Observations on the signal purity, PA stability of a Gates BC-1G

(Note: This post was edited on 2010-01-02, reason: toned down the editorial commentary.)

It must have been the changed antenna impedance; we had some sun the few days before the vids below were made and things have started to dry out a little. That, and perhaps the close proximity of the transmitter (and ‘audio chain’ et al) to the RF ‘field’ of the antenna.

What exacerbates the problem is the ‘architecture’ of the Gates BC-1G RF PA (Power Amplifier) stage. The Gates BC-1G RF PA stage uses 833A tubes which are triodes and in an RF application the effect of inter-electrode capacitance (producing grid-to-plate feedback within the tube itself) must be effectively ‘cancelled’ using circuity external to the tube using a technique called “neutralization”.

Neutralization in the BC-1G is done by coupling energy back from the 833A PA plate circuit into the opposite end of the driver stage tank circuit. This creates (under ideal circumstances) out-of-phase energy which then along with the driver tube’s output drives the RF PA’s 833A tube grids. The image below shows this schematically:

See also Eimac tubes – SECTION 5.3 SINGLE-ENDED NEUTRALIZATION Circuit.

So the chain of events is as follows: The complex (R + jX) load presented by the antenna changes, the phase of the RF voltage on the plate changed and the ‘neutralization’ feedback that keeps the PA stage stable (from breaking into uncontrolled oscillations) changed magnitude and/or phase angle and allowed the PA stage to figuratively “go off into the weeds” quite dramatically.

Apparently, if the complex load of the antenna changes, a relatively simple Triode PA like the Gates BC-1G can literally ‘take off’. Again, the Gates BC-1G uses a neutralization scheme coupling an out-of-phase voltage from the PA plate circuit back to the grid to keep the PA stage from breaking into uncontrolled oscillation.

Points to consider:

  • The Gates BC-1G sales brochures lists the frequency range as “540 to 2000 Kc as ordered”. Hmmm. “as ordered”. So, it can be supplied to work over that range, but I’ll bet it takes Gates Engineering to make those changes 100% effective (with no side effects e.g. PA oscillating etc).

    The sales brochure also doesn’t state over what ‘range’ of VSWR the Gates will load into; normally in AM Broadcast work the broadcast engineer/consulting engineering firm takes great pains to bring the impedance seen by a broadcast transmitter quite close to 50 Ohms. I’ve personally used a vintage GenRad bridge to perform these msmts while adjusting the ATU at the base of the antenna to achieve 50 Ohms.

  • It is operating at nearly 4 MHz now. What was changed to accomplish this … don’t know. Were considerations made to accommodate the neutralization circuit operating at 4 MHz? Don’t know that either … but reading some accounts on the ‘net some people have revised the original Gates neutralization circuit to use something different.
  • Circuitry (bypassing, decoupling, chokes, coild) that worked well at 1.6 MHz might not be optimum for performing bypassing, decoupling and neutralization at 4 MHz.

    Perusing through pictures of the Gates BC-1G one can see what most of us would consider ‘long’ plate and grid wires connecting the 833A power triodes to their respective circuits

    See also: HF Amplifier Stability

  • Probably 99.99% of the antennas that Gates BC-1G’s ‘worked’ into had little change in characteristics (compared to the changes an amateur-band 75 Meter band ‘bazooka’ antenna 20 feet above – and parallel to- ground might see) day to day and week to week; With significant moisture changes in soil affecting the near-ground antenna Impedance (Z) the BC-1G is the requires extra supervision and special care and handling to assure the PA stage remains stable during operation.

Now, observation of kilowatt-class transmitter with what looks like PA instability problems on the ham bands.

1) First, a problem is observed by the operator of the modified Gates BC-1G broadcast transmitter:

2) The operator tries some test transmissions on the 75 Meter band -

- A little tuning of the transmitter (dipping the plate and adjusting the neutralization maybe?):

3) And now, from all indications of the metering it probably appears tuned (until conditions change again e.g. the next time it rains, or the antenna is moved, the tuner is adjusted, etc.) so a few test transmissions are tried:

Note: The spectrum analyzer was set for peak-hold on Trace A, capturing those occasional transient, spurious RF output events. Those transient ‘events’ sound like buck-shot splatter up and down the 80 Meter band.

4) Back to normal service on the ham band:


Links/references:

1. 833A Tube

2. Eimac tubes – SECTION 5.3 SINGLE-ENDED NEUTRALIZATION Circuit

4 Responses to “Observations on the signal purity, PA stability of a Gates BC-1G”

  1. Robert (WW9W) Says:

    The main point that USJIM failed to mention, ” Is that his QTH is located less than a 1/4 of a mile,( approximately 2000 to 3000 yards) from WW9W’s station”. Which is where this test was conducted. Do I need to say more???

    Robert
    WW9W

  2. Jim Wilhite Says:

    From: Joe Isabella (n3ji@yahoo.com)
    Sent: Thu 12/31/09 8:42 PM
    To: newoldstock@yahoogroups.com

    I agree, Jim. I don’t think anyone can say he did something wrong, since he identified a problem and fixed it. It seems the guy has a bee in his bonnet over Robert and AM. I could drive around and find all kinds of SSB guys splattering BIG TIME, while they gleefully operate shooting buckshot all over the place instead of working towards generating the cleanest signal they can. It just seems like a really dumb thing to write that, and the title itself should tell anyone that the guy has a motive NOT friendly to AM.

    Maybe one day every Ham will have a spec any in their shack. I use a scope, but if I could lay hands on a decent spec any without lighting my pocket on fire, I would.

    Joe

    ________________________________
    From: Jim Wilhite
    To: newoldstock@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 8:19:47 PM
    Subject: Re: [newoldstock] Re: RX/TX Analysis

    Joe you may be right about WPA, I don’t know. I do know what I saw on the analyzer indicated that Robert had a problem and one could clearly hear him ask the station he was in contact with about the problem. He then identified it and either tuned the transmitter to eliminate the problem or replaced something, I don’t know what. So no one can say Robert was at fault through out the entire episode. He preformed as he should have and I have said that all along. Other people seem to be blind to what was said and why.

    There may never be a resolution to Robert’s problem because of the proximity of the individuals but I do know that if forced they would have to decide something. This topic was not the thing to put on this reflector with innuendo embedded and that is my $.02.

    ____________ _________ _________ __
    From: Joe Isabella
    To: newoldstock@ yahoogroups. com
    Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 7:52:02 PM
    Subject: Re: [newoldstock] Re: RX/TX Analysis

    I re-read the whole thing just now, and watched the embedded vids. My take on this is that the guy is in a twist about 1) Guys operating AM. 2) Guys operating AM using modified BC transmitters. 3) Robert running AM on a converted BC transmitter very near him. It is clear to me that the following comment makes it appear that he
    has a chip on his shoulder about this, and instead of working it out
    like a gentleman, he posted the article (which apparently took a
    considerable amount of time to author): “Then he tries some test transmissions without the use of a dummy load (thereby garbaging-up the entire 75/80 Meter band).” I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that prudence would dictate that if we’re going to run these on the ham bands, we do it in a clean way. There was obviously something going wrong with the transmitter in the vids, however, there were also clearly other stations keying up, other stations carrying on conversations up & down the band, and static that can be heard in the recording, so I don’t think it’s possible to determine 100% what was coming from Robert and what wasn’t. That said, running boat-anchor gear is a challenge, and this could’ve happened to anyone (even someone running a modern rig, given the right failure), so I think the author should be ashamed of himself for doing it instead of working it out like a gentleman Amateur Radio Operator should. If I had a spectrum analyzer
    and expertise, I’d be the first one to help him fix it instead of wasting my time writing an article bitching about it…

    That’s my $0.02. Take it for what it’s worth… ;-)

    Joe, N3JI

  3. usjim Says:

    Robert, before I go much further let me say it is good of you to join us over here.

    Now, let me address this continually repeated issue of “too close”.

    It is common knowledge and an elementary suggestion that the addition of space/distance between two stations will ‘alleviate’ an interference situation experienced by one station from another.

    Indeed, the simple addition of ‘distance’ reduces received ‘signal strength’ by a mathematical relationship between distance and signal strength beginning with the “inverse square law” (Signal strength is proportional to 1/D^2) and modified according to the actions of ground wave and skywave propagation when the path is non-line-of-sight. IOW, exact path loss computation between two stations becomes a bit more complicated owing to the factors cited above.

    At this point, we need to introduce a couple of concepts as to types of ‘interference’.

    1) Strong on-channel emitted energy (strong signals that may cause receiver overload)

    2) Off-channel emitted energy (splatter or/spurious energy e.g. from an unstable or marginally neutralized RF PA stage for instance)

    Regarding 1) the first type of interference: Today’s modern receivers have tremendous strong-signal handling capability. Received signal strengths from your transmitter seem to vary any where from -18 dBm to -34 dBm owing to the vagaries of propagation and antenna configuration and/or orientation. Another nearby station who routinely operates at/near legal power gives me _no_ problem with overload and his signal peaks at -12 dBm signal level (strong than the Gates).

    When I have had the opportunity to see the BC-610 in operation it too has a strong carrier/peak modulated signal, but _doesn’t_ produce the spurious output that the Gates BC-1G does. This in itself should be overwhelming evidence that this is _not_ a strong signal issue but a Gates BC-1G (PA stage?) issue.

    Regarding 2) the second type of interference: Any other signals emitted by the transmitter that that appear outside of what may be termed a ‘normal’ spectral width for an AM transmission will affect traffic on *other* frequencies.

    This energy has been measured (at times) only 20 dB ‘down’ 50 kHz away from carrier. For example, given a 375 Watt carrier 20 dB down translates to 3.75 Watts (measured in a 3kHz BW) and this kind of level can be seen for plus or minus a hundred kHz either side of carrier in the 75 Meter band.

    In contention here then is:

    Spurious signals (give it a name: call it splatter if need be but technically that’s not the issue with the BC-1G) which have been observed to be less than 20 dB down from the carrier signal 40, 50 and even 100 kHz away from the carrier frequency/operating channel. There are few who would say this is acceptable; the equipment is much better than that when working properly.

    I think your proposal then is, ‘extra distance’ to reduce ‘spurious output’ from the Gates BC-1G?

    It would come as quite a surprise to this engineer, and to engineers around the world (and physicists as well) if we were to ‘discover’ some new law of propagation which attenuates off-channel spurious energy differently than on-channel, intentionally generated RF (both energies coming out antenna port). Seems to me the two different energies are governed by the same laws of physics/electronics (but I am willing to entertain argument on alternative theories with supporting measurements and rationale).

    “King spark” (spark transmission, spark gap transmitters) were/are specifically outlawed by the FCC for a reason: Too broad at a point where in the ‘state of the art’ at the time it was decided that spark interfered with other ‘users’/occupiers of a band *and* technology had better answers/better techniques for radio communication at the time.

    In closing, let me say that we have a number of persons living in fairly close proximity; were you on empty farmland with nothing for hundreds miles all this would probably not be an issue, but it is imperative that each one of assure out equipment is operating properly so as not to ‘bother’ others on the band while we are in such close proximity.

    I’m also going to change the title of this post to something more reflective of the intent of this blog: to look at RFI issues both natural and man-made. It was my intent to ‘go public’ with this work on the basis that it may help others who are experiencing the same thing, whether it was on either end (producer or receiver). I think I understand now why so few amateur linear amplifiers are Triode/Grounded Grid (GG) as opposed to Triode/Grid-driven; grid driven could be a real wild critter with varying antenna VSWR and mismatch affecting the ‘phase’ and magnitude of the neutralization signal.

    Regards, Jim

  4. usjim Says:

    PS I’m delaying posting/gating a few responses until we can all cool off a little. This isn’t an AM vs SSB issue in my book. It’s a technical issue and I had a little trouble getting my point across until I took this avenue.

    Regards, Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.