ad: ARR

Minikits 630m transverter kit

Discussion in 'The Low Bands - 630/2200 Meters - VLF' started by K3RW, Jul 24, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: l-assoc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. K3RW

    K3RW Ham Member QRZ Page

    FYI... Minikits out of Australia is now producing a 630m transverter. 5w out. The BCI filter is a welcome addition.

    https://www.minikits.com.au/eme223-630m


    [​IMG]
    Price may be in AUD depending on what browser you are using. FYI.

    **I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just wanted to pass on a new-to-me find**
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  2. K1ZJH

    K1ZJH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wish they offered a cheap 50 watt amp to go with it.
     
    KD2ACO and K3RW like this.
  3. KD5RJZ

    KD5RJZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I just wish it was all surface mount. Through-hole boards take soooooo looooooong to populate.
     
  4. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    RJZ:

    Surface mount components are, generally, harder to solder properly, etc., unless one has been specifically trained to do this type of work.

    Glen, K9STH
    (who has even done thermal compression bonding on ceramic thin film substrates)
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  5. K8JD

    K8JD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Some of Those little devils were hard as HECK to remove and replace even when you did it all day long on the job !
     
  6. KD5RJZ

    KD5RJZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I consider 0603 and larger to be much easier than through hole. Easier to get them lined up and you dont have to flip the board back and forth constantly to populate and solder. Much easier to service without pulling a pcb from a chassis as well.
     
  7. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    http://www.g0mrf.com/kits.htm

    630m amplifier, variable from 25w-300w. Also may be configured for 2300m/136khz.

    -PCB $27
    -Full kit, British Pounds 56, about US $90

    May require some additional engineering to obtain correct input frequency (ie. double desired frequency).

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2018
    KK5JY, K3RW and K1ZJH like this.
  8. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    RJZ:

    The assembly techniques preferred show a difference in the experiences and, to some extent, even the age of the person involved.

    Several decades past, I was the applications engineering manager at a microelectronics manufacturing company. We were manufacturing thin-film and thick-film assemblies for various clients. Those were the days when integrated circuits were just being put on the market and the most advanced integrated circuits had less than 10-transistors and usually more like 4, or 5, on the substrate. These I.C.s were not packaged but were on individual substrates and one that was 0.05-inches square was the norm with a few larger and some smaller.

    There were individual transistors that were smaller as well as resistors and capacitors.

    Of course, all work was done using microscopes and tweezers to handle the components. Minute amounts of adhesive had to be applied to the back of the I.C. or transistor substrate and then the component placed on a certain pad on the circuit substrate. Then, connecting wires (usually gold but sometimes silver) had to be put from the circuit substrate to the component. Depending on several things, these connecting wires were adhered to the appropriate pads using either thermal compression or ultrasonic methods.

    Resistors and capacitors were attached using ultrasound. Very few things were connected using normal soldering methods and those usually were to connect the device to the outside world.

    The usual circuit substrates ranged from about 3/4ths of an inch square to about 2-inches long by 1.5- inches wide. Most, but certainly not all, thin films were 1-inch square or smaller and the smallest thick films were 1-inch square and a very large thick-film would be like 3-inches long and 2-inches wide. However, 2-inches long and 1.5-inches wide were the average size.

    During the time that I was with the Collins Radio Company, I had administrative jurisdiction over the Sandia Base (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) thin film production. However, my job did not require any "hands on" work. It was when I accepted the applications engineering manager that I had to get some "hands on" experience.

    Frankly, modern surface mount components are like being in the wide open spaces compared to building thin-films and thick-films and the through-hole mounting is child's play when the effort to make the item is compared. However, have been involved with all of the production techniques, I definitely prefer the through hole method for both production and repair. I can, and even do, work on equipment with surface mount parts. However, I definitely do not have to "like" equipment that uses surface mount components!

    Glen, K9STH
     
    KL1T likes this.
  9. KD5RJZ

    KD5RJZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    K9STH I can't argue with any of your points, and when my eyesight gets bad enough that I have to use a microscope I will probably start to prefer through hole as well.

    Presently, there are three things that make me prefer SMD - I can populate and repair boards faster, the parts are incredibly less expensive, and most ICs are available only as SMD anyways. The lack of availability of DIP packages on common ICs is what led me to SMD in the first place.

     
  10. KD5RJZ

    KD5RJZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    They even take paypal, too convenient!
     
    KB4QAA likes this.

Share This Page