¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA


 

I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the? PA transistors in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing 120 volt spikes during the cal.?
?
Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:
?
?
This is going to fry some BS170s? for sure.
?
Tony
ADoVC


 

Much depends on how you ¡®hooked it up¡¯


 

I saw this many months ago when looking into PA failures and SWR even with 1:1.??
I shared my results and Hans said he would reduce the PA voltage drive on 160m and 80m but I guess SSB was a higher priority.
Chris


 

This is interesting, it probably comes from the output transformer I guess. Perhaps it¡¯s time to get those Zener diodes (D4/5?) on the outputs?


 

I wonder if the cal signal switch-on has no shaping by, hence the high voltage from the switch on?
?
I popped a couple of the finals on my QMX (high band) running the SSB cal cycle so am interested in what might have caused it.?


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

This issue has been around since QDX. L502 kicks back when the PA is shut down abruptly. I thought Hans was going to use the modulator to "shape" the on/off transition to eliminate this. But apparently not, at least during cal.

Tony
AD0VC


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Wiggle Pig via groups.io <wigglepig@...>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:12 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
I wonder if the cal signal switch-on has no shaping by, hence the high voltage from the switch on?
?
I popped a couple of the finals on my QMX (high band) running the SSB cal cycle so am interested in what might have caused it.?


 

I¡¯m surprised the TN0110¡¯s didn¡¯t fry¡­

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:16?PM mux_folder2001 via <canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
This issue has been around since QDX. L502 kicks back when the PA is shut down abruptly. I thought Hans was going to use the modulator to "shape" the on/off transition to eliminate this. But apparently not, at least during cal.

Tony
AD0VC

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Wiggle Pig via <wigglepig=[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:12 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
I wonder if the cal signal switch-on has no shaping by, hence the high voltage from the switch on?
?
I popped a couple of the finals on my QMX (high band) running the SSB cal cycle so am interested in what might have caused it.?


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Yes, I had the same thought.

At any rate, whatever transistor is in there, I don't think the glitches are doing any good.

Tony
AD0VC


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Scaminaci via groups.io <tonyscam@...>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 7:09 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
I¡¯m surprised the TN0110¡¯s didn¡¯t fry¡­

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:16?PM mux_folder2001 via <canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
This issue has been around since QDX. L502 kicks back when the PA is shut down abruptly. I thought Hans was going to use the modulator to "shape" the on/off transition to eliminate this. But apparently not, at least during cal.

Tony
AD0VC

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Wiggle Pig via <wigglepig=[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:12 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
I wonder if the cal signal switch-on has no shaping by, hence the high voltage from the switch on?
?
I popped a couple of the finals on my QMX (high band) running the SSB cal cycle so am interested in what might have caused it.?


 

Out of curiosity, how are you connecting the probe's ground?

Even at a low frequency like 1.8MHz, more than 1 inch of probe
grounding wire will make a signal ring like that.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV


On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:40:18 -0700 "mux_folder2001 via groups.io"
<canthony15@...> wrote:
I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the? PA transistors
in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing
120 volt spikes during the cal.

Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:

160PhaseCalGlitch.jpg (

)

This is going to fry some BS170s? for sure.

Tony
ADoVC





 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hi Chuck,

I did measurements with the standard scope ground but also with ? inch leads soldered to the transistor and attached to the probe. The probe ground causes some high speed ringing but the fat part of the pulse is basically the same.

If it offers any reassurance, I spent my career in the high speed logic business. Many hours looking at nanosecond edges and I am very familiar with the effects that are produced by the scope probe ground leads. I am convinced that the bulk of the large pulse is real. As to its cause, it is only speculative. I did some measurements in QDX that convinced me that the issue there was due to the inductor. But I have not repeated those experiments with QMX. So, there could be more here than meets the eye, or not.

73,

Tony
AD0VC

?


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chuck Harris via groups.io <cfharris@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 6:54 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
Out of curiosity, how are you connecting the probe's ground?

Even at a low frequency like 1.8MHz, more than 1 inch of probe
grounding wire will make a signal ring like that.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV


On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:40:18 -0700 "mux_folder2001 via groups.io"
<canthony15@...> wrote:
> I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the? PA transistors
> in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing
> 120 volt spikes during the cal.
>
> Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:
>
> 160PhaseCalGlitch.jpg (
>
> )
>
> This is going to fry some BS170s? for sure.
>
> Tony
> ADoVC
>
>
>
>
>







 

Hello all

Many people, myself included, have run the QMX calibration procedure multiple times without damage to their BS170 transistors. I was developing the QMX firmware for 9 months, including?the calibration procedure which I ran literally hundreds of times while developing it. Some unexplained failures have indeed been reported too.

During the last 9 months I lost one set of BS170s due to a coding mistake where the '5351 output got parked low, not oscillating, at the same time?as the TX enable signal to the logic gate driver was high. I lost another set of BS170s (and the Tx/Rx switch) when I was away on family vacation during a large?storm, which also destroyed?our office internet router and one of the network ports of my PC. Other than that, my BS170s run without any damage or degradation. My QMX+ is still a Rev 1 QMX+, with the plug-in SMPS modules. I did fry one SMPS module once during these 9 months due to sloppy work, a 'scope probe slipped and shorted something.

A component being observed to run with some datasheet spec violation is NOT proof that the violation is causing or contributing to failure! If an unknown failure occurs at an unknown (low) probability, it is also not proof to attribute it to an observable violation.?

However, that said, I agree that if there is no envelope shaping on the calibration transmissions, this is an unnecessary situation. It is not necessary to take such risks. It is always better, all things being equal, to respect datasheet specifications. There is no reason why I should not be able to shape the RF envelope nicely as occurs during CW keying. So let us not panic. But I will investigate this with high priority and apply envelope shaping as soon as possible. If I can, I will do it before I leave for US on Monday (for FDIM/Hamvention) but time is very tight now.??

73 Hans G0UPL



On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 4:53?PM mux_folder2001 via <canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chuck,

I did measurements with the standard scope ground but also with ? inch leads soldered to the transistor and attached to the probe. The probe ground causes some high speed ringing but the fat part of the pulse is basically the same.

If it offers any reassurance, I spent my career in the high speed logic business. Many hours looking at nanosecond edges and I am very familiar with the effects that are produced by the scope probe ground leads. I am convinced that the bulk of the large pulse is real. As to its cause, it is only speculative. I did some measurements in QDX that convinced me that the issue there was due to the inductor. But I have not repeated those experiments with QMX. So, there could be more here than meets the eye, or not.

73,

Tony
AD0VC

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chuck Harris via <cfharris=[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 6:54 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
Out of curiosity, how are you connecting the probe's ground?

Even at a low frequency like 1.8MHz, more than 1 inch of probe
grounding wire will make a signal ring like that.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV


On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:40:18 -0700 "mux_folder2001 via "
<canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
> I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the? PA transistors
> in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing
> 120 volt spikes during the cal.
>
> Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:
>
> 160PhaseCalGlitch.jpg (
>
> )
>
> This is going to fry some BS170s? for sure.
>
> Tony
> ADoVC
>
>
>
>
>







 

Hi Tony,

Being unfamiliar with your Siglent scope's screen layout,
I didn't see the vertical attenuator setting, initially.

When you said "spike", I looked at the spike, which in my
lexicon is the sharp pointy thing that is on top of the
pulse... which to me looks like ground lead ringing.

When I found the attenuator setting hidden on the right
side of the screen, I realized that the "pulse" is 120V,
which I am sure is real.

Probe capacitance is probably affecting it somewhat as well.

-Chuck Harris - WA3UQV


On Tue, 6 May 2025 13:53:17 +0000 "mux_folder2001 via groups.io"
<canthony15@...> wrote:
Hi Chuck,

I did measurements with the standard scope ground but also with ?
inch leads soldered to the transistor and attached to the probe. The
probe ground causes some high speed ringing but the fat part of the
pulse is basically the same.

If it offers any reassurance, I spent my career in the high speed
logic business. Many hours looking at nanosecond edges and I am very
familiar with the effects that are produced by the scope probe ground
leads. I am convinced that the bulk of the large pulse is real. As to
its cause, it is only speculative. I did some measurements in QDX
that convinced me that the issue there was due to the inductor. But I
have not repeated those experiments with QMX. So, there could be more
here than meets the eye, or not.

73,

Tony
AD0VC


________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chuck Harris
via groups.io <cfharris@...> Sent: Tuesday, May 6,
2025 6:54 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA

Out of curiosity, how are you connecting the probe's ground?

Even at a low frequency like 1.8MHz, more than 1 inch of probe
grounding wire will make a signal ring like that.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV


On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:40:18 -0700 "mux_folder2001 via groups.io"
<canthony15@...> wrote:
I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the PA transistors
in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing
120 volt spikes during the cal.

Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:

160PhaseCalGlitch.jpg (
<>
)

This is going to fry some BS170s for sure.

Tony
ADoVC














 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Glad to see the shaping happening. One technical point to make is that the spike is caused by L di/dt and is thus worse in a 9 volt build than in a 12 volt build since PA current is bigger in a 9 volt build.

Tony
AD0VC



From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Hans Summers via groups.io <hans.summers@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:04 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
Hello all

Many people, myself included, have run the QMX calibration procedure multiple times without damage to their BS170 transistors. I was developing the QMX firmware for 9 months, including?the calibration procedure which I ran literally hundreds of times while developing it. Some unexplained failures have indeed been reported too.

During the last 9 months I lost one set of BS170s due to a coding mistake where the '5351 output got parked low, not oscillating, at the same time?as the TX enable signal to the logic gate driver was high. I lost another set of BS170s (and the Tx/Rx switch) when I was away on family vacation during a large?storm, which also destroyed?our office internet router and one of the network ports of my PC. Other than that, my BS170s run without any damage or degradation. My QMX+ is still a Rev 1 QMX+, with the plug-in SMPS modules. I did fry one SMPS module once during these 9 months due to sloppy work, a 'scope probe slipped and shorted something.

A component being observed to run with some datasheet spec violation is NOT proof that the violation is causing or contributing to failure! If an unknown failure occurs at an unknown (low) probability, it is also not proof to attribute it to an observable violation.?

However, that said, I agree that if there is no envelope shaping on the calibration transmissions, this is an unnecessary situation. It is not necessary to take such risks. It is always better, all things being equal, to respect datasheet specifications. There is no reason why I should not be able to shape the RF envelope nicely as occurs during CW keying. So let us not panic. But I will investigate this with high priority and apply envelope shaping as soon as possible. If I can, I will do it before I leave for US on Monday (for FDIM/Hamvention) but time is very tight now.??

73 Hans G0UPL



On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 4:53?PM mux_folder2001 via <canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chuck,

I did measurements with the standard scope ground but also with ? inch leads soldered to the transistor and attached to the probe. The probe ground causes some high speed ringing but the fat part of the pulse is basically the same.

If it offers any reassurance, I spent my career in the high speed logic business. Many hours looking at nanosecond edges and I am very familiar with the effects that are produced by the scope probe ground leads. I am convinced that the bulk of the large pulse is real. As to its cause, it is only speculative. I did some measurements in QDX that convinced me that the issue there was due to the inductor. But I have not repeated those experiments with QMX. So, there could be more here than meets the eye, or not.

73,

Tony
AD0VC

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chuck Harris via <cfharris=[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 6:54 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
?
Out of curiosity, how are you connecting the probe's ground?

Even at a low frequency like 1.8MHz, more than 1 inch of probe
grounding wire will make a signal ring like that.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV


On Mon, 05 May 2025 11:40:18 -0700 "mux_folder2001 via "
<canthony15=[email protected]> wrote:
> I just hooked my scope up to the drain of one of the? PA transistors
> in my QMX+ and kicked off a 160M Phase cal (O button). I am seeing
> 120 volt spikes during the cal.
>
> Here is a link to a screen shot from my scope:
>
> 160PhaseCalGlitch.jpg (
>
> )
>
> This is going to fry some BS170s? for sure.
>
> Tony
> ADoVC
>
>
>
>
>







 

Hi Hans,

Being an engineer and manufacturer, you should have learned
about parts variability by now. Manufacturers undergo process
changes on a day-to-day, and batch-to-batch basis that change
the as-built characteristics of their parts.

That little over voltage abuse that you are currently waving
away, is a really big deal when it comes to reliability.

If the manufacturer thought it was a sustainable characteristic,
they would be exploiting it in their sales literature.

You are in a sweet spot right now, your customers adore you, and
thus far are accepting responsibility for failures that are not
their fault.

In this engineer's opinion, the 12.0V vs 12V car electrical
system issue was your first warning shot about the unsuitability
of the popular BS170 transistors for this design.

It is going to be a millstone around your neck until you bite
the bullet and fix it.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV

On Tue, 6 May 2025 18:04:32 +0300 "Hans Summers via groups.io"
<hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hello all

Many people, myself included, have run the QMX calibration procedure
multiple times without damage to their BS170 transistors. I was
developing the QMX firmware for 9 months, including the calibration
procedure which I ran literally hundreds of times while developing
it. Some unexplained failures have indeed been reported too.
...


 

Hello Chuck

I'm not waving it away OM. I'm saying that there isn't any proof that ties that very short over voltage spike to a BS170 failure. And I think the occurrence of BS170 failures is low. We always tend to hear more of failures than successes, this is the negative bias nature of forums.

But nobody needs to "prove" it. I said, there's no need for a sharp sudden turn on, no reason why the key-down shouldn't be properly envelope shaped during Calibration, which will delete the spike anyway. There's no cost and no disadvantage, and potential benefit, and it isn't difficult to do (in fact I thought it was already done, so the reason why people have reported no shaping needs investigation). As I said, I'll fix it...

The issue with high supply voltage is that depending on band and adjustments and antenna etc., it can cause high power output and/or high current, high heat dissipation, that increases the risk of failure. It hasn't happened to me (and many others report long success) but again, it happens to some people, and it's preventable. I'll add a change that prevents the PA supply voltage exceeding 12V even if the main supply voltage does. That will dissipate more power in the PA modulator so I'll need to test it.?

In summary both these things will be solved as soon as I can, I'm not looking away from them.?

73 Hans G0UPL


On Wed, May 7, 2025, 18:13 Chuck Harris via <cfharris=[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hans,

Being an engineer and manufacturer, you should have learned
about parts variability by now.? Manufacturers undergo process
changes on a day-to-day, and batch-to-batch basis that change
the as-built characteristics of their parts.

That little over voltage abuse that you are currently waving
away, is a really big deal when it comes to reliability.

If the manufacturer thought it was a sustainable characteristic,
they would be exploiting it in their sales literature.

You are in a sweet spot right now, your customers adore you, and
thus far are accepting responsibility for failures that are not
their fault.

In this engineer's opinion, the 12.0V vs 12V car electrical
system issue was your first warning shot about the unsuitability
of the popular BS170 transistors for this design.

It is going to be a millstone around your neck until you bite
the bullet and fix it.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV

On Tue, 6 May 2025 18:04:32 +0300 "Hans Summers via "
<hans.summers=[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello all
>
> Many people, myself included, have run the QMX calibration procedure
> multiple times without damage to their BS170 transistors. I was
> developing the QMX firmware for 9 months, including the calibration
> procedure which I ran literally hundreds of times while developing
> it. Some unexplained failures have indeed been reported too.
...






 

You're a good man Hans, and I appreciate all that you do.


 

Hans
Could you make the max PA voltage adjustable by band, since I saw very high BS170 voltage even with a dummy load on 160m and somewhat on 80m (exceeding the device rating).
Thanks for all you do!


