-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Gain very bad #25
Comments
Hello @F4HZA o/ I have not tested the Revision S yet - this is the reason that I didn't promote it to the Main branch. After consulting my digikey and JLCPCB orders, I found that I ordered the parts but never ordered the board - last known good revision is R. When I get back to São Paulo (I'm in holidays here) I'll check my parts inventory and if all is sound, order a new board revision. Side note, I found that this BFR193F is... tiny. Will be a pain to solder it; the 2SC5086 was already a challenge. You might also want to check this reddit thread where I was suspecting that the BFR193F wasn't a suitable choice (spoiler alert: it seems it was the right choice). Expect to have the Rev. S tested by mid March. Will keep this issue open for the time being. |
Hello there @F4HZA ! Stopping by to let you know that I ordered the parts and the board this weekend - and will probably have all the ducks lined for testing in January! |
Good morning, Thank you for your project which allowed me to install a panadaptor.
|
Hello, Frederic! I built a board design that allows for a SPF5043 for testing, will put that on my future tests. Thank you very much for sharing! So- how's your board working? Do you have any pictures to share? |
Hi, I did it the old fashioned way, copper plate and iron perchloride. The components are quite large and soldering is easy. A point to review would be the 78L05 which heats up a little. Certainly also the adaptation of the values of the components I do not have the equipment to analyze. Make a professional PCB and resize it for good integration. |
Hey there @F4HZA ! I finally built the test board, based on the experimental Revision S. Two major problems:
I ran a VNA sweep from 10-1000 MHz and found that the board performs reasonably well around 200ish MHz - wich makes me believe that the BFR193 is under heavy impedance mismatch at ~ 70 MHz (the S21 Marker 1). I'll do some experiences here, and keep this issue open for the time being. I would like to thank you very much for the initial test and for reporting this issue! |
* Fixed a gross flaw in Revision S: The RF switch was flipped out /o\ Resolves #25 * Updated BOM, renamed some capacitors and the matching network components are labeled as {C,R}1x * There are more gain to be obtained from BFR193. Added a bias and matching network design from [Infineon's AN-1806](https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-Design_Guide_for_low_noise_TR_in_FM_radio_FE-ApplicationNotes-v01_00-EN.pdf?fileId=8ac78c8c7e7124d1017f0227976a6c9d). While the matching network isn't suitable for BFR193, the footprints will be good enough to test other components and values. Capacitors are 0805, Resistors are 1206. * This revision is planned to be a testbed for a proper bias and match network in order to get better gain figures from BFR193. Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Freire <py2raf@rf3.org>
Resolved by: a6511e5 |
hello,
Thank you for this project, great work, I like the integration in the FT-991A.
I realized the S revision with the BRF193F, but I have a gain problem.
The gain is around -20db, I changed the BFR193F but the same.
I tested in the FT-991A but the attenuation is too high with IPO or AMP1 the signals are almost invisible with AMP2 I see the signals.
Do you have an idea of my problem? Is the new BFR193F transistor not suitable?
Thanks.
73.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: