#367

[@BikerCaf]

The PLL is taking quite a while to phase lock onto frequency (up to 50ms), the PLL lock/unlock signal should be keeping the PA chain disabled until the PLL has a stable lock (but it's not doing so). Alinco should not be selling radios like this. The MK2 and MK3 service manuals can be found on the net. Pin 14 of the PLL chip (IC116) is the lock detect output pin. Good video !

[@w2aew]

Yes, but I bet that the 75-100ms delay from key-up to transmit would bother some people.

[@BikerCaf]

​@@w2aew Totally agree ! For one it shouldn't be transmitting until the PLL is in stable lock and two the loop filter needs fixing to fix how long it takes to attain lock. As others have said that radio is certainly not compliant (in any country). I wonder how Alinco are bypassing todays emission rules ?

[@garyramsey4275]

Possible that there’s a problem with the time constant in the PLL feedback loop. But clearly there is amplitude instability as well. Might be related, or it could be something common to both the synthesizer and the PA. A power supply issue, perhaps?

[@w2aew]

@@garyramsey4275 It certainly seems like a design issue, since it appears on two units, one of them is brand new.

[@stargazer7644]

@@BikerCaf They aren't bypassing the emission rules, it's on YOU as the licensed operator of the radio to comply with the rules. Amateur radio equipment is not type accepted.

[@davidk7des76]

Thanks for this excellent video & explanation of the problem. I know that a lot of amateur operators might not fully understand that they are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their transmitters do not cause inteference, not the manufacturer.

[@nine7295]

Someone discovered this a year ago as well, plus the 435 UHF model. Surprise that not more of this was reported before. Great work here and thanks .

[@stargazer7644]

Lots of people have discovered this the hard way, including me. We had a mountaintop packet station running one of these radios causing interference to everyone for 70 miles around.

[@mostlypostie1]

A fantastic video. That SA is absolutely amazing. Hopefully Alinco will fix this issue. Thanks for all the great videos

[@elwood.downey]

Wow, what an expose' of Alinco. And what great toys you have 🙂

[@Yasseralfaraydi]

I am very happy to see like your channel.. I have learned a lot from you. I am a medical doctor and a ham radio operator , I have special interests in Radio and electronics. with your channel I can self teach my self with your help.. thanks, de HZ1YA

[@ErnieStedman]

Excellent job, thanks!

[@nixonkutz3018]

Nice. I need to figure out how to make our Keysight SA/VSA make these measurements, if they can

[@marklacy5011]

Excellent video! Thanks de W5TXR

[@radscot]

That was very interesting and it's not just that Alinco which exhibits such bad behavior. There's a chap 1.3 miles from me who uses a Wouxon radio and when he keys up on the UK FM calling frequency, 145.5 MHz, his main carrier level is at -41 dBm, but I also get a huge transient on 144.3 MHz SSB (the IC-9100 indicates the peak as being at S9+20). When he keys down, I get yet another loud transient, but it's about 10 dB lower than the key up one. Fortunately for me, he doesn't use VHF very often, but I once had a quick tune about and found the transients down at 143 MHz (again, S9+20) and up 156 MHz (at a lower level). Just for fun, the next time he's on I'll see how much further up and down I can hear them, but my view is that any new model of transmitting equipment (be it amateur or commercial) should have to be tested and type approved (by the appropriate government agency) before being deemed legal to sell in that country; clearly that isn't happening.

[@jonathancotner7040]

Oh, the "random" samples they send to the FCC are within spec, barely. I've a baoufeng doing arps with a raspberry pi. I put a 2 meter bandpass filter on it for a very good reason, as I too have a spectrum analyzer 👍.

[@MikeFikes]

This is a great example of how the right kind of test and measurement gear makes it easier to see things. I imagine you could figure out the same with a captured scope trace, but it would be a lot harder to do.

[@DM-fz3ly]

Don't forget (I'm sure you are aware) Alan's vast and deep test equipment knowledge. There is the real talent!!

[@chrisstorm7704]

While I don’t have the same gear to work with, this may inspire some experiments on my alinco dual bander to see how it compares to other radios

[@vincei4252]

How did this radio pass compliance/conformance and get into the market ? That's the question I'm asking myself right now. I can't believe that Alinco doesn't have a processes in place for verify the designs for their radio's are compliant. Then again watching the signals on HF FT8 in waterfall mode so many people have high power rigs that splatter all over the band so maybe I shouldn't be that surprised? [edit] Are they powering up the synthesizer on key down? It would be interesting to see the circuit diagram for the Alinco radio.

[@stargazer7644]

Amateur radio equipment is not type accepted like radio equipment in other services. There are no compliance/conformance requirements on manufacturers. It's on YOU as the licensed amateur operator of the radio to ensure your equipment complies with the rules on interference. That's why they allow you to build your own radios.

[@JoshuaJayG]

@@stargazer7644 Isn't Part 15 type acceptance (which commercially sold amateur radio equipment is) to keep things like this from happening? Maybe I don't understand what Part 15 really is.

[@stargazer7644]

@@JoshuaJayG Amateur radio is part 97, not part 15. Hams are allowed to build their own equipment, so there is no type acceptance under part 97. The licensee (the ham) is responsible for making sure their radio meets the emission requirements of part 97. Part 15 covers unlicensed intentional and unintentional radiators. CB and FRS radios are covered under part 15 (for example), as they're not licensed. You have to pass a test to get a license to operate an amateur radio for this very reason - it's a licensed service and a ham is supposed to know what the regulations are.

[@JoshuaJayG]

@@stargazer7644 I understand that amateurs are required to assure they are not causing harmful interference but that doesn't change the fact that most "black box" amateur equipment people purchase still meets Part 15 acceptance. Here's an excerpt from the TM-281 user manual: "This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation..." I haven't read through all of Part 15, (who has time for that?) but it seems to imply that if used correctly, the transmitter should not cause harmful interference. You can read 15.105(b) that gives the wording you see in the Kenwood manual. Even the infamous UV5R has Part 15 type acceptance. So what is happening in the FCC lab if not testing for harmful interference? The Alinco is clearly causing interference and and transmitting outside the amateur radio band before the PLL stabilizes.

[@stargazer7644]

@@JoshuaJayG That's just the digital computer in the radio. Part 15 is only for UNLICENSED equipment. It does not cover amateur radio transmitters. Now you can sit here and try to argue with me, or you can spend 15 seconds googling part 15 and reading for yourself what it covers.

[@CraigPetersen12f36b]

There was a repeater out here in Washington State (146.880) that would characterize the PLL ringing of a transceiver and allow access to the repeater instead of using CTCSS tones. The Idea was to give the repeater operator the ability to block access to certain operators who abuse the machine.

[@W1RMD]

I'm curious how Baofeng and other Chinese radios would rate under this kind of testing. Thanks for showing this testing and hope you had a great Easter!

[@stargazer7644]

The $35 Baofeng handheld that I own completely fails the 47 CFR § 97.307 spurious emission test and is not legal to use on the ham bands.

[@BersekViking]

From an ad for the Alinco: " 2 Meter 50 Watt FM Transceiver with High Stability TCXO". :)

[@RB9522]

Wow, that wouldn't pass type acceptance. I think Alinco may be doing a recall soon. Are you considering looking into the design and internals? Maybe a Ham could design a way to fix this issue.

[@w2aew]

No plans to dig into their design at this point.

[@ErnieStedman]

Amateur service Amateur radios do not require type acceptance. Likewise, type acceptance for another service does not indicate that a radio is appropriate for amateur service. In lieu of type acceptance, the FCC lists a number of requirements for Amateur station operation in Part 97, our part of the FCC regulations. In particular, Part 97 Subpart D specifies the “Technical Standards“ that must be met by an Amateur station, including, as for type accepted radios, allowable emission types, spurious emissions, power levels, etc. The big difference here is that the requirements for Amateur service are not for the radio itself, but for the station in operation, and thus the onus of correct operation is not on the radio manufacturer - it is on the individual Amateur! This is a lot of responsibility, but along with it comes a privilege that no other licensed service is granted: the ability to build our own equipment. Licensed amateurs are the only FCC licensees authorized to homebrew radio equipment and transmit with it on the air without testing and acceptance from the FCC. Likewise, we are the only service permitted to use radios type accepted for a different purpose for our own use. This is why a radio Amateur may purchase a Part 90 certified business band radio, for example, and use it on the 2 meter Amateur band.

[@stargazer7644]

Alinco is well aware of this problem. They don't care. It is on the amateur license holder to ensure their equipment complies with the rules. There is no type acceptance on amateur gear.

