Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Receiver\s+protection\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:04:25 -0400
Does anyone have ideas for receiver front end protection at LF and MF? I am worried about my TX signal damaging receivers. Of course the best idea is to disconnect the RX antenna from the receiver wh
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00054.html (12,122 bytes)

2. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:27:54 +0200
Hi Paul, It strongly depends on how your front end is designed. Am 10.07.2018 14:04, schrieb N1BUG: Now I have a pair of back to back 1N4148 diodes across the receiver front end but I don't think thi
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00055.html (9,546 bytes)

3. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:05:34 -0400
Hi Stefan, I am thinking they only limit peak voltage to 0.6V? If that's right, then I think this is about +5 dBm, perhaps still enough to damage a receiver. I was trying to avoid switching because w
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00056.html (13,884 bytes)

4. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:33:24 +0200
Hi Paul, Am 10.07.2018 15:05, schrieb N1BUG: I am thinking they only limit peak voltage to 0.6V? If that's right, then I think this is about +5 dBm, perhaps still enough to damage a receiver. Rather
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00057.html (10,220 bytes)

5. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:29 -0400
Hi Stefan, Here is a simplified description of the setup. RX antenna (at the moment, but soon to change or have more than one choice) http://www.n1bug.com/lnv.jpg Then there is a two way splitter. On
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00058.html (16,964 bytes)

6. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:19:51 +0100
Here is a simplified description of the setup. RX antenna (at the moment, but soon to change or have more than one choice) http://www.n1bug.com/lnv.jpg Then there is a two way splitter. One output f
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00059.html (16,603 bytes)

7. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:47:33 -0400
Hi Andy, It is the Softrock I am concerned about. I don't know what the FST3253 can handle but I don't fancy replacing them if something were to happen. I tried putting the diodes at the output of th
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00060.html (20,579 bytes)

8. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: Andy Talbot <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:03:20 +0100
The softrock is a stiff FET gate switch. designed for 3.3V digital busses running at hundreds of MHz.    If the input exceeds the 0/3.3V rails, it'll just clamp to them.  The opamps are ... well ...
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00061.html (21,250 bytes)

9. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: DK7FC <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:49:35 +0200
Hi Paul, Looks not critical for me. Just for interest, did you measure the voltage across the diodes during TXing on the TX antenna? I would leave it as it is. It is just fine i think. But beware of
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00062.html (15,420 bytes)

10. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:55:08 +0100
Hello N1BUG, Hi Paul, As I am deeply entrenched in mending my TS-590 after a whoopsie put a load of 137kHz RF up its RX antenna socket I am very interested in proection measures too! But even more so
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00063.html (16,515 bytes)

11. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:00:03 -0400
Thanks Andy. As usual, I've learned something. I guess that's why the Softrocks survived last winter with the RX antenna only 12m from the TX antenna! 73, Paul N1BUG
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00064.html (14,266 bytes)

12. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:08:26 -0400
Hi Stefan, I did not yet measure the voltage across the diodes. When I finish the power supply and put my LF TX back on line I will make some measurements like voltage across the diodes while TXing,
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00065.html (14,177 bytes)

13. Re: LF: Receiver protection (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 05:10:46 -0400
Hi Chris, It is good to hear you are making such progress with the TS-590. Good job. Apparently my system doesn't need fancy receiver protection. The Softrock was a lucky choice in this respect. :) N
/rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2018-07/msg00077.html (15,777 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu