You can't: they are identical.

It's in YOUR head!

Roger

G3YTN

---

***************************
Roger Hill
***************************

On 2020-08-12 12:11, John Baines via groups.io wrote:

How can I tell if someone is sending SK or VA ?

 

If I can't tell the difference, does it matter which is used?

 

(sorry,I'm in an awkward mood)

 

72/73

John

M0JBA

On 12 Aug 2020, at 12:06, Evan Hand <elhandjr@...> wrote:

Thank you, Gerry.  That quenches my curiosity.

73
Evan
AC9TU

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

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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

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.