Re: 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
?It's all in the antenna.
Amen to that! I honestly believe that, dollar-for-dollar, putting cash into the antenna usually pays bigger dividends than almost anything else. As to me, I have a crappy end-fed wire thrown up in the trees. But, I look at Roberto in Italy with 160' tower and a 3 element beam on 40M running 500W and think: "Even I could make contacts with that setup." Yet, I really do get a kick out of running a few watts and seeing just how far I can go with it. I think of the guy in Japan who made DXCC with 500mW. Now there's some operating skill! I also think of all the hams who don't know Morse and how much they are missing. It's kinda sad, really...
Jack, W8TEE
From: "Aaron Heverin aaronhev@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]"
To: SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2016 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
?
I ran my 49-er at 11.5 volts accidentally and destroyed the original D882. Up until it smoked, I was getting around 5-6 volts out. When I replaced the D882 and adjusted the output of R1, I'm now getting about 3 watts out - which is just fine. I wouldn't advise running the D882 any higher than the 4 volt peak to peak voltage as the manual states. Even at 3 watts out, I'm making lots of contacts with the thing. It's all in the antenna. :-)
Aaron - N2HTL
|
Re: 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
Thanks Jack,
I'm not planning on running it higher. If I can get 1.8W out of it I'm OK with that. I just wondering why the wattage levels vary so much.. In my case I got the 1.8W into both a dummy load, and also into my doublet.
I know there are other factors that would affect the level like cabling or lack of a heat sink, but I'm really just trying to get a feel for what others are getting as output and what there situation is. In my case I wonder why mine will not do closer to 3W..
With mine the final is not getting hot at all. Warm if anything to the touch.
Thanks loads to all for the comments and recommendations. Now to just get my keyer setup and I'll be on the air with it.. QRP
Steve NS3L..?
|
Re: 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
I ran my 49-er at 11.5 volts accidentally and destroyed the original D882. Up until it smoked, I was getting around 5-6 volts out. When I replaced the D882 and adjusted the output of R1, I'm now getting about 3 watts out - which is just fine. I wouldn't advise running the D882 any higher than the 4 volt peak to peak voltage as the manual states. Even at 3 watts out, I'm making lots of contacts with the thing. It's all in the antenna. :-)
Aaron - N2HTL
?
I'm not sure it's worth the gain to ramp the voltage above 12V. Running 1.8W versus 3W probably isn't going to make much difference, but I think running at 13.8V runs a real risk of smoking the final. If you do run at higher power, make sure you don't leave the key closed too long.
Jack, W8TEE
?
I have a general question..
Right now my 49'er with the DDS-VFO is managing 1.65-1.8 watts out as shown on my LP-100A and going into into a tuned doublet. I don't have a heat sink on the D882 at this time.
My 49'er and DDS-VFO R1 has been set to 4V P-2-P via my Tek 2213A oscilloscope.
I run a Elenco XP-752A Variable power supply. It's set at 12.0V even, and the unit is drawing 0.17a current idling, and a slight tad more on TX.
What I'd like to know is what voltage do most users run their 49'ers with the DDS/VFO at? (Assuming 12V levels)
I've seen that 49'er output wattage varies from 1.5 to at or above 3 watts based on bit's and pieces I've found on the web. I have the ability to go up to 13.5V but would like to hear from others on what you are actually seeing out of the unit and how the higher V affects the output wattage.
Steve NS3L ?
?
|
Re: post the article to Files section?
Yes, and my county library system will absolutely not copy any type of copyrighted material and has warnings posted at the self use copy machines not to use them to copy copyrighted material.
Dave, W0DF
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:56 PM, "Jack Purdum jjpurdum@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" wrote:
?
The ARRL has the copyright to the articles it publishes. You might try to write them as see what kind of response you get.
Jack, W8TEE
From: "W5COV cvest@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" To: SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2016 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] post the article to Files section?
?
One of the authors had a note on his web page that he was going to make a full kit available , I haven't checked recently to see if it is available.
The items required are not available from places like Mouser , etc. They are modules that are typically found on eBay by a whole host of sellers.