 

Hi Chris

I'll make it measure power output?and if necessary reduce the PA voltage max, in order to restrict the output to not more than 5W (configurable).?

73 Hans G0UPL



On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:52?PM Chris KB1NLW via <chrisrey1=[email protected]> wrote:
Hans
Could you make the max PA voltage adjustable by band, since I saw very high BS170 voltage even with a dummy load on 160m and somewhat on 80m (exceeding the device rating).
Thanks for all you do!


 

Thanks!
?
I will use this PA limit feature when it becomes available because my QMX+ outputs 6.5 Watts on 160 meters, and I do not have an antenna for that band nor on 80 meters. No reason to stress/risk when it is not needed. (Noted, my power meter is not very accurate¡­)
?
I really like my QMX!


 

Hi Hans,

You can test ad nauseum every single reliability issue
with a little wedge in your software.

If you want to know whether this high voltage pulse is
harmful to your radios you have everything in hand to
find out: Set the stage in software to make the pulse at
will, then bang every single QMX in your lab until it is
either destroyed, or survives.

When you have only tried the calibration routine a few
dozens of times, you really know nothing about what your
customers are going to experience.

Put a little wedge in your firmware that runs the calibration
cycle to completion, rests, runs (and measures) full power on
each band key down for a minute, rests, and then repeats....

Again, do this on every test radio you can get your hands
on, for a week or more.

For a real answer, enlist a few of your more stalwart
group leaders, and have them do it to their radios...

Then you will know...

Tell us what you did, and then we will know too.

People expect things to go smoothly. It is only natural
for failures to bring more attention.

The internet makes sure that all failures are visible
forever.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV



On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:27:09 +0300 "Hans Summers via groups.io"
<hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hello Chuck

I'm not waving it away OM. I'm saying that there isn't any proof that
ties that very short over voltage spike to a BS170 failure. And I
think the occurrence of BS170 failures is low. We always tend to hear
more of failures than successes, this is the negative bias nature of
forums.

But nobody needs to "prove" it. I said, there's no need for a sharp
sudden turn on, no reason why the key-down shouldn't be properly
envelope shaped during Calibration, which will delete the spike
anyway. There's no cost and no disadvantage, and potential benefit,
and it isn't difficult to do (in fact I thought it was already done,
so the reason why people have reported no shaping needs
investigation). As I said, I'll fix it...

The issue with high supply voltage is that depending on band and
adjustments and antenna etc., it can cause high power output and/or
high current, high heat dissipation, that increases the risk of
failure. It hasn't happened to me (and many others report long
success) but again, it happens to some people, and it's preventable.
I'll add a change that prevents the PA supply voltage exceeding 12V
even if the main supply voltage does. That will dissipate more power
in the PA modulator so I'll need to test it.

In summary both these things will be solved as soon as I can, I'm not
looking away from them.

73 Hans G0UPL



On Wed, May 7, 2025, 18:13 Chuck Harris via groups.io <cfharris=
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hans,

Being an engineer and manufacturer, you should have learned
about parts variability by now. Manufacturers undergo process
changes on a day-to-day, and batch-to-batch basis that change
the as-built characteristics of their parts.

That little over voltage abuse that you are currently waving
away, is a really big deal when it comes to reliability.

If the manufacturer thought it was a sustainable characteristic,
they would be exploiting it in their sales literature.

You are in a sweet spot right now, your customers adore you, and
thus far are accepting responsibility for failures that are not
their fault.

In this engineer's opinion, the 12.0V vs 12V car electrical
system issue was your first warning shot about the unsuitability
of the popular BS170 transistors for this design.

It is going to be a millstone around your neck until you bite
the bullet and fix it.

-Chuck Harris, WA3UQV

On Tue, 6 May 2025 18:04:32 +0300 "Hans Summers via groups.io"
<hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hello all

Many people, myself included, have run the QMX calibration
procedure multiple times without damage to their BS170
transistors. I was developing the QMX firmware for 9 months,
including the calibration procedure which I ran literally
hundreds of times while developing it. Some unexplained failures
have indeed been reported too.
...