Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Why I think QMX Calibration Kills PA
¿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:
|
¿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:
|
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 |
¿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 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, |
¿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 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... |
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, |
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:
|
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 |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss