Recently, a Kenwood TS-850S - a radio from the mid-early 1990s - crossed my workbench.  While I'm not in the "repair business", I do fix my own radios, those of close friends, and occasionally those of acquaintances:  I've known this person for many years and we have several mutual friends.

If you are familiar with the Kenwood TS-850S to any degree, you'll also know that they suffer from an ailment that has struck down many pieces of electronic gear from that same era:  Capacitor Plague.

Figure 1: The ailing TS-850S.  The display is normal - except for the frequency display showing only dots.  This error is accompanied by "UL" in Morse. Click on the image for a larger version.

This isn't the same "Capacitor Plague" of which you might be aware where - particularly in the early 2000s - many computer motherboards failed due to incorrectly formulated electrolytic capacitors, but rather early-era (late 80s to mid 90s) surface-mount electrolytic capacitors that began to leak soon after they were installed.

The underlying cause?

While "failure by leaking" is a common occurrence in electronics, this failure is somewhat different in many aspects.  At about this time, electronic manufacturers were switching over to surface-mount devices - but one of the later components to be surface-mounted were the electrolytic capacitors themselves:  Up to this point it was quite common to see a circuit board where most of the components were surface-mount except for larger devices such as diodes, transistors, large coils and transformers - and electrolytic capacitors - all of which would be mounted through-hole, requiring an extra manufacturing step.

Early surface-mount electrolytic capacitors, as it turned out, had serious flaws.  In looking at the history, it's difficult to tell what aspect of their use caused the problem - the design and materials of the capacitor itself or the method by which they were installed - but it seems that whatever the cause, subjecting the capacitors themselves to enough heat to solder their terminals to the circuit board - via hot air or infrared radiation - was enough to compromise their structural integrity.

Whatever the cause - and at this point it does not matter who is to blame - the result is that over time, these capacitors have leaked electrolyte onto their host circuit boards.  Since this boron-based liquid is somewhat conductive and mildly corrosive in its own right, it is not surprising that as surface tension wicks this material across the board, it causes devastation wherever it goes, particularly when voltages are involved.

The CAR board - the cause of "display dots"

In the TS-850S, the module most susceptible to leaking capacitors is the CAR board - a circuit that produces multiple, variable frequency signals that feeds the PLL synthesizer and several IF (Intermediate Frequency) mixers.  Needless to say, when this board fails, so does the radio.

They most obvious symptom of this failure is when damage to the board is so extensive that it can no longer produce the needed signals - and if one particularly synthesizer (out of four on the board) fails, you will see that the frequency display disappears - to be replaced with just dots - and the letters "UL" are sent in Morse Code to indicate the "Unlock" condition by the PLL.

Figure 2: The damaged CAR board.  All but one of the surface-mount electrolytic capacitors has leaked corrosive fluid and damaged the board.  (It looked worse before being cleaned!) Click on the image for a larger version.

Prior to this, the radio may have started going deaf and/or transmitter output was dropping as the other three synthesizers - while still working - are losing output, but this may be indicative of another problem as well - more on this later.

Figure 2 shows what the damaged board looks like.  Actually, it looked a bit worse than that when I first removed it from the radio - several pins of the large integrated circuits being stained black.  As you can see, there are black smudges around all (but one) of the electrolytic capacitors where the corrosive liquid leaked out, getting under the green solder mask and even making its way between power supply traces where the copper was literally being eaten away.

The first order of business was to remove this board and throw it in the ultrasonic cleaner.  Using a solution of hot water and dish soap, the board was first cleaned for six minutes - flipping the board over during the process - and then very carefully, paper towels and then compressed air was used to remove the water.

Figure 3: The CAR board taking a hot bath in soapy water in an ultrasonic cleaner.  This removes not only debris, but spilled electrolyte - even that which has flowed under components. Click on the image for a larger version.

At this point I needed to remove all of the electrolytic capacitors:  Based on online research, it was common for all of them to leak, but I was lucky that the one unit that had not failed (a 47uF, 16 volt unit) "seemed" OK while all of the others (10uF, 16 volt) had disgorged their contents.

If you look at advice online, you'll see that some people recommend simply twisting the capacitor off the board as the most expedient removal procedure, but I've found that doing so with electrolyte-damaged traces often results in ripping those same traces right off the board - possibly due to thinning of the copper itself and/or some sort of weakening of the adhesive:  While I was expecting chemically-weakened traces, already, there was no reason to add injury to insult.

My preferred method of removing already-leaking capacitors is to use a pair of desoldering tweezers, which are more or less a soldering iron with two prongs that will heat both pins of the part simultaneously, theoretically allowing its quick removal.  While many capacitors are easily removed with this tool, some are more stubborn:  During manufacture, drops of glue were used under the part to hold it in place prior to soldering and this sometimes does its job too well, making it difficult to remove it.  Other times, the capacitor will explode (usually just a "pop") as it is being heated, oozing out more corrosive electrolyte.

With the capacitors removed, I tossed it in the ultrasonic cleaner for other cycle in the same warm water/soap solution to remove any additional electrolyte that had come off - along with debris from the removal process.  It is imperative when repairing boards with leaking capacitors that all traces of electrolyte be completely removed or damage will continue even after the repair.

At this point one generally needs to don magnification and carefully inspect the board.  Using a dental pick and small-blade screwdriver, I scraped away loose board masking (the green overcoating on the traces) as well as bits of copper that had detached from the board:  Having taken photos of the board prior to capacitor removal - and with the use of the Service Manual for this radio, found online - I was confident that I could determine where, exactly, each capacitor was connected.

When I was done - and the extent of the damage was better-revealed - the board looked to be a bit of a mess, but that was the fault of the leaking capacitors.  Several traces and pads in the vicinity of the defunct capacitors had been eaten away or fallen off - but since these capacitors are pretty much placed across power supply rails, it was pretty easy to figure out where they were supposed to connect.

Figure 4: The CAR board, reinstalled for testing. Click on the image for a larger version.

As the mounting pads for most of these capacitors were damaged or missing, I saw no point in replacing them with more surface-mount capacitors - but rather I could install through-hole capacitors on the surface, laying them down as needed for clearance - and since these new capacitors included long leads, those same leads could be used to "rebuild" the traces that had been damaged.

The photo shows the final result.  Different-sized capacitors were used as necessary to accommodate the available space, but the result is electrically identical to the original.  It's worth noting that these electrolytic capacitors are in parallel with surface-mount ceramic capacitors (which seem to have survived the ordeal) so the extra lead length on these electrolytics is of no consequence - the ceramic capacitors doing their job at RF as before.  After (later) successful testing of the board, dabs of adhesive were used to hold the larger, through-hole capacitors to the board to reduce stress on the solder connections under mechanical vibration.

Following the installation of the new capacitors, the board was again given two baths in the ultrasonic cleaner - one using the soap and water solution, and the other just using plain tap water and again, the board was patted dry and then carefully blown dry with compressed air to remove all traces of water from the board and from under components and then allowed to air dry for several hours.

Testing the board

After using an ohmmeter to make sure that the capacitors all made their proper connections, I installed the board in the TS-850S and... it didn't work as I was again greeted with a "dot" display and a Morse "UL".

I suspected that one of the "vias" - a point where a circuit traces passes from one side to another through a plated hole - had been "eaten" by the errant electrolyte.  Wielding an oscilloscope, I quickly noted that only one of the synthesizers was working - the one closest to connector CN1 - and this told me that at least one control signal was missing from the rest of the chips.  Probing with the scope I soon found that a serial data signal ("PDA") used to program the synthesizers "stopped" beyond the first chip and a bit of testing with an ohmmeter showed that from one end of the board to the other, the signal had been interrupted - no doubt in a via that had been eaten away by electrolytic action.

Figure 5: Having done some snooping with an oscilloscope, I noted that the "PDA" signal did not make it past the first of the (large) synthesizer chips.  The white piece of #30 Kynar wire-wrap wire was used to jump over the bad board "via" Click on the image for a larger  version.

The easiest fix for this was to use a piece of small wire - I used #30 Kynar-insulated wire-wrap wire (see Figure 5) - to jumper from where this control signal was known to be good to a point where it was not good (a length of about an inch/two cm) and was immediately rewarded with all four synthesizer outputs being on the correct frequencies, tuning as expected with the front-panel controls.

Low output

While all four signals were present and on their proper frequencies - indicating that the synthesizers were working correctly - I soon noticed, using a scope, that the second synthesizer output on about 8.3 MHz was outputting a signal that was about 10% of its expected value in amplitude.  A quick test of the transmitter indicated that the maximum RF output was only about 15 watts - far below that of the 100 watts expected.

Again using the 'scope, I probed the circuit - and comparing the results with the nearly identical third synthesizer (which was working correctly) and soon discovered that the amplitude dropped significantly through a pair of 8.3 MHz ceramic filters.

The way that synthesizers 2 and 3 work is that the large ICs synthesize outputs in the 1.2-1.7 MHz area and mix this with a 10 MHz source derived from the radio's reference to yield signals around 8.375 and 8.83 MHz, respectively - but this mix results in a very ugly signal, spectrally - full of harmonics and undesired products.  With the use of these ceramic bandpass filters - which are similar to the 10.7 MHz filters those found in analog AM and FM radios - and these signals are "cleaned up" to yield the desired output over a range of the several kiloHertz that they vary depending on the bandpass filter and the settings of the front panel "slope tune" control.

Figure 6: The trace going between C75 and CF1 was cut and a bifilar- wound transformer was installed to step up the impedance from Q7 to that of the filter:  R24 was also changed to 22 ohms - providing the needed "IF-7-LO3" output level at J4. Click on the image for a larger version.

The problem here seemed to be that the two ceramic 8.3 MHz filters  (CF1, CF2) were far more lossy than they should have been.  Suspecting a bad filter, I removed them both from the circuit board and tested them using a temporary fixture on a NanoVNA:  While their "shape" seemed OK, their losses were each around 10dB more than is typical of these devices indicating that they are slowly degrading.  A quick check online revealed that these particular frequency filters were not available anywhere (they were probably custom devices, anyway) so I had to figure out what to do.

Since the "shape" of the individual filter's passbands were still OK - a few hundred kHz wide - all I needed was to get more signal:  While I could have kludged another amplifier into the circuit to make up for the loss, I decided, instead, to reconfigure the filter matching.  Driving the pair of ceramic filters is an emitter-follower buffer amplifier (Q7) - the output of which is rather low impedance - well under 100 ohms - but these types of filters typically "want" around 300-400 ohms and in this circuit, this was done using series resistors - specifically R24.  This method of "matching" the impedance is effective, but very lossy, so changing this to a more efficient matching scheme would allow me to recover some of the signal.

Replacing the 330 ohm series resistor (R24) with a 22 ohm unit and installing a bifilar-wound transformer (5 turns on a BN43-2402 binocular core) wired as a 1:4 step-up transformer (the board trace between C75 and CF1 was cut and the transformer connected across it) brought the output well into the proper amplitude range and with this success, I used a few drops of "super glue" to hold it to the bottom of the board.  It is important to note that I "boosted" the amplitude of the signal prior to the filtering because to do so after the filtering - with its very low signal level - may have also amplified spurious signals as well - a problem avoided in this method.

Rather than using a transformer I could have also used a simple L/C impedance transformation network (a series 2.2uH inductor with a 130pF capacitor to ground on the "filter side" would have probably done the trick) but the 1:4 transformer was very quick and easy to do.

With the output level of synthesizer #2 (as seen on pin CN4) now up to spec (actually 25% higher than indicated on the diagram in the service manual) the radio was now easily capable of full transmit output power, and the receiver's sensitivity was also improved - not surprising considering that the low output would have starved mixers in the radios IF.

A weird problem

After all of this, the only thing that is not working properly is "half" of the "Slope Tune" control:  In USB the "Low Cut" works - as does the "High Cut" on LSB, but the "High Cut" does not work as expected on USB and the "Low Cut" does not work as expected on LSB.  What happens with the settings that do NOT work properly, I hear the effect of the filter being adjusted (e.g. the bandwidth narrows) but the radio's tuning does not track the adjustment as it should.  What's common to both of these "failures" is that they both relate to high frequency side of the filter IF filters in the radio - the effect being "inverted" on LSB.

