Date   

Re: Change request, add morse characters #firmware #qcx

Lup Schlueter
 

...and SK is the correct Abreviation. In no way VA, even in empire publications i can
not find this interpretation. Checked ARRL Handbook back up to 1932, always SK. 
Where VA is ever published?
73 de DJ7SW, cw for ever since 1958.



On 12.08.2020 09:37, Trystan G0KAY wrote:
Hans,

When I did my morse test,  it was "VA".

I think of dead people when I see "SK".

Trystan


Re: QCX mini: RF output BNC or SMA #poll-notice

The Crunchbird
 

BNC for me. N2SN 


Re: QCX+ German manual translation

Michael.2E0IHW
 

Eine fast monumentale Aufgabe - alle Achtung und verbindlichen Dank, Bernhard!

Michael UK

On Mi..12.August 08:51, Hans Summers wrote:
Hi all

Many thanks to Bernhard DK5FN who has made a German translation of the QCX+ manual, please see http://qrp-labs.com/qcxp 

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com



QCX+ German manual translation

Hans Summers
 

Hi all

Many thanks to Bernhard DK5FN who has made a German translation of the QCX+ manual, please see http://qrp-labs.com/qcxp 

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com


Re: Change request, add morse characters #firmware #qcx

Mike
 

That is understandabl as SK, as in silent Key, derives from the SK as in end
of transmission.
You are just of a morbid mind Trystan <vbg>

On 12 Aug 2020 at 0:37, Trystan G0KAY wrote:

Hans,

When I did my morse test,  it was "VA".

I think of dead people when I see "SK".

Trystan




Re: Change request, add morse characters #firmware #qcx

Trystan G0KAY
 

Hans,

When I did my morse test,  it was "VA".

I think of dead people when I see "SK".

Trystan


Re: Change request, add morse characters #firmware #qcx

Hans Summers
 

Hi Dick

Thanks, this was requested and is already on the list. 

One question I have - do some people say VA and some SK or is it always the same? Is one usage more common than the other? I always thought of it as VA.

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:39 PM Dick PA3CW <dick.hissink@...> wrote:
Great little rig the QCX +, very impressed.  A request for a small addition in next firmware:  Please add the morse character + (AR, di dah di dah dit) and VA (di di di dah di dah), i always use them in my messages, and unable to do so yet in QCX.  Small request :)
Thanks!
Dick PA3CW


Re: QCX mini: RF output BNC or SMA #poll-notice

Hans Summers
 

Yes, I can include the pads for SMA too..

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:17 PM <namerati@...> wrote:
I hope the suggestion for including SMA connector pads on the PCB will
still stand, even if SMA is not the "official" connector. (As noted
previously, the SMA connector pad layout also permits the more-reliable
MCX and probably other small-format RF connectors as well)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 03:14:05PM +0300, Hans Summers wrote:
>Hi all
>
>On the topic of BNC vs SMA preference for the QCX mini RF connector... I
>closed the poll since it had been open for a few days and I think everyone
>had a chance.
>
>Of the 5,136 members of this group, 118 votes were received (2.3% voter
>turnout).
>
>Results:
>
>BNC:  90 votes (76%)
>SMA:  28 votes (24%)
>
>So. There you go. Democracy. Two mainstream choices, neither of which may
>actually represent your views. Only a minority of voters actually bother to
>vote. Wow. We might almost be voting for the leadership of our country! Hi
>hi. Except that the result would be a lot closer and then we could spend
>the next 4 years arguing about it :-)
>
>73 Hans G0UPL
>http://qrp-labs.com
>
>On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:44 PM Hans Summers via groups.io <hans.summers=
>gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
>> A new poll has been created:
>>
>> On the proposed QCX-mini, do you prefer a BNC connector like on QCX, or an
>> SMA connector?
>>
>> 1. BNC
>> 2. SMA
>>
>> Vote Now <https://groups.io/g/QRPLabs/vote?pollid=15715>
>>
>> Do not reply to this message to vote in the poll. You can vote in polls
>> only through the group's website.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>





Re: discrepancy in the build instructions for receiver kit.