[@anthonymytai1]

The club I belong has a bunch of mostly Mk III DR-135's and DR-435's. Last year we were told and then confirmed that all of them, including two brand new ones, have this key-up transient problem. I have used an AirSpy SDR to noted similar, but not as detailed and specific results that you have. In general they happened about 60% of the time when the transmitter was keyed up, across several MHz each side of the carrier, at levels from -20 to -40 dBc. The spurious emissions might not be noticeable unless it is from a frequently used station like repeaters or gateway radio, and also depending on how the receiver sees it. I have written two letters, mailed to Alinco headquarters in Tokyo since July 2022 , asking them if they are aware of this problem, but have heard nothing from them. It seems that this series of radios have been discontinued recently, but this is not an acceptable excuse for lack of response from Alinco. For poor design and customer service, I will not buy their products from now on.

[@w2aew]

The likelihood is that they're doing it EVERY time you key up, but the AirSpy SDR is only catching 60% of them (since it isn't truly realtime). Alinco has provided the ARRL Lab with a suggested fix (adding one capacitor) which is supposed to delay the TX until the PLL has settled. The owner of these rigs plans to try this on his rigs and report back.

[@anthonymytai1]

@@w2aew Thanks for the additional info and I agree with you that a proper SA should provide more useful information than a SDR. Also good to hear that Alinco is doing something which may help to solve the problem, and the owner of these rigs is going to give it a try, much appreciated.

[@ChristiaanAdams]

@@w2aew Thanks again for this video and the info! I just found this comment reply, and am curious if there has been any update from Alinco or ARRL?? Is there any more info available on the "fix"?

[@w2aew]

@@ChristiaanAdams Alinco provided a “fix” which is to add a capacitor in parallel to one already on the board (thus increasing its value). I’ve heard from the rig’s owner that the fix helped. Email me at (my call sign) at arrl.net, where ‘my call sign’ is the channel’s name, and I can send you the documented fix from Alinco.

[@fredorrell1273]

I’m also going to email you for a copy of that fix. Fred WB5NOE.

[@ChristiaanAdams]

Thanks for the heads up on these radios!! Does anyone have more info on how to test DR-x35T rigs to see if they have the issue? Especially for those of us without access to a fancy Spectrum Analyzer? (I do have a TinySA, but know that it has limited capabilities). Also, there are rumors of a fix... any info/resources/links for that??

[@tohtorizorro]

How about a back to basics video on direct coupled amplifiers? Can't find good videos on the subject and I'm sure you'd do a great job!

[@RandyShirley]

Wow! 7 MHz worth of interference! The 2 meter weak signal guys on the bottom of the band are going to have a fit with those radios! What those radios need is a good hammer! How did those radios get FCC certified? The ARRL and the FCC need to watch this video!

[@ErnieStedman]

Amateur service Amateur radios do not require type acceptance. Likewise, type acceptance for another service does not indicate that a radio is appropriate for amateur service. In lieu of type acceptance, the FCC lists a number of requirements for Amateur station operation in Part 97, our part of the FCC regulations. In particular, Part 97 Subpart D specifies the “Technical Standards“ that must be met by an Amateur station, including, as for type accepted radios, allowable emission types, spurious emissions, power levels, etc. The big difference here is that the requirements for Amateur service are not for the radio itself, but for the station in operation, and thus the onus of correct operation is not on the radio manufacturer - it is on the individual Amateur! This is a lot of responsibility, but along with it comes a privilege that no other licensed service is granted: the ability to build our own equipment. Licensed amateurs are the only FCC licensees authorized to homebrew radio equipment and transmit with it on the air without testing and acceptance from the FCC. Likewise, we are the only service permitted to use radios type accepted for a different purpose for our own use. This is why a radio Amateur may purchase a Part 90 certified business band radio, for example, and use it on the 2 meter Amateur band.

[@stargazer7644]

Amateur radios don't get FCC certified. You can build your own equipment. The licensed amateur operator is responsible for making sure their station equipment complies with the rules.

[@ingmarm8858]

Geez that's pretty horrible. Here in Australia the main Alinco dealers are also the guys that sell illegally modified radios (we are not permitted the "MARS" mods) so they would consider this wide band interference chirp a "feature" ;-)

[@barnmichael]

I would be interested in knowing if this is an issue with just the DR-135 or other Alinco radios like the DR-MD500T also exhibit such behavior. Of course, other than Part 15, there is no type acceptance for the DR-135, while the DR-MD500T is Part 90 certified.