When I ordered the parts that I need for mine , I looked at the pictures and descriptions in the article , and then found the person that had sold the most of each of those items , thinking that the article had likely caused a spike in sales for the parts and that others were using the same supplier. Just a guess , no factual information.
As far as the article , I am not sure whether or not the ARRL allows for posting for limited use or not. However our local library does offer a service for copying articles. They Xerox the article and charge a minimal amount , something like ten cents a page.
It took me a while to get my 49'er built and I didn't order the add on pieces , until it was finished , so I am still waiting to receive them and they are probably another week or so out.....
Best 73 ,
Charlie , W5COV
---- "Brian brianpepperdine@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Would it be possible for the March 49er article to be posted to the Files section in PDF format?I don't get QST, and for me to go to the central library to get and read the issue (if it even there and not migrated to some other part of the Library at the time I go there) is a bit of trial.I am curious to see the article in its entirety so I know what it is all about, particularly from the DDS point point of view- as well as basic radio core function. Hard to know that is really being said without the full details at hand.
> Also, I am interested, but like some people I am sort of looking for as complete a kit as possible to arrive sometime/where, based upon what I have at least read here and on QRP groups.
> Mostly because mail to Canada from USA has increased quite a bit, even for small packages, so it will be a major cost to source even a few different mailings of parts/boards (though Mouser and DigiKey might be better sources if relevant since they sort of deal from a Canadian supply outpost I think).
> Even dealing with supposedly 'free shipping' sources from China via Ebay is way beyond my comfort zone - for a myriad of reasons.
> tnxBrien VE3VAW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Re: post the article to Files section?
The ARRL has the copyright to the articles it publishes. You might try to write them as see what kind of response you get.
Jack, W8TEE
From: "W5COV cvest@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]"
To: SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2016 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] post the article to Files section?
?
One of the authors had a note on his web page that he was going to make a full kit available , I haven't checked recently to see if it is available.
The items required are not available from places like Mouser , etc. They are modules that are typically found on eBay by a whole host of sellers.
When I ordered the parts that I need for mine , I looked at the pictures and descriptions in the article , and then found the person that had sold the most of each of those items , thinking that the article had likely caused a spike in sales for the parts and that others were using the same supplier. Just a guess , no factual information.
As far as the article , I am not sure whether or not the ARRL allows for posting for limited use or not. However our local library does offer a service for copying articles. They Xerox the article and charge a minimal amount , something like ten cents a page.
It took me a while to get my 49'er built and I didn't order the add on pieces , until it was finished , so I am still waiting to receive them and they are probably another week or so out.....
Best 73 ,
Charlie , W5COV
---- "Brian brianpepperdine@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Would it be possible for the March 49er article to be posted to the Files section in PDF format?I don't get QST, and for me to go to the central library to get and read the issue (if it even there and not migrated to some other part of the Library at the time I go there) is a bit of trial.I am curious to see the article in its entirety so I know what it is all about, particularly from the DDS point point of view- as well as basic radio core function. Hard to know that is really being said without the full details at hand.
> Also, I am interested, but like some people I am sort of looking for as complete a kit as possible to arrive sometime/where, based upon what I have at least read here and on QRP groups.
> Mostly because mail to Canada from USA has increased quite a bit, even for small packages, so it will be a major cost to source even a few different mailings of parts/boards (though Mouser and DigiKey might be better sources if relevant since they sort of deal from a Canadian supply outpost I think).
> Even dealing with supposedly 'free shipping' sources from China via Ebay is way beyond my comfort zone - for a myriad of reasons.
> tnxBrien VE3VAW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Re: post the article to Files section?
One of the authors had a note on his web page that he was going to make a full kit available , I haven't checked recently to see if it is available.
The items required are not available from places like Mouser , etc. They are modules that are typically found on eBay by a whole host of sellers.
When I ordered the parts that I need for mine , I looked at the pictures and descriptions in the article , and then found the person that had sold the most of each of those items , thinking that the article had likely caused a spike in sales for the parts and that others were using the same supplier. Just a guess , no factual information.
As far as the article , I am not sure whether or not the ARRL allows for posting for limited use or not. However our local library does offer a service for copying articles. They Xerox the article and charge a minimal amount , something like ten cents a page.
It took me a while to get my 49'er built and I didn't order the add on pieces , until it was finished , so I am still waiting to receive them and they are probably another week or so out.....
Best 73 ,
Charlie , W5COV
---- "Brian brianpepperdine@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" <SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Would it be possible for the March 49er article to be posted to the Files section in PDF format?I don't get QST, and for me to go to the central library to get and read the issue (if it even there and not migrated to some other part of the Library at the time I go there) is a bit of trial.I am curious to see the article in its entirety so I know what it is all about, particularly from the DDS point point of view- as well as basic radio core function. Hard to know that is really being said without the full details at hand.
Also, I am interested, but like some people I am sort of looking for as complete a kit as possible to arrive sometime/where, based upon what I have at least read here and on QRP groups.
Mostly because mail to Canada from USA has increased quite a bit, even for small packages, so it will be a major cost to source even a few different mailings of parts/boards (though Mouser and DigiKey might be better sources if relevant since they sort of deal from a Canadian supply outpost I think).
Even dealing with supposedly 'free shipping' sources from China via Ebay is way beyond my comfort zone - for a myriad of reasons.
tnxBrien VE3VAW
|
Re: 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
I'm not sure it's worth the gain to ramp the voltage above 12V. Running 1.8W versus 3W probably isn't going to make much difference, but I think running at 13.8V runs a real risk of smoking the final. If you do run at higher power, make sure you don't leave the key closed too long.
Jack, W8TEE
From: "hdskullfire2@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]"
To: SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2016 7:22 AM
Subject: [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] 49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
?
I have a general question..
Right now my 49'er with the DDS-VFO is managing 1.65-1.8 watts out as shown on my LP-100A and going into into a tuned doublet. I don't have a heat sink on the D882 at this time.
My 49'er and DDS-VFO R1 has been set to 4V P-2-P via my Tek 2213A oscilloscope.
I run a Elenco XP-752A Variable power supply. It's set at 12.0V even, and the unit is drawing 0.17a current idling, and a slight tad more on TX.
What I'd like to know is what voltage do most users run their 49'ers with the DDS/VFO at? (Assuming 12V levels)
I've seen that 49'er output wattage varies from 1.5 to at or above 3 watts based on bit's and pieces I've found on the web. I have the ability to go up to 13.5V but would like to hear from others on what you are actually seeing out of the unit and how the higher V affects the output wattage.
Steve NS3L ?
?
|
49'er - Power supply voltage vs Wattage out??
I have a general question..
Right now my 49'er with the DDS-VFO is managing 1.65-1.8 watts out as shown on my LP-100A and going into into a tuned doublet. I don't have a heat sink on the D882 at this time.
My 49'er and DDS-VFO R1 has been set to 4V P-2-P via my Tek 2213A oscilloscope.
I run a Elenco XP-752A Variable power supply. It's set at 12.0V even, and the unit is drawing 0.17a current idling, and a slight tad more on TX.
What I'd like to know is what voltage do most users run their 49'ers with the DDS/VFO at? (Assuming 12V levels)
I've seen that 49'er output wattage varies from 1.5 to at or above 3 watts based on bit's and pieces I've found on the web. I have the ability to go up to 13.5V but would like to hear from others on what you are actually seeing out of the unit and how the higher V affects the output wattage.
Steve NS3L ?
?
|
Re: post the article to Files section?
I would think copyright issues would preclude posting the article in the files section....unless, of course ARRL grants permission.? I seem to recall that at one time one could order article reprints from ARRL...or I could be misremembering.
As far as the parts go, it was fairly painless ordering direct from China using a variety of Chinese sources...obviously YMMV.? I'm pretty certain I accumulated parts for less than 30 bucks, including? shipping.
73 de Lee
--
Lee Hiers, AA4GA
?
Would it be possible for the March 49er article to be posted to the Files section in PDF format? I don't get QST, and for me to go to the central library to get and read the issue (if it even there and not migrated to some other part of the Library at the time I go there) is a bit of trial. I am curious to see the article in its entirety so I know what it is all about, particularly from the DDS point point of view- as well as basic radio core function. Hard to know that is really being said without the full details at hand.
Also, I am interested, but like some people I am sort of looking for as complete a kit as possible to arrive sometime/where, based upon what I have at least read here and on QRP groups.
Mostly because mail to Canada from USA has increased quite a bit, even for small packages, so it will be a major cost to source even a few different mailings of parts/boards (though Mouser and DigiKey might be better sources if relevant since they sort of deal from a Canadian supply outpost I think).
Even dealing with supposedly 'free shipping' sources from China via Ebay is way beyond my comfort zone ?- for a myriad of reasons.
tnx Brien?
|
Re: What value did you use for R2 ???
Mine came with the 220K as well..
Steve NS3L
|
Re: What value did you use for R2 ???
Hi Dave and Arron
?
Hummm Ro 10K and tied to the input pin 3¡.I just looked at mine and
its not there. Of course the kits we¡¯re getting now are a far cry from the
original NorCal 49¡¯er. I found this site pretty interesting and now I see all
the ¡°improvements¡± that have been made over the original kit. I haven¡¯t read
through all the articles in this PDF but some of the problems seem to remain
with the current design.
?
www.norcalqrp.org/files/49er.pdf
?
Arron I assume that the background noise that he¡¯s talking
about is band white noise. Mine seems way down as does the signals. They also
have an article about changing the 380 to a 386¡didn¡¯t read it all yet but that
might be interesting. Also the original Q1 FET has a 10Meg biasing resistor in
it¡.but it¡¯s a J310¡.And check out the original output transistors¡.
?
Got more research to do¡.
?
don
|
Two issues with my 49'er - Spurious Oscillation & No LED action on the AD9850 board
Anyone else discover that the Forty-9'er is transmitting a "spurious" oscillation, in searching the web I found some comments discussing the issue. It seems that the local oscillator is constantly running. I posted about this but at the time I'm writing this it has not yet posted to the group.
Here's the issue I discovered.. When powered on the 49'er alone is transmitting a signal even though it's not keyed.. It's a very low level signal that can easily be heard nearby on other receivers. When the DDS-VFO is connected it tracks up and down as the freq is changed. When keyed my 49'er puts out a good signal over and above the oscillation signal with out an issue. The signal goes away when the unit is powered down.
On a side note, I found that although it's receiving and keying OK, I noticed that upon powering ip the DDS-VFO board, only the Nano board shows activity. The DDS AD9850 led's are not lighting in any situation.
Can anyone enlighten me on what may be the issue??
Steve Nordahl, NS3L
|
Re: What value did you use for R2 ???
Don, I had a 220k provided with my 49-er kit... and I have to admit that I never considered this as an issue for the audio "problems" that have been popping up. Thanks for bringing it up. What really stumped me is why they would give you a choice by saying it's either a 1m or 220k.?
Now I'm thinking about the "background noise." Is KC9ON referring to noise on the 40m band being elevated, or noise in the form of hiss or other hash coming from the LM386 itself? Of course, I assume it's the noise from the 386, but again, I built a rather crude but really nice sounding LM386 amp on a breadboard a few weeks back and commented on how quiet and robust it was. Comparing this amp to the one on the 49-er is like apple and oranges. The 49-er's audio amp is junk for some reason.?
I'm going to experiment with that resistor and see what happens. Probably should have done that from the beginning.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 6, 2016, at 9:45 AM, kc1at@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] < SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...> wrote:
?
I know a few manufacturers pump out these 49'ers in China....My instructions showed the value of R2 being anywhere from 220K to 1M. This resistor biases Q1 the FET that feeds the audio amp LM386. They gave me a 220K resistor in the kit so I have that in my 49'er now. Wondered why the big spread in values.
So I googled this R2 for the 49'er and got this from KC9ON's web site;
R2 is included with 2 resistor values, 1M and 220K to provide bias for
Q1.? Q1 is used to cut off the receive audio during transmit.? With the
1M the radio is fairly quiet sounding, reducing this to 220K increases
the sensitivity but seem to quadruple the background noise.