Hans Summers
 

Hi Geoff

Yes it is confusing, I agree. This is quite an old kit and my skills have improved, hopefully  ;-)

The schematic is labelled in a sensible way, i.e. filter IN is shown connected to the RF input, and filter OUT is shown connected to the trifilar transformer T3 (and I have no idea, why there are no T1, T2, as you observed - but that is not an important thing). 

I cannot change the IN and OUT labels on the BPF silkscreen because this would create enormous confusion, since there are already 7,558 BPF kits out there. 

Note that the BPF is symmetric so it makes no real difference which direction the signal flows through. 

The PCB layout is slightly wrong, this is the real problem. The correct solution to this is to re-route two traces and not change anything else. That way the whole thing becomes correct. The circuit diagram, IN/OUT locations, etc. 

So I have just made a change to my local PCB copy, so that in future it will be like the attached diagram. But this will have to wait for the next manufacturing run, which is some way away, since I have just started using a new batch of 250. 

ANYWAY as you said, this does not affect in any way the function or performance of the module. It's a technicality which as you said, could cause confusion during fault finding, and should be fixed. But not of critical importance. 

73 Hans G0UPL
http://qrp-labs.com





On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:40 AM geoff M0ORE via groups.io <m0ore=tiscali.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:
The assembly of my U3S kit + receiver is progressing well. U3S is completed and working OK.
Assembly of the receiver board nearly done and ready for intregation with the U3S. After building the BPF board and inserting into the mother board, I checked the connections to their destinations.
Using the schematic on page 2 of the instructions (rev 2), I could not get continuity from pins 3 & 4 of the OUT socket to the primary of T3. ( what happened to T1 & T2?)
I then could not get continuity from pins 1 & 2 of the IN socket to the source of Q1.
Looking at the PCB layout on page 5, the blue traces show that the pins of socket adjacent to IC2 go to the transformer winding and alternative RF input. Other blue traces show the pins on the socket adjacent to R21 / C16 go to the source of Q1. Buzzing out the connections on the board confirm these findings.
In conclusion, the IN and OUT labels on the schematic should be reversed and the screen printing on the BPF board needs to be changed and the diagram on page 17 also needs to be amended.
Given the number of these kits which apparently have been built, I am surprised that this anomaly has not been spotted before. It does not prevent operation of the kit but could hamper any faulting. Sorry if these findings cause any distress. I am very satisfied with the kits and the very high standard of the documention.


Re: U3S - construction mistake with SiS5351a Rev 4 pins

Alan G4ZFQ
 

will the synth work with a U3S regardless of whether the Pin 12 is present or not?
Arnie,

Yes. I use that method to avoid inserting a synth the wrong way round.
Cut off pin 12, fill in the corresponding hole in the header.

73 Alan GZFQ


Re: discrepancy in the build instructions for receiver kit.

KEN G4APB
 

I found this at the end of the rx assembly instructions...

15-Sep-2016
 
Corrected reversed orientation of BPF module in section 6.1 and photo in section 5.

73 Ken G4APB


Carrying case for QCX

Richard
 

Any suggestions as to a carrying case to help protect the rig in my backpack?

Thanks!


Re: U3S - construction mistake with SiS5351a Rev 4 pins

Ton - PA0ARR
 

Arnie, it will work normally without pin 12
73 Ton


Re: QCX+ 7805 problem

Ross Tucker (NS7F)
 

Dick- lifting D2 revealed the problem: a solder bridge UNDER my tcxo board! Now it works!


Re: QCX-mini discussion from Saturday's ZOOM Q&A session

Ron Stone
 

If possible, I would recommend using two suitably spaced buttons/switches as a substitute for a key.  I've been using two switches with the keyer on my homebrew handheld portable rig for years and it works great (see my qrz.com page).   

73,

Ron (KA3J)


Re: Difficulty during alignment - RF output #20m #qcx #problem

Ronald Taylor
 

The easiest way to check continuity through the lowpass filter is to measure from the center pin of the BNC connector to the end of C29 that isn’t connected to the drains of the BS-170s. 

Hope that helps ... Ron

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 15:14 mike.carden <mike.carden@...> wrote:


On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:55 AM <W5EGA@...> wrote:

What do you mean by "O/C BS170's"? Is that overcharged, over current, or something else? 

In this context, O/C usually refers to Open Circuit which you can imagine being equivalent to a 'blown fuse'.

-- 
MC
 


U3S - construction mistake with SiS5351a Rev 4 pins

Podolsky A
 

Mates:
I finally got back to trying to finish assembly of my U3S with SiS5358a Rev4 and made a mistake by not reading the synth instructions carefully enough. What I did is that I saw the instruction to cut off Pin 12 of the connector on the synth in order to use it with the U3. What I failed to read was that for using the synth with a U3S, you were not supposed to cut off that Pin 12. Actually, the language in the instructions was that it was not necessary to cut off Pin 12. Does anyone know whether cutting off Pin 12 on the synth will prevent it from working properly with a U3S, as opposed to a U3 ? In other words, will the synth work with a U3S regardless of whether the Pin 12 is present or not?
Tnx de Arnie W8DU


Re: Adapt A Bioenno 24v LiFePO4 Battery To Run The QRPLabs 50 Watt PA?

Shane Justice
 

Hi Allison,

All true- non FM CW/SSB is much kinder on battery. The radios I spoke of were SDRs with heavy processor use and FPGA use to encode/decode network waveforms.

We were using rubber duckie whips, but there was a company back in Mass. Somewhere who were developing body-loaded antennas. I once knew the cofounder, but I've lost track of him over the last 9 years or so.

I am sure I'd recall the company and/or the gentleman if I heard the names of the companies that were doing that work back then.

73,
Shane KE7TR


On Aug 11, 2020 at 15:44, ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...> wrote:

High draw is realated to battery size so for something useful at the 50W output
level 4A  is not a big draw.

Also for ham use 10% would be mostly sitting there... not brevity codes.
Large difference from how tactical radios are used.  That and no need
to carry M4 and 10 mags as part of the loadout.

I know as I developed antennas for mil gear and use 1/5 as worst case 
usage when power withstanding was close to the body or otherwise
loaded antenna.  Testing meant a PRC such often the batteries would
fail during a session meaning I'd carry several and maybe a spare for
the ham HT as backup [we were all hams] .

Typical planning for any case where a pile up or FD activity
plus calling CQ adds TX time loading.  The 20% used is still
light and  by actual measurement at club FD 35-45% was pretty
close to actual power consumed.  Usually battery heating is not
an issue nor high rates exceeding the C/5 and prefered for
operating time to be less than C/10.  

CW power consumption is about average considerably less than
100% more like 35% due to "spacing" elements when actually sending. 
SSB is maybe a bit more, even with processing less than 50%.  FM modes
tend to be big consumers.  Data depending on mode can hit 100% if that
is not a cooling limited situation for the radio.

Allison
-------------------------------
Please reply on list so we can share.
No private email, it goes to a bit bucket due address harvesting


Re: U3S Error: Si5351A

John AK4AT
 

Correction: The short trace that was open is on the lower side of the PCB.


Re: U3S Error: Si5351A

John AK4AT
 

I found a PCB manufacturing flaw. There was an open between pin 14 and R1 & Q1 on the PCB. This is a short trace on the upper side of the board, and despite filling the hole with solder, there was no contact between the pin and the components. I pried up the insulator on the connector strip pins, scratched away the coating on the trace and let solder flow across the pin, hole, and trace. Now I get a clock instead of an error, so I'm ready to proceed!

Thanks for the help!

John AK4AT