For this particular application I think that approach might work, but it forces others to make major concessions in terms of utilization of space inside the enclosure to avoid CAN-Do radiated EMI.  Regardless of what happens to the CAN-Do EMI it looks like you better plan on some nasty DC power and filter the DC input accordingly.


I can see a small PCB attached to the CAN-Do 40-pin connector that contains DC filtering, the receiver’s switching power supply, and lands for the signal lines that need to go back to the receiver (not all 40 conductors – just the ones we actually use.)  We’d probably want to run those wires through to the other compartment via feed-thru filters in the common bulkhead using a small wiring harness, then another small harness on the other side to interface to the receiver PCB.  An alternate approach might be to use a smaller ribbon cable and connectors to move the actual signals and power back to the receiver, but that adds weight and doesn’t allow for filtering through the bulkhead unless we found an EMI ribbon cable bulkhead connector.  I think I’d prefer the discrete wire harness approach.  I think it’s lighter, more reliