Date   

Re: One question only...

Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...>
 

Brian,  although I might eventually spring for $700 to get a Rigol, until i do, I'm  "quite certain" that the unit(s) I have are quite legal!    And possibly better in some respects than the vacuum tube SB-102 that I'm hoping to bring back on line, and the homebrew linear I built about 50 years ago.


Ashar might have a different issue as a manufacturer but he's a very bright fellow & I'm sure he'll find a few dB here and there if he decides it has to be done.   And we all might slowly make any changes he suggests...


No one who hears my little 5-10 watt signal can figure out exactly what model radio it comes from and I doubt seriously that anyone will be upset by any tiny signals elsewhere.   I have icom's heathkits, and lots of rigs to use.   


Enjoy ham radio, and keep improving yourself and your gear as you go along!!!


Cheers,


gordon 


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 1:12 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] One question only...
 
Depends in part on stuff like how much gain the 2n3904's in the 45mhz IF have,
where RV1 is set, how sensitive the mike is.
Those that don't meet spec on some bands and/or modes don't miss it by all that much.
Some users will note that at 5 or 10 watts, it's got weaker obnoxious emissions
than rigs with 100 watts or more that meet spec. 

It should be better.

Jerry

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 09:47 PM, Brian L. Davis wrote:
The bottom line question is simply, is this a legal radio or not!
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I appreciate all the technical and intellectual discourse but the bottom line is, IS IT LEGAL OR NOT?
The average HAM wants to buy the unit and put it on the air.  Can that be done without major modifications?
If it can, then nothing is changed and we go on trying to modify or improve.
If it can't, then we need to abandon the project and move on.
So, which is it?
Can I use this radio or not?


Re: any tips for debugging RFI issue? #ubitx-help

Timothy Fidler
 

Mike , which all goes to prove you are working at the cutting edge of RF technology and should be so grateful to be there :-) 

Timothy E. Fidler : Engineer BE Mech(1) Auckland , NDT specialist AINDT UT /RT3 , MT2 CB #2885, 
Telephone Whangarei   022  691 8405
e: Engstr@...



----- Original Message -----
From:
BITX20@groups.io

To:
<BITX20@groups.io>
Cc:

Sent:
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 22:09:18 -0700
Subject:
Re: [BITX20] any tips for debugging RFI issue? #ubitx-help


I shortened the counterpoise and things got worse.  But after hiding the counterpoise in the rain gutter, things got better.  :-)  Go figure.


73 Mike KK7ER


Re: One question only...

Jerry Gaffke
 

Depends in part on stuff like how much gain the 2n3904's in the 45mhz IF have,
where RV1 is set, how sensitive the mike is.
Those that don't meet spec on some bands and/or modes don't miss it by all that much.
Some users will note that at 5 or 10 watts, it's got weaker obnoxious emissions
than rigs with 100 watts or more that meet spec. 

It should be better.

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 09:47 PM, Brian L. Davis wrote:
The bottom line question is simply, is this a legal radio or not!
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I appreciate all the technical and intellectual discourse but the bottom line is, IS IT LEGAL OR NOT?
The average HAM wants to buy the unit and put it on the air.  Can that be done without major modifications?
If it can, then nothing is changed and we go on trying to modify or improve.
If it can't, then we need to abandon the project and move on.
So, which is it?
Can I use this radio or not?


Re: any tips for debugging RFI issue? #ubitx-help

Mike KK7ER
 

I shortened the counterpoise and things got worse.  But after hiding the counterpoise in the rain gutter, things got better.  :-)  Go figure.


73 Mike KK7ER


Re: Bitx40v3 CAT Control firmware?

AA9GG
 

Just take the uBitX software and hack it up accordingly into the BitX40.....


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Sean W7SKD <sean.jrdalys@...> wrote:
I have a Bitx40v3 that hasnt been getting much use since I got my ubitx.  I have been thinking about using it for digital modes, but before I do, I need to get firmware on it that will support CAT control.

The ideal situation would be if there was firmware to be found that supported CAT on the USB interface the same way as Ian Lee's CEC firmware for the ubitx.  I have poked around and read through a few of the versions on github and havent found it, so....is there a version of Bitx40v3 firmware out there that supports CAT on the USB interface?