I know that the problem is NOT the CAR board or the PLL/synthesizer itself as these are being properly set to frequency.  What seems to NOT be happening is that for the non-working adjustments, the radio's CPU is not adjusting the tuning of the radio to track the shift of the IF frequency to keep the received signal in the same place - which seems like more of a software problem than a hardware problem:  Using the main tuning knob or the RIT one can manually offset this problem and permit tuning of both the upper and lower slopes of of the filters, but that is obviously not how it's expected to work!

In searching the Internet, I see scattered mentions of this sort of behavior on the TS-850 and TS-950, but no suggestions as to what causes it or what to do about it:  I have done a CPU reset of the radio and disconnected the battery back-up to wipe the RAM contents, but to no avail.  Until/unless this can be figured out, I advised the owner to set the affected control to its "Normal" position.  If you have experienced this problem - and especially if you know of a solution - please let me know.

Figure 7: The frequency display shows that the synthesizer is now working properly - as did the fact that it outputs full power and gets good on-the-air signal reports. Click on the image for a larger version.

Final comments

Following the repair, I went through the alignment steps in the service manual and found that the radio was slightly out alignment - particularly with respect to settings in the transmit output signal path - possibly during previous servicing to accommodate the low output due to the dropping level from the CAR board.  Additionally, the ALC didn't seem to work properly - being out of adjustment - resulting in distortion on voice peaks with excessive output power.

With the alignment sorted, I made a few QSOs on the air, getting good reports - and using a WebSDR to record my transmissions, it sounded fine as well.

Aside from the odd behavior of the "Slope Tune" control, the radio seems to work perfectly.  I'm presently convinced that this must be a software - not a hardware - problem as all of the related circuits function as they should, but don't seem to be being "told" what to do.

* * * * *

This page stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com

[END]

Figure 1: The two generic "can" oscillators tested - both having been found in my "box of oscillators". Click on the image for a larger version.

Sometimes one comes across a device with one of those cheap crystal "can" oscillators that is "close" to frequency - but not close enough.  Perhaps this device is used in a receiver, or maybe it's used for clock generation or clock recovery. Such oscillator are available on a myriad of frequencies - although too-often not exactly the right one!

What if we want to "nail" this oscillator to an external (perhaps GPS) reference?  If this oscillator were variable, this task would be simplified, but finding a "VCXO" (Variable-Control Crystal Oscillator) on the frequency of interest is sometimes not even possible.

What if there were a way to externally lock a bog-standard crystal oscillator to an external source?

To answer this question, I rummaged through my box of crystal oscillators (everyone has such a box, right?) and grabbed two of them:  A standard 4 MHz oscillator and a 19.440 MHz oscillator that has an "enable" pin.

Comment:  

This article refers to standard, quartz crystal oscillators and not MEMs or "Programmable" oscillators where the internal High-Q resonating element likely has no direct relationship with the synthesis-derived output frequency.

Injection locking

This is what it sounds like:  Take a signal source of the desired frequency - typically very close to that of the oscillator that you are trying to nail to frequency - and inject it into the circuitry to lock the two together.

This technique is ancient:  It accounts for the fact that a (wobbly) table of pendulum-type metronomes set "close" to the same tempo will eventually synchronize with each other, and it is the very technique used in the days of analog TV to synchronize their vertical and horizontal oscillators to the sync signals from the incoming signal.

It's still used these days, one notable example being the means by which an Icom IC-9700's internal oscillator may be externally locked to an external 49.152 MHz source (see: http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=352 ) - and this is done by putting a known-stable source of 49.152 MHz "very near" the unit's built-in oscillator.

Injection-locking a discrete-component crystal oscillator is relatively simple:  It's sometimes just a matter of placing a wire near the circuitry with the resonant element (e.g. near the crystal or related capacitors) and the light capacitive coupling will cause it to "lock" to the external source - as long as it's "close" to the oscillator's "natural" frequency.

Getting a signal inside the oscillator

Injection locking often needs only a small amount of external signal to be applied to the circuit in question - particularly if it's inserted in the feedback loop of the resonant circuit, but what about a "crystal can" oscillator that is hermetically sealed inside a metal case?

Figure 2: Schematic depiction of power supply rail to get the external signal "into" the can. Click on the image for a larger version.

Because, in many cases, opening the can would compromise the seal of the oscillator and expose the quartz element to air and degrade it, this isn't really an option.  Another possibility would be to magnetically couple an external signal into the circuitry, but owing to a combination of its small size and the fact that these devices are typically in ferrous metal cans, this isn't likely to work, either.

So what else can one do to get a sample of our external signal inside?

Power rail injection

The most obvious "input" is via the power supply rail.  Fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it - these oscillators often have built-in bypass capacitors on their power rails, putting a low-ish impedance on the power supply input - but this impedance isn't zero. 

Figure 3: Top - The signal riding on the voltage rail Bottom - The locked output of the oscillator Click on the image for a larger version.

A simple circuit to do this is depicted in Figure 2.  The way it works is by decoupling the power supply via L1 and C1 and heavily "modulating" it with the signal to be locked with Q1.  For the test circuit seen in Figures 2 and 4, L1 and L2 were 10uH molded chokes, C1 and C2 were 0.1uF capacitors and Q1 was a 2N3904 or similar NPN transistor.  

When an external signal is applied to Q1 via C2 (I used +13dBm of RF from a signal generator) Q1 will conduct on the positive excursions of the input waveform, dragging the power supply voltage to the oscillator down with it.  With this simple circuit, Q1 has to dissipate quite a bit of power (the current was about 500 mA) and this action results in a fair bit of power dissipation, likely due to the fact that the bypass capacitance within the oscillator is shunting the energy and causing a significant amount of power to be lost.

This circuit has room for improvements - namely, it's likely that one could better-match the collector impedance of Q1 with the (likely) much lower impedance at the V+ terminal of the oscillator - possibly using a simple matching circuit (L/C, transformer, etc.) to drive it more efficiently.

Figure 4: The messy test circuit depicted in Figure 2 used to inject the external into the "can" oscillator via the power pin. Click on the image for a larger version.

Despite its simplicity, with the circuit in Figure 2 shows how I was able to inject an external signal source into the oscillator and, over a relatively narrow frequency range (15 Hz for the 4 MHz oscillator, 60 Hz for the 19.44 MHz oscillator) it could be locked externally.

The oscillogram in Figure 3 shows the resulting waveforms.  The top (red) is the AC-coupled power supply rail for the oscillator showing about 2 volts of RF imposed on it while the bottom rail shows the square-ish wave output of the power supply.  Using a dual-trace scope, it was easy to spot when the input and output signals were on the same frequency - and locked - as they did not "slide" past each other.

As you might expect, the phase relationship between the two signals will vary a bit, depending whether one is at the low or high frequency end of the lock range and with changes in amplitude, so this - like about any injection-locking scheme - shouldn't be confused with a true "phase lock".

Is the lock range wide enough?

The "gotcha" here is that these are inexpensive oscillators, likely with 50-100 ppm stability/accuracy ratings meaning that they are going to drift like mad with temperature and applied power supply voltage.  What this also means is that these oscillators are not likely to be "dead on" frequency, anyway.

To a degree, their frequency can be "tuned" by varying the power supply voltage:  A 5-volt rated "can" oscillator will probably work reliably over a 3.5-5.5 volt range, often changing the frequency by a hundred Hz or so:  The 19.44 MHz oscillator moved by more than 1.5 kHz across this range, but never getting closer than 2 kHz above its nominal frequency - but this correlates with the often-loose specifications of these devices in terms of frequency accuracy, not to mention temperature!

If your oscillator is "close enough" to the desired frequency at some voltage - and it is otherwise pretty stable, this may be a viable technique, but other than that, it may just be a curiosity.  If one chooses an oscillator with better frequency stability/tolerance specifications - like a TCXO - this may be viable, but testing would be required to determine if a TCXO's temperature compensation would even work properly if the power supply voltage were varied/modulated with an external signal.

"Enable" pin injection

Figure 5: Schematic depicting applying an external signal via the "enable" pin.  The amplitude of the external signal must have a peak-to-peak voltage that is a significant percentage of the power supply voltage. Click on the image for a larger version.

Many of these "can" oscillators have (or may be ordered with) an "enable" pin which turns them on and off - and unlike the power supply pin, this typically has pretty low parasitic capacitance compared to the V+ pin of the oscillator and it can provide a way "in" for the external frequency reference.  Figure 5 shows how this can be done.

For this circuit, resistors Ra and Rb (which may be between 1k and 10k, each) bias the "enable" pin somewhere around the threshold voltage and capacitively couple the signal - in this case, a +13dBm signal from a signal generator which had about 2 volt peak-to-peak swing.  If a logic-level signal is available, one can dispense with the bias resistors and the capacitor and drive it directly.

Note that some oscillators have a built in pull-up or pull-down resistor which can affect biasing and the selection of resistors should reflect that:  If its specs note that the pin may be left open to enable (or disable) the oscillator, this will certainly be the case.  If a pull-up resistor is present, the value of the corresponding external pull-down resistor will have to be experimentally determined, or "Rb" (in Figure 5) may be made variable using a 10k-100k trimmer potentiometer.

The 19.44 MHz oscillator shown in Figure 1 has such an enable pin and by injecting the 2 volt peak-peak signal from the external source into, it will reliably lock over a 900 Hz range.  Some degree of locking was noted even if the signal was quite low (around 250 mV peak-peak) but the frequency swing was dramatically reduced.  For optimal lock range it's expected that a swing equal to that of the supply rail would be used.

The precise mechanism by which this works is unknown:  Does the "enable" pin actually turn the oscillator on and off, does it simply gate the output of the oscillator while it continues to run or is it that this signal gets into the onboard circuitry and couples into the oscillator's feedback loop?  I suspect that it is, in most cases, the former as the "enable" pin often reduces power consumption significantly which would explain why it seems to work reasonably well - at least with the oscillators that were tested.

If the oscillator itself is "gated" (e.g. turned on/off) by the "enable" pin, then this is precisely the mechanism that we would want to inject an external signal into the oscillator.  In looking at the output waveform, however, I suspect that the answer to this question isn't that simple:  If it were simple logic gating one would expect to see the output waveform of the oscillator gated - and mixing - with the external signal once the latter was outside the "lock" range - but this was not the case for the oscillator tested.  I suspect that there might be some sort of filtering or debouncing in the gating circuit, but based on the ease by which locking was accomplished using this oscillator, there was clearly enough of the external signal getting into the oscillator portion itself to cause it to lock readily.

As noted previously, while the lock range was about 900 Hz, the oscillator itself was about 2.5 kHz high, anyway, so it could not be brought precisely onto the nominal frequency.  Again, it may be possible to do this with a TCXO equipped with an "enable" pin, but testing would be required for any specific oscillator to determine if this is viable.

"Locked" performance

The testing of spectral purity using either of these methods was only cursorily checked by tuning to the output of the oscillator with a general-coverage receiver and feeding the resulting audio into the Spectran program to see a waterfall display.  This configuration allows both the absolute frequency and the lock range to be measured with reasonable accuracy.

It can also tell us a little bit about spectral purity:  If there was a terrible degradation in phase noise, it would likely show up on the waterfall display - but when solidly locked, no such degradation was visible.

Although it wasn't tested, it's also likely that locking the oscillator - particularly using the "enable" pin - could be used to "clean up" an external oscillator that is somewhat spectrally "dirty" owing to the rather limited lock range and high "Q" of the "can" oscillator.  This is most likely useful for higher-frequency components (e.g. those farther away from the carrier than a few kHz) rather than close-in, low-frequency phase noise - a property which the most inexpensive oscillators likely don't have is anything resembling stellar performance, anyway.

Harmonic locking?

One thing that I did not try (because I forgot to do so) was harmonic locking - that is, the injection of a signal that is an integer fraction of the oscillator frequency (e.g. 1 MHz for the 4 MHz oscillator) - perhaps something to try later?

Is this useful for anything?

I had wondered for some time if it would be possible to lock one of these cheap oscillators to an external source and the answer appears to be "yes".  Unfortunately, most crystal oscillators have accuracy and temperature stability specifications that cause its natural frequency variance to exceed the likely lock range unless one gets a particularly stable and accurate oscillator.

If one presumes that the oscillator to be "tamed" is good enough then yes, it may be practical to lock it to an external source - particularly via the "enable" pin.  In many cases, such oscillators don't have this feature as they need to be active all of the time so it may be necessary to replace it with one that has an "enable" pin - and then one must hope that the replacement will, in fact, be stable/accurate enough and also capable of being locked externally - something that must be tested on the candidate device.

So the answer is a definite "Yes, maybe!"

This page stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com

[END]