  K8ZW     

Re: a simple spur fix

#61614

I remember a relatively simple fix using a 45 MHz crystal across 2 points with a ground on the center wire. Has anyone done this? ?What were the connection points? ?Thanks. Steve. KE7GO?

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61613

these micro usb could be retrieved from scrapped mobiles. these are sold sold across as replacement stuff.

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:24 PM Mvs Sarma <mvssarma@...> wrote:

Good effort Paul. Congarts.

sarma
?vu3zmv

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:20 PM Paul KL7FLR <paulf657@...> wrote:
Tim,
?
Look at the usb connector on the Nano. On mine one of the prongs was bent back and prevented the plug from fully seating. I used a dental pick and just worried the bent prong
Long enuff till it broke off.? Plug would the make full contact and? was able to communicate to the Raduno.
?
Paul KL7FLR
Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61612

Good effort Paul. Congarts.

sarma

?vu3zmv

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:20 PM Paul KL7FLR <paulf657@...> wrote:

Tim,
?
Look at the usb connector on the Nano. On mine one of the prongs was bent back and prevented the plug from fully seating. I used a dental pick and just worried the bent prong
Long enuff till it broke off.? Plug would the make full contact and? was able to communicate to the Raduno.
?
Paul KL7FLR
Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61611

开云体育

Tim,

?

Look at the usb connector on the Nano. On mine one of the prongs was bent back and prevented the plug from fully seating. I used a dental pick and just worried the bent prong

Long enuff till it broke off.? Plug would the make full contact and? was able to communicate to the Raduno.

?

Paul KL7FLR

Wasilla, Alaska

20170531_174558.jpg

Re: a simple spur fix

#61610

Farhan reports that his coil and cap have a null 10dB better than needed to meet regs, no need for higher Q.
If the 90mhz trap can be done with a surface mount coil and cap on the back of the board, that's a very easy fix.

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 09:16 AM, iz oos wrote:

I have no doubt Farhan solution might work but I guess that the Q of the 90Mhz and the null could be higher using a quarter wave open coax stub cut for the 90Mhz (likely a cap between 20 and 30pf in parallel would be needed).

?

Re: a simple spur fix

#61609

I have no doubt Farhan solution might work but I guess that the Q of the 90Mhz and the null could be higher using a quarter wave open coax stub cut for the 90Mhz (likely a cap between 20 and 30pf in parallel would be needed).

Show quoted text

Il 10/nov/2018 17:38, "Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke=[email protected]> ha scritto:

Farhan's 90mhz filter is clearly meant to take out the 2'd harmonic of the 45mhz IF signal.
It's perhaps 90mhz and not the calculated 91mhz due to some capacitance in the node it connects to.
May need a trimmer cap to tune it for exactly 90mhz unless low tolerance components are used.
The user could have Nano code that sets clk2 to 90mhz and unbalances the mixer with CW-KEY,
then adjusts the trimmer cap for a null while monitoring the 90mhz clk2 with a diode RF probe.

Perhaps no diode RF probe is needed for this if we also set clk1 to 90mhz+12mhz+500hz,
and we monitor audio in the receiver for a null in the resultant 500hz tone while adjusting the trimmer.
I'm assuming some of that 90mhz energy can sneak by the 45mhz filter somehow.

The? proposed 12mhz (10.4mhz?) trap in the 30mhz LPF might be more problematic.
Perhaps easier to add a high pass filter to clk2 instead, removes any 12mhz energy present on clk2
before it gets to the D1,D2 mixer.? No critical tuning required, and does not trash 12mhz (30m?) reception.
That in addition to monkeying around with the 6dB pads on clk0,1,2 to reduce crosstalk.

Jerry, KE7ER

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM, iz oos wrote:

The 91mhz might make sense to notch out the harmonics of 45mhz if this is the cause of the spur.

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61608

Thanks Sarma,
I tried as you suggested and still it is as no device is connected.? I think the connector must be bad.? This board will not show up at all under the device manager when two other boards do without problem.? I was hoping for an easy fix but I believe I have exhausted all possibilities and narrowed it down to a faulty usb connector.

Thank you much for your help.? I really do appreciate it.

Tim
KF7VUT

Re: a simple spur fix

#61607

Farhan's 90mhz filter is clearly meant to take out the 2'd harmonic of the 45mhz IF signal.
It's perhaps 90mhz and not the calculated 91mhz due to some capacitance in the node it connects to.
May need a trimmer cap to tune it for exactly 90mhz unless low tolerance components are used.
The user could have Nano code that sets clk2 to 90mhz and unbalances the mixer with CW-KEY,
then adjusts the trimmer cap for a null while monitoring the 90mhz clk2 with a diode RF probe.

Perhaps no diode RF probe is needed for this if we also set clk1 to 90mhz+12mhz+500hz,
and we monitor audio in the receiver for a null in the resultant 500hz tone while adjusting the trimmer.
I'm assuming some of that 90mhz energy can sneak by the 45mhz filter somehow.

The? proposed 12mhz (10.4mhz?) trap in the 30mhz LPF might be more problematic.
Perhaps easier to add a high pass filter to clk2 instead, removes any 12mhz energy present on clk2
before it gets to the D1,D2 mixer.? No critical tuning required, and does not trash 12mhz (30m?) reception.
That in addition to monkeying around with the 6dB pads on clk0,1,2 to reduce crosstalk.

Jerry, KE7ER

Show quoted text

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM, iz oos wrote:

The 91mhz might make sense to notch out the harmonics of 45mhz if this is the cause of the spur.

Re: Bitx40 Raduino question

#61606

tim

?you don't have to

?i am as new. what you can do? at device manager? after connecting the suspect raduino of bitx40,?? refresh plug and play devices.

? after that , please check under ports any new port added .

?

?under arduino ide you cnl call for the firmware and select the nano and the com port as you found in device manager.

?I wonder, whether i am able to communicate my thought

regards

sarma

vu3zmv

Show quoted text

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:39 PM Tim K <marshalldtk@...> wrote:

Im not sure I am understanding.? I cannot load anything onto the bitx40 arduino as it does not even show up in the device manager.? The arduino program gives me an error to select a port but there is no ports available to select.??

As I say, I am very much a novice at this? so if i misunderstood your directions, i do apologize.

Tim
KF7VUT