I haven't played with R2 yet but it would be interesting to see what changes in the value does for my receive... Anybody play with this yet ???? What value of R2 was included in your kit ???
don KC1AT
|
Re: What value did you use for R2 ???
FYI,
I just received another 49er kit from China and it too has the 220k resistor for 2SK30 bias. It also has on the PCB a space for what they call Ro and is screened on the PCB as a 10K resistor, which if you follow the traces on the PCB goes from Pin 3 (input) of the 386 audio chip to ground.? The resistor is not mentioned on the parts list included with the kit and is not on the schematic.? Ro was not on the FrogSound transceiver that I built up previously, but was in all other respects identical to the 49er PCB.? I have not assembled the kit yet.
Dave, W0DF
|
What value did you use for R2 ???
I know a few manufacturers pump out these 49'ers in China....My instructions showed the value of R2 being anywhere from 220K to 1M. This resistor biases Q1 the FET that feeds the audio amp LM386. They gave me a 220K resistor in the kit so I have that in my 49'er now. Wondered why the big spread in values.
So I googled this R2 for the 49'er and got this from KC9ON's web site;
R2 is included with 2 resistor values, 1M and 220K to provide bias for
Q1.? Q1 is used to cut off the receive audio during transmit.? With the
1M the radio is fairly quiet sounding, reducing this to 220K increases
the sensitivity but seem to quadruple the background noise.
I haven't played with R2 yet but it would be interesting to see what changes in the value does for my receive... Anybody play with this yet ???? What value of R2 was included in your kit ???
don KC1AT
|
Re: New file uploaded to SoftwareControlledHamRadio
Thanks Jack..
With all your help and others, and after fiddling with it I checked it against some known frequencies on my 7600.. Mine is dead on..
However I have a new issue.. I'm going to post about this next..
Steve NS3L
|
Re: New file uploaded to SoftwareControlledHamRadio
All:
Don't expect the Tuning Constant to be precisely on frequency. The floating point math used in the code only has 15 digits of precision while the TC is carried out to 18 dop. The result will be some "slop" that we just have to live with.
Jack, W8TEE
From: "ns3l@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]"
To: SoftwareControlledHamRadio@...
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [SoftwareControlledHamRadio] Re: New file uploaded to SoftwareControlledHamRadio
?
I thumbed through the calculations and figure it out.. I got mine dead on frequency..?
In my case is needed to enter?34.3602763936801857 to get mine to be right on 7025.00. It had been on tuning null on my SG signal which was feeding it 7025.00. The VFO was showing 7025.200. After I entered the correction, the null and VFO matched at 7025.00
Thanks for all the help. Now onto the TX side of things..
BTW, strong audio and nice to be able to tune in SSB, data signals clearly.!!
Steve NS3L? ?
|
There seems to be a big delay in some messages. Disregard this last one I figured it out..
Steve NS3L..
|
Re: New file uploaded to SoftwareControlledHamRadio
I thumbed through the calculations and figure it out.. I got mine dead on frequency..?
In my case is needed to enter?34.3602763936801857 to get mine to be right on 7025.00. It had been on tuning null on my SG signal which was feeding it 7025.00. The VFO was showing 7025.200. After I entered the correction, the null and VFO matched at 7025.00
Thanks for all the help. Now onto the TX side of things..
BTW, strong audio and nice to be able to tune in SSB, data signals clearly.!!
Steve NS3L? ?
|
Re: New file uploaded to SoftwareControlledHamRadio
Ok Norbert.
Now I get 34.3587601826567
73, Marty
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 4:44 PM, "wp3dx@... [SoftwareControlledHamRadio]" wrote:
?
Hi Marty and Steve !
The tuning constant number that we are looking for? should look like 34 dot something.
I got 34.35876018265670 (14 digits after the decimal point).
This is the same format as the default TC number that is in the code.
** Quick note, enter the frequency without the decimal points in the excel.
7.025.2 would be something like 7025200
73s
Norbert
|
jjpurdum
Lee Hiers