I am a programmer, so I COULD hack together something of a mashup of the bitx40 and ubitx (cec) if it came to it, but looking to see if someone has already done so

Thanks!

Sean




--
Paul Mateer, AA9GG
Elan Engineering Corp.
www.elanengr.com
NAQCC 3123, SKCC 4628


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Jerry Gaffke
 

Going forward, I for one would be fine with plug-in LPF's on a rig in this price range.
Should have some way for the Raduino to sense what board is installed.

Those that want electronic switching could add some optional mezzanine board that plugs 
into that same socket, an i2c bus controlling all the relays.

If you remove the relays we have now, might be possible to use those holes
to convert current boards to this scheme.
But hacking current boards to have straps at the output side of the four
bandpass filters is easier, and solves both the trace problem
and the issue of isolation through the relays.

Allison has been recommending band specific filters in place of the 30mhz low pass filter
in front of the first mixer.   But I like how simple the rig is now, and would look first for reasons
not to raise the 45mhz IF frequency some.  Alternately, just call it quits at 20 meters.

Also:
Need something better than 2n3904's in many positions.
Perhaps an extra driver stage.
Si5351 should drive the mixers harder.
Si5351 might want to be on the main board.

Jerry, KE7ER


One question only...

Brian L. Davis
 

The bottom line question is simply, is this a legal radio or not!
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I appreciate all the technical and intellectual discourse but the bottom line is, IS IT LEGAL OR NOT?
The average HAM wants to buy the unit and put it on the air.  Can that be done without major modifications?
If it can, then nothing is changed and we go on trying to modify or improve.
If it can't, then we need to abandon the project and move on.
So, which is it?
Can I use this radio or not?


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

William R Maxwell
 

I think the daughter board approach, as an aftermarket option, is starting to look more attractive.

Bill, VK7MX


On 5/08/2018 2:22 PM, Ashhar Farhan wrote:
I have been following this thread, I have to add three things here :

1. Unike commercial products where no criticism is encouraged, ubitx is an open source radio, So, Warren, we all do want to hear and correct whatever goes wrong with this design. We all hope it gets bette with time. As Linus Travolds reminds us "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

2. The reason for the convoluted relay system is that we ran out of pins on the Arduino to directly switch the LPFs. Instead, we should use a 1-of-N decoders to drive the relays, increase the number of LPFs to six (from the current count of 4). Bad economics. It will also lead to a differently sized board as it will be difficult to fit two more relays AND decoder onto the same sized board. This will mean putting the people like Sunil out of business until they retool their boxes. 

3. Another possibility is to split up the design into multiple boards. It makes sense for the solder happy hams, it is  nightmare for those who'd rather ragchew and chase dx than get under their race car's hood for months.

Given that there are non-technical considerations and a few thousands of ubitx already in use, we must be careful to not break backward compatibility of these radios. Any sugggestions?

- f

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Jerry wrote:

"Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts."


The photo of a dpdt relay that I enclosed was just the only internal image I could find.   I haven't found one of the actual relays used.

Enclosed is a backlit photo to show theground plane --- which covers just about everything --- and the LONG return trace  from the other end of the filter.

I don't quite know how to "read" the rigol display that Warren put up, but since some of his bands hit the -43 dBm requirement of 97.307(d) (first part):  (d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission.​....

then I'm guessing that a few dB more isolation and more bands would "pass".    The return trace comes nicely close to lots of components!   The ground plane is available almost below everything.    drilling through and adding a tin metal shield between the return trace and the remainder of the circuit with a couple of solders to the ground plane might add some dB of isolationwithout having to tear into the relay.   It is probably advisable to run the "shield" tin metal right up to the relay in hopes of possibly even improving by a tiny bit the isolation there.   dunno.   brighter people than me, and those with the nice spectrum anallyzers (or Ashar) might have to figure this one out!

cheers,

gordon





From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 10:07 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
 
Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.

I haven't been following closely, has anyone reported any numbers on just how bad
these harmonics are during SSB ops?   

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:28 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Using two of the current ones would yield a very good result as on would be literally physically
on the other side of the filter for a good layout.



Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...>
 

​I don't know the relative contributions of the actual physical relay or the board traces to the signal "getting around" the filters --- so not sure exactly what is solution.


However,  a simple thing to try would be to run either a wire (for a prototype) or a trace (in a finished design) along the sides of that "long trace" which needs to be isolated from the components of the filter.    That might knock off a few dB by itself.    Were a bit of braid or tin soldered to this shielding trace, one might have a real coaxial cable created.   


Beyond that, we're going to have to pop apart a relay and see what is on the INSIDE of the relay and whether THAT can be better shielded.... perhaps you have a photo of the insides of one and can comment on the possibility of improving THAT isolation?


cheers,

gordon



From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Ashhar Farhan <farhanbox@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 12:22 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
 
I have been following this thread, I have to add three things here :

1. Unike commercial products where no criticism is encouraged, ubitx is an open source radio, So, Warren, we all do want to hear and correct whatever goes wrong with this design. We all hope it gets bette with time. As Linus Travolds reminds us "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

2. The reason for the convoluted relay system is that we ran out of pins on the Arduino to directly switch the LPFs. Instead, we should use a 1-of-N decoders to drive the relays, increase the number of LPFs to six (from the current count of 4). Bad economics. It will also lead to a differently sized board as it will be difficult to fit two more relays AND decoder onto the same sized board. This will mean putting the people like Sunil out of business until they retool their boxes. 

3. Another possibility is to split up the design into multiple boards. It makes sense for the solder happy hams, it is  nightmare for those who'd rather ragchew and chase dx than get under their race car's hood for months.

Given that there are non-technical considerations and a few thousands of ubitx already in use, we must be careful to not break backward compatibility of these radios. Any sugggestions?

- f

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Jerry wrote:

"Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts."


The photo of a dpdt relay that I enclosed was just the only internal image I could find.   I haven't found one of the actual relays used.

Enclosed is a backlit photo to show theground plane --- which covers just about everything --- and the LONG return trace  from the other end of the filter.

I don't quite know how to "read" the rigol display that Warren put up, but since some of his bands hit the -43 dBm requirement of 97.307(d) (first part):  (d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission.​....

then I'm guessing that a few dB more isolation and more bands would "pass".    The return trace comes nicely close to lots of components!   The ground plane is available almost below everything.    drilling through and adding a tin metal shield between the return trace and the remainder of the circuit with a couple of solders to the ground plane might add some dB of isolationwithout having to tear into the relay.   It is probably advisable to run the "shield" tin metal right up to the relay in hopes of possibly even improving by a tiny bit the isolation there.   dunno.   brighter people than me, and those with the nice spectrum anallyzers (or Ashar) might have to figure this one out!

cheers,

gordon





From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 10:07 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
 
Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.

I haven't been following closely, has anyone reported any numbers on just how bad
these harmonics are during SSB ops?   

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:28 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Using two of the current ones would yield a very good result as on would be literally physically
on the other side of the filter for a good layout.



Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Ashhar Farhan
 

I have been following this thread, I have to add three things here :

1. Unike commercial products where no criticism is encouraged, ubitx is an open source radio, So, Warren, we all do want to hear and correct whatever goes wrong with this design. We all hope it gets bette with time. As Linus Travolds reminds us "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

2. The reason for the convoluted relay system is that we ran out of pins on the Arduino to directly switch the LPFs. Instead, we should use a 1-of-N decoders to drive the relays, increase the number of LPFs to six (from the current count of 4). Bad economics. It will also lead to a differently sized board as it will be difficult to fit two more relays AND decoder onto the same sized board. This will mean putting the people like Sunil out of business until they retool their boxes. 

3. Another possibility is to split up the design into multiple boards. It makes sense for the solder happy hams, it is  nightmare for those who'd rather ragchew and chase dx than get under their race car's hood for months.

Given that there are non-technical considerations and a few thousands of ubitx already in use, we must be careful to not break backward compatibility of these radios. Any sugggestions?

- f

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Jerry wrote:

"Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts."


The photo of a dpdt relay that I enclosed was just the only internal image I could find.   I haven't found one of the actual relays used.

Enclosed is a backlit photo to show theground plane --- which covers just about everything --- and the LONG return trace  from the other end of the filter.

I don't quite know how to "read" the rigol display that Warren put up, but since some of his bands hit the -43 dBm requirement of 97.307(d) (first part):  (d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission.​....

then I'm guessing that a few dB more isolation and more bands would "pass".    The return trace comes nicely close to lots of components!   The ground plane is available almost below everything.    drilling through and adding a tin metal shield between the return trace and the remainder of the circuit with a couple of solders to the ground plane might add some dB of isolationwithout having to tear into the relay.   It is probably advisable to run the "shield" tin metal right up to the relay in hopes of possibly even improving by a tiny bit the isolation there.   dunno.   brighter people than me, and those with the nice spectrum anallyzers (or Ashar) might have to figure this one out!

cheers,

gordon





From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 10:07 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
 
Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.

I haven't been following closely, has anyone reported any numbers on just how bad
these harmonics are during SSB ops?   

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:28 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Using two of the current ones would yield a very good result as on would be literally physically
on the other side of the filter for a good layout.



Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...>
 

Jerry wrote:

"Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts."


The photo of a dpdt relay that I enclosed was just the only internal image I could find.   I haven't found one of the actual relays used.

Enclosed is a backlit photo to show theground plane --- which covers just about everything --- and the LONG return trace  from the other end of the filter.

I don't quite know how to "read" the rigol display that Warren put up, but since some of his bands hit the -43 dBm requirement of 97.307(d) (first part):  (d) For transmitters installed after January 1, 2003, the mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency below 30 MHz must be at least 43 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission.​....

then I'm guessing that a few dB more isolation and more bands would "pass".    The return trace comes nicely close to lots of components!   The ground plane is available almost below everything.    drilling through and adding a tin metal shield between the return trace and the remainder of the circuit with a couple of solders to the ground plane might add some dB of isolationwithout having to tear into the relay.   It is probably advisable to run the "shield" tin metal right up to the relay in hopes of possibly even improving by a tiny bit the isolation there.   dunno.   brighter people than me, and those with the nice spectrum anallyzers (or Ashar) might have to figure this one out!

cheers,

gordon





From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...>
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 10:07 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
 
Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.

I haven't been following closely, has anyone reported any numbers on just how bad
these harmonics are during SSB ops?   

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:28 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Using two of the current ones would yield a very good result as on would be literally physically
on the other side of the filter for a good layout.


Re: None supprest carrier in TX

ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
 

One of two things.

If the filter is good your in its passband and not down the slope.  Or the balanced mod
has become broken.

Also if the audio has oscillation there can be a carrier!


Allison


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
 

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 07:07 PM, Jerry Gaffke wrote:
Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.
Jerry,

I split that.

Part of the problem is internal to the relay isolation from one set of contacts to the other.

You cannot parallel those filters. They must be switched. 
Also currents flowing along the ground plane are mixed in.  Several things going
on not just one.  No simple answer.


Allison


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
 

Jerry,

Warren has a little data an SSB.   It also varies with any amp mods and how hard you push
power either by RV2 or mic gain.

Right now I think SSB is better than CW for harmonics but its been a long time
since mine was stock.   One thing for sure even with the most linear amp GIGO
and that I've seen using a external instrumentation amp.

There is no question the amount of filtering is marginal.

Allison


Re: Raduino Clone kit from W0EB-N5IB #ubitx

Glenn
 

Jim, now i know what i was thinking, the 5v I2C levels from the NANO into the Si5351.

The max input to the Si5351 on I2C pins is 3.6v. (Table 8 of data sheet)

Hence i put in a logic level translator.

glenn




On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Glenn wrote:
Hi Jim, you are correct, not sure how I thought that......didn't look closely enough i guess.
OK on the extra bypassing etc.
glenn


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

MVS Sarma
 

NJM2073 part , if you try buying from ebay etc, you might landin getting same junky TDA2822  re-branded.
Try to by from some reliable source.

Regards
MVS Sarma
 VU3ZMV

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote:
Indeed.

Maybe do a search for TDA2822 on the forum to review the discussion
before launching into an angry rant.  

Here's a brief summary:

All uBitx's from HFSignals get powered up and checked and calibrated at 12v before shipping.

ST hasn't been building TDA2822's in the DIP8 for years.
HFSignals was buying FCI branded TDA2822's, they worked fine.
Their supplier switched to WX branded parts when the FCI parts were not available.
Boards with the WX parts worked fine at HFSignals during final board test.

The WX parts mostly work, typically power up fine.
But can blow on a whim if powered from 10v or more.
Perhaps a faster rise time on the supply or a supply set to 13v would blow a WX part
Perhaps a brief short at the headphone jack.
Perhaps no reason at all.

The NJM2073D from JRC is a good solid pin compatible replacement for the TDA2822, 
Easy to get.
 

Better yet, don't launch into an angry rant.
I don't do angry, and I for one will definitely be ignoring the next one.
Except perhaps to ask the moderator to take action.

Jerry, KE7ER
 

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:31 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Seriously!  Take a moment and a deep breath.



Re: Raduino Clone kit from W0EB-N5IB #ubitx

Glenn
 

Hi Jim, you are correct, not sure how I thought that......didn't look closely enough i guess.
OK on the extra bypassing etc.
glenn


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Jerry Gaffke
 

Indeed.

Maybe do a search for TDA2822 on the forum to review the discussion
before launching into an angry rant.  

Here's a brief summary:

All uBitx's from HFSignals get powered up and checked and calibrated at 12v before shipping.

ST hasn't been building TDA2822's in the DIP8 for years.
HFSignals was buying FCI branded TDA2822's, they worked fine.
Their supplier switched to WX branded parts when the FCI parts were not available.
Boards with the WX parts worked fine at HFSignals during final board test.

The WX parts mostly work, typically power up fine.
But can blow on a whim if powered from 10v or more.
Perhaps a faster rise time on the supply or a supply set to 13v would blow a WX part
Perhaps a brief short at the headphone jack.
Perhaps no reason at all.

The NJM2073D from JRC is a good solid pin compatible replacement for the TDA2822, 
Easy to get.
 

Better yet, don't launch into an angry rant.
I don't do angry, and I for one will definitely be ignoring the next one.
Except perhaps to ask the moderator to take action.

Jerry, KE7ER
 


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:31 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Seriously!  Take a moment and a deep breath.


Re: Raduino Clone kit from W0EB-N5IB #ubitx

Jim Sheldon
 

Glenn,
The Si5351 never ran on 5 volts even on the original Raduino.  It takes its voltage from the 3.3V regulator built into the NANO via the 3V3 pin on the header.  No need to supply extra parts for the 3.3V but I did add additional filter capacitance on the 3.3 to the 5351 so suppress some of the RFI clicks that had been reported.  I added an additional 10uF capacitor to the 3v3 line and it seems to have really helped kill the tuning clicks feed back into the supply from that line.

The 7805 5V regulator is also heavily bypassed unlike the original and has both .1uf ceramic and 10uF Tantalum capacitors on both the input and output of the 7805 in accordance with standard industry practice.  Except for the 2 tantalum capacitors on the 7805 and the 10uF on the 3.3V line, all the capacitors are 0805 size SMD capacitors.  Resistors except for R1 and the two trim pots are 0805 size SMD 1/8W 5%.

The full construction manual containing the parts list, schematic and board trace pattern is downloadable from the Documentation directory in the "files" section on my website, www.w0eb.com

Jim Sheldon, W0EB

------ Original Message ------
From: "Glenn" <glennp@...>
Sent: 8/4/2018 7:26:16 PM
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Raduino Clone kit from W0EB-N5IB #ubitx

Jim, did you fit parts to run the Si5351 from 3v3 and not 5v of the original Raduino?

I have made a similar board to your Clone also, with these parts fitted although same size as original. The Si5351 is a DIY also here, but can  use the Adafruit version too. I also made provision for a TXCO reference, a FOX924.
vk3pe


Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW

Jerry Gaffke
 

Looks to me like a good part of the problem is board layout.
Each LPF is fed from a relay, then has a trace from the far side of the LPF
coming back right under the LPF to get back into the other set of relay.contacts.

One possible solution:
Rip out that return trace on each of the LPF's.
Add a set of straps at the far end of the LPF's to select one of them for connection to the antenna jack.

I haven't been following closely, has anyone reported any numbers on just how bad
these harmonics are during SSB ops?   

Jerry


On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 06:28 PM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Using two of the current ones would yield a very good result as on would be literally physically
on the other side of the filter for a good layout.