[@stargazer7644]

I know it affects both the 2m DR-135TMKIII and 70cm DR-435TMKIII rigs.

[@therfnoob7697]

Great video! How would you approach this type of analysis with an ordinary (not Real Time) SA? It would be a very interesting follow up video! :) Thanks!

[@RobertSzasz]

If you can time off of the key up, you could just record power over time for narrow spectral bands.

[@therfnoob7697]

@@RobertSzasz yes this would have been my "guess" too.. Set center frequency away (e.g., +1Mhz) and narrow span (e.g., 50Khz, or even 0 span?), key up the radio and see the result with "hold max". But maybe there are faster/more clever ways.

[@RobertSzasz]

@@therfnoob7697 you wouldn't want hold max, you would basically capture one vertical strip of the waterfall plot on each capture.

[@w2aew]

I would probably start with zero span using the widest possible RBW, then tune slightly off frequency. Then, the frequency variations will show up as amplitude variations vs time because the detected signal will be riding up/down the skirt of the RBW filter. The wide RBW filter will have shallower skirts than a narrow filter, maybe having enough to see most of the frequency deviation.

[@davidcameron4614]

The way I did it was build a circuit to key the radio 300 times in a minute and put the SA in peak hold. The VHF spurs from 120 MHz to about 160. The UHF is worse - from 410 to 460.

[@Derrick6162]

How did QC not catch this?, maybe an internal memo would show that they did...However, I would love to have one of these to reverse and try to find a solution. Thanks for sharing.

[@w2aew]

They’re either not testing for it, or don’t care.

[@Derrick6162]

@@w2aew Back in the day, Alinco used to have pretty good radio products. This could be detrimental to the company name. Thanks for sharing.

[@stargazer7644]

There's a reason these rigs cost less.

[@spasmonaut10]

Well this is a bummer. Makes me wonder if that's why they discontinued these. I have two of them so now I'm wondering if either or both of mine are susceptible to this. Would assume so...

[@w2aew]

They do have a relatively simple fix for it.

[@jesusserrano546]

Hello! I am seeking your technical advice regarding a project that I need to carry out to find out if you can recommend any forums or websites where I can find more information on the subject. In a course I am taking, I was assigned the task of building a QRP CW Transceiver that operates in the 160 band, but my team and I have no idea where to start. I have seen videos explaining the operation of a Transceiver in general and how they work, but I still cannot find information that will help me at least understand the basics to start building it. Thank you again, and if you have any information that can guide me, I would appreciate it.

[@Radiowild]

Yikes! Happy Easter! 73's de KC2RDU

[@SignalProduct-be2js]

oooh.. in the beginning of the video was keen to see Alinco trouble-shotting with details explained ) but looks like it is not here )

[@w2aew]

Sorry, just validating the problem. I am not going to re-engineer the design.

[@DM-fz3ly]

Great demonstration. Would it be possible to do this same type of testing with a non PC type spectrum or even with an Oscope?? I have the Rigol DSA815 and would like to duplicate this test with that SA but am unsure as to how to set it up and which functions need to be enabled or screen shots to capture. Would make a great follow up video. Excellent as always! 73

[@stargazer7644]

You need a realtime SA like what is being used here to capture this kind of transient. The only way you can capture a fast transient like this on a DSA815 is to set peak hold and then key the rig a hundred times or so and hopefully let it build up over time.

[@w2aew]

Swept spectrum analyzers don't have the ability to directly plot the continuous frequency deviation vs time like a realtime or vector signal analyzer. However, it does look like there is a narrowband (1.5MHz wide) continuous acquisition option available for your DSA815. That wouldn't be wide enough to capture the transient activity of this radio, but should be good enough for most radios that don't have this wild transient. Without this option, you might be able to use Zero Span with a wide RBW setting, and then move the analyzer frequency to slightly off from the actual frequency so that the frequency variation of the rag will ride up/down the RBW skirt... This would be very difficult to do with an oscilloscope unless it has a gated-FFT function.

[@shawnbrown8781]

Hello and thank you for your kind contribution with this channel. I have a video topic for your consideration. Demystifying Plate Load Resistance for tube audio amplifiers. I am familiar with calculating reflective impedance back through an output transformer with a known speaker impedance and the goal of matching tube or tubes for optimal performance pending class and configuration. Things get quite fuzzy when trying to confirm plate load specifications in the tube manuals especially with using two tubes in a push pull configuration. I have determined this is not just a matter of doubling the Class A plate load resistances. I am restoring a Bosch Model 28 that uses two 71A tubes in a push pull configuration and want to confirm what overall plate load resistance I should be targeting to confirm OT winding ratio and speaker all matches appropriately. The 71A tube datasheet indicates 4,800 ohms at 180v for class A and no data for push pull. Although this question is specific to my current project, I believe this understanding will be quite beneficial for future amp building and radio restoration projects. Thank you.

[@bjj6708]

Alinco's designed to transmit on all frequencies way outside the amateur bands for the unregulated Asian markets and pirates, where there sales are far in excess of the amateur market, unlike the kenwoods and Icoms you just showed, the only way around is to build a band pass filter for these broadband units.

[@w2aew]

That is still no excuse for enabling transmit before the PLL is settled. Just poor attention to detail.

[@dolandump]

Hello, this is interesting. I wonder how the manufacturer of this equipment could have missed such a problem! This is only my opinion without real value but I think that the internal power supply of the transceiver is unstable. I would be curious to know more about the type of power supply for this kind of transceiver. Do they use switch-mode power supplies or are linear regulators still the rule?

[@nine7295]

The Alinco radio doesn't have an internal power supply, unless you mean the specific power regulators for certain low voltage sections. It's a mobile radio that takes 12V DC input .

[@dolandump]

@@nine7295 Okay, thanks for taking the time to clarify this.

[@jim5148]

Thanks for the great test video. I wonder how good or bad the current Chinese portables are?

[@w2aew]

Good question...

[@ErnieStedman]

I looked at a Baofeng UV-82 and a WLN KD-C1 and they both looked pretty good. Both rock solid on keyup. The Baofeng had some spurious around 162.47 MHz on Unkey, but it was over 40 dB down. I'm guessing that is in spec.

[@w2aew]

@@ErnieStedman Glad to hear that there aren't any real wideband instability problems with those rigs. Using the setup file I sent you, you can reduce the span (to something like 1MHz or 100kHz or less), and you'll likely see "some" frequency settling. On my TM-231A, I get about 5kHz of wiggle for a few milliseconds.

[@davidcameron4614]

I brought this up with several locals once I started looking at the spectrum with Airspy R2. These Alincos are a cancer to the spectrum. I've even found where these radios cause clicking on the aircraft band, including ILS systems. ISED in Canada did not seem to care, but maybe the FCC will see this and take action

[@markandromeda9022]

Hi w2aew I'm working on TTL Schmitt trigger. I'm using it for the front end of an FM receiver. Interested, let me know.

[@danmartin3522]

RSA306B Nice Instrument, bit out of my price range, can we us the TinySA Ultra and get at least something that would tell us what whas happening? Thanks the all your videos. 73 KC4GO

[@w2aew]

Possibly with slope tuning of Zero Span, if the TinySA supports that

[@davidcameron4614]

I'm also concerned because the TYT 9000 series is basically the same design. 😢

[@Oldcomputer]

I have a 220mhz tyt 9000d it does the same thing. I am sending it back. Sends a transient across the whole 220 band.

[@davidcameron4614]

@@Oldcomputer - Nooooo....That is very concerning. I didn't have one to test. This is a major problem, but most of the people using these radios unfortunately don't seem to care.

[@R2AUK]

🔥👍

[@AboubakrA]

can you have a teardown and debug video please

[@w2aew]

Sorry, the rigs went back to the owner. He implemented a fix recommended by Alinco and that seemed to address the issue.

[@ChristiaanAdams]

@@w2aew Is there any info available on the fix, so that others may try it?

[@michaelhope007]

Made by Anytone or Alinco?

[@migsvensurfing6310]

Ouch

[@danaborgman8526]

Any thoughts on the Mk II?

[@w2aew]

I never looked at one.

[@davidcameron4614]

Dana Borgman, they all do the same, no matter the MK version.

[@danaborgman8526]

@@davidcameron4614 I had a suspicion that would be the case. Thanks, David.

[@loueckert4970]

Nice job, appreciate the expertise. What trash this rig emits. 73 de KT1R Lou in WV

[@theelmonk]

It's a great pity we use radios built for manual keying and audio transmissions for data. Imagine what wifi would be like if it worked to these standards. Digital radios should be designed for the job.

[@sammin5764]

🌟🌷🌟

[@segrus]

I hope you will still shoot a video about electronics and measuring instruments.

[@tamaseduard5145]

73' 88'