|
Re: Bad news
#40m
Ham Radio
More from a troubleshooting aid point-of-view as components are being replaced when doing a repair.
-- 73, Bernie, VE3FWF
|
|
|
|
Re: Battery recommendations for portable ops?
john.rogers@...
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:46 AM, <john.rogers@...> wrote:
I use a second 3S in series with the radio battery to power the 50W ampCorrection: I use a 3S to power the QCX and 2S in series to power the 50W amp. 6S would be too high voltage. John
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX vs. QCX+ Form Factor Question
Yes, Hans, I also see potential for your stalagmites not meeting my stalactites :-D On a different note, will the enclosure have a pair of folding feet under the front? I want to avoid getting a stiff neck in the field… (not the US police kind of stiff neck, though.)
|
|
|
|
Re: [help] Only noise being seen while IQ balance / phase lo / phase hi.
dl8lrz
Hi,
short test for IC10 Check again whether the marking on the circuit shows the display (ok, already done 100 times) Use a protective resistor Rp approx. 220 Ohm (against unwanted short circuit), do not connect voltages directly to the PINs. Connect voltmeter to PIN7 + 12V via Rp at PIN5 -> PIN7 high, about 12V + 12V via Rp at PIN6 -> PIN7 low, about 0V 0V via Rp at PIN6 -> PIN7 high, about 12V 0V via Rp at PIN5 -> PIN7 low, about 0V Remove Rp Connect PIN7 and PIN6 directly (analog IC10A) -> PIN7 5V +/- (approximately equal to PIN5); if 12V -> IC defective? remove the wire PIN7 - PIN6 if no 5V +/- at PIN7: remove R37 if 5V +/- at PIN7 -> C22 defective ??? if further 12V -> IC10 defective ??? The voltages at PIN7 and PIN1 should be approximately the same.
vy 73 Reiner
|
|
|
|
Re: #ocxo
#ocxo
Alan G4ZFQ
regarding the external screen as shown in the OCXO photo for my U3S multiband. I can't put it because it hits the IC1 below. I'd like to ask you if it's important and necessary to put it or it's optional. thanksGiuseppe, I do not understand. What does it touch? IC1 is on the other side of the board. It's pins are seen at the left side, away from the cover. This cover helps to screen and maybe more importantly to stop air currents from affecting the temperature.
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX vs. QCX+ Form Factor Question
Hans Summers
Hi Serge Yes, I see... The wide thickness of your assembly is due to the circuit board and the battery holders all adding up as thickness. Well there are some potential ways you could make it fit. The area is large. But 30.5mm is the limit to the depth - this assumes the components above the QCX+ PCB are allowed a height of 12mm. The only components which need this height are the LPF toroids, the electrolytic capacitors, and the 24-turn trimmer potentiometers. So perhaps, with careful orientation, your board could be positioned such that the "high" parts of the QCX+ circuit didn't interfere with the big parts of the battery controller board. Bolt the board to the roof with standoffs and make sure the positioning is such that the stalagmites never meet the stalagmites. OR... use the QCX+ Dev kit board, and separate the battery holders of your assembly, from the board. There seems to be plenty of space to have them side by side. OR... you could make the LPF toroids in the QCX+, and the capacitors and 24-turn trimmer pots, lie down - where necessary? The QCX+ PCB has lots of spare area so there is room to make things like down like that. Several options - but will take some experiment! 73 Hans G0UPL http://qrp-labs.com
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:11 PM Serge, ON4AA <serge@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: #ocxo
#ocxo
Roger Hill
Sorry Giuseppe...I cannot help as I have never built one, but I am sure there are others here who can help. Roger G3YTN ---
***************************
Roger Hill ***************************
On 2020-05-29 07:15, GIUSEPPE wrote:
|
|
|
|
#ocxo
#ocxo
Hello everyone, my name is Giuseppe iu8eun. I would like to ask you for help regarding the external screen as shown in the OCXO photo for my U3S multiband. I can't put it because it hits the IC1 below. I'd like to ask you if it's important and necessary to put it or it's optional. thanks
|
|
|
|
Re: ProgRock OCXO and GPS locked frequency accuracy.
Phil Crockford
I have done investigation on the accuracy of the GPS control using the Synth module in both the PRO-ROCK and the VFO Sig-gen and I also confirm a frequency difference between an off air standard and the GPS locked frequency derived by the two products. If a synth module is used in the PRO-Rock it produces a frequency which deviates from the programed frequency by around 2 Hz and does not seem to attempt to correct any further in order to align with the off air standard. However if the same synth module is used in the VFO SIG-Gen and corrected by the same GPS used for the PRO-Rock the Sig-Gen produces an accuracy of better than .5Hz from the programmed frequency and continues to correct itself from then on. Until now I have resolved to apply a correction to the programmed frequency when using in the Pro-Rock and was content not to communicate my findings to the group. I have a number of Synth modules , OCXO and standard and find the same with all modules when compared in this manner. The initial acquisition process in the Pro-Rock seems to work well but once this is achieved it seems reluctant to control the frequency any further. This test have been done with the correction set to 001 and also set to 000 but the pro-rock seems to fail to control the frequency to within less than 2Hz. Both the Sig-Gen and the Pro-Rock have been run at the same time and controlled by the same GPS using two Synth modules known to exhibit the 2Hz error. The Sig-Gen produces a frequency that is correct to within less than .5Hz but he Pro-Rock Controls to within 2Hz.
This email is by way of information and is not intended a criticism of any product.
G8IOA
From: QRPLabs@groups.io [mailto:QRPLabs@groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Horn
Hans,
|
|
|
|
Re: ProgRock + TCXO + GPS Stability/Accuracy
Phil Crockford
I have done investigation on the accuracy of the GPS control using the Synth module in both the PRO-ROCK and the VFO Sig-gen and I also confirm a frequency difference between an off air standard and the GPS locked frequency derived by the two products. If a synth module is used in the PRO-Rock it produces a frequency which deviates from the programed frequency by around 2 Hz and does not seem to attempt to correct any further in order to align with the off air standard. However if the same synth module is used in the VFO SIG-Gen and corrected by the same GPS used for the PRO-Rock the Sig-Gen produces an accuracy of better than .5Hz from the programmed frequency and continues to correct itself from then on. Until now I have resolved to apply a correction to the programmed frequency when using in the Pro-Rock and was content not to communicate my findings to the group. I have a number of Synth modules , OCXO and standard and find the same with all modules when compared in this manner. The initial acquisition process in the Pro-Rock seems to work well but once this is achieved it seems reluctant to control the frequency any further. This test have been done with the correction set to 001 and also set to 000 but the pro-rock seems to fail to control the frequency to within less than 2Hz. Both the Sig-Gen and the Pro-Rock have been run at the same time and controlled by the same GPS using two Synth modules known to exhibit the 2Hz error. The Sig-Gen produces a frequency that is correct to within less than .5Hz but he Pro-Rock Controls to within 2Hz.
This email is by way of information and is not intended a criticism of any product.
G8IOA
From: QRPLabs@groups.io [mailto:QRPLabs@groups.io] On Behalf Of Hans Summers
Hello Giuseppe
Setting register 3 to zero affects how often the frequency is updated. It does NOT affect how often the EEPROM is updated, using the Reference Clock value held in RAM.
The calibrated Reference Clock value held in RAM is only written to EEPROM if the difference between the existing EEPROM value and the RAM value exceeds 10Hz. Therefore in practice the EEPROM is updated rarely.
73 Hans G0UPL
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:27 AM Giuseppe Marullo <giuseppe@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
QCX Plus 50 Watt PA Combo
George Korper
Hi All,
Hans has published the dimension available and I am looking for designs to incorporate the 50 watt amp inside the case. Can you separate the IRF510 and heatsink from the board with wires? Or would it better to just leave it in case and bolt on, etc. Any suggestions would be helpful. Is the case itself enough heatsink for moderate use? George K3GK
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX vs. QCX+ Form Factor Question
Here is the Wondom BCPB2 3S 18650 MPPT BMS I am talking about. Leaving out the DC connector, it is still 31.5 mm high with the electrolytic capacitors being the next highest components. However, if necessary, 1 mm can still be shaved off by replacing the 18650 cell holders. It is pretty cheap, to the point that you perhaps could integrate it with your transceiver by default. The MPPT allows it to be used with a 18 to 24 V solar panel. I got the idea of a video from Gil, F4WBY. He also employs this to supply power to his QCX radios. (Do not follow his suggestion of soldering directly to the cell terminals, though. Just apply once external power to the board to get it running.)
The newer version PCBs have extra headers to drive external power level LEDs, without the need to add any extra series resistors.
|
|
|
|
Re: Heresy follows Re: [QRPLabs] IRF510 #alignment #magic of hollow state
#alignment
#magic
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:15 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Its still about the magic of hearing aBeautifully sums it up Allison. I'm still giddy that this little QCX marvel made it all the way from the UK to Tasmania on WSPR from a dipole atop a 1 metre high beech hedge! It is magic. My glowing collection involves an Eddystone S556, a Codar TR45 I built as a kit in the '60s and most recently a Trio 9R-59D, I was looking for an oscillator to tune this radio up when I happened upon the QCX....... 73s Ted 2E0THH
|
|
|
|
Re: IRF510
#alignment
Hi,
I have just raised the supply to 13.8V, and linearity, and improved no end, as I step down 1dB at a time, the amp output, follows with in 0.94dB!
Using a R & S NRP8S Sig Gen -1dB = -0.94dB Sig Gen -3dB = -2.96dB Sig Gen -6dB = -5.94dB Sig Gen -9dB = -8.97dB Sig Gen -10dB = -9.93dB
73
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Re: A great QCX-QCX contact and salute to youth
Hans Summers
Hi Ted
Yes indeed! I was so lucky that Akihabara was a 2-station train ride from my office. I could literally be there, door to door including the walk to/from the stations at either end, in 15 minutes each way. That left 30 minutes to peruse and buy what I needed. So I could be there and back in a lunch hour! Many QRP Labs kits started their development using components found in Akihabara. And yes, sometimes I did not make it back in an hour so had to have plenty of excuses on hand :-D Later I had one of the popular eBikes (you pedal but an electric motor assists) known as Mamachari which literally translates to "Mummy Bike". Actually we bought it for XYL to use but between one lab tech and another it was me that ended up zooming all over Tokyo on it. So then it was even faster to get to Akihabara and back in a lunch hour, through the Tokyo back streets. Happy memories! 73 Hans G0UPL http://qrp-labs.com
|
|
|
|
Re: A great QCX-QCX contact and salute to youth
Fabulous insight Jim
My first visit was only back in the '80s but I’ve been there nearly every year since, sometimes more. I worked in music and more specifically flew one of those huge mixing consoles (SSL) that was mandatory in every recording studio back then. Like any complex bit of kit it had a huge manual but there were many ways to make it work for you that weren't written in there.
I honestly will never forget the look of horror of the Japanese assistant techs as I "bent" the rules of operation, there was much manual page fumbling and protest but I managed to forge on citing translation difficulties.
That first session was a long project, 6 weeks I think so we got to know each other very well. By then I was reasonably world travelled but Tokyo was a utter culture shock. All of the Japanese involved in that project were so unbelievably hospitable and generous, way beyond anything I had ever known and it is a testament to the trust we built that I still remain friends with most from that first visit. Music still takes me back there most years but alas not this one for obvious reasons.
Those guys introduced me to a district of Tokyo around Akihabara Station in the Chiyoda ward of Tokyo. There is nothing you can do to prepare yourself for the onslaught of the visual and audio cacophony that awaits; there are certainly no words I can write here that will describe it but it has become a Mecca for me and I have made the pilgrimage on almost every visit.
73s Ted
|
|
|
|
Re: Bad news
#40m
Bernie,
That looks interesting. I think your post has gone onto the wrong topic? A current limiter won't stop popping the finals when there is no antenna connected, or fix a broken QCX. I'm guessing you're replying to a different post? Trystan
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX/QCX+ Serial number 10,000 auction for fun
Hans Summers
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:02 AM scot forshaw <scot.forshaw@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX vs. QCX+ Form Factor Question
Hans Summers
Hi Serge If you assume that the through hole components on the upper side of the PCB require 12mm of space - which is approximately true in the case of some tall components such as upright toroids and the electrolytic capacitors - then the available volume is 96mm wide x 30.5mm high x 120mm deep. I'm not sure why you would need 92 x 70 x 35mm for three 18650 cells. By definition the size of a 18650 is 18mm diameter and 65.0mm length (this is in the type name). Three of these would therefore fit in a space with dimensions 65 x 54 x 18mm. I know you said there is charge controller and battery management circuit... but unless these are very big, or I am missing something, this battery pack should easily fit, even twice! 73 Hans G0UPL
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:38 AM Serge, ON4AA <serge@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: QCX FS
Bob Finch
Please send along a private email to me.... w9ya@amsat.org
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ward Wheaton via groups.io <wmwheaton=aim.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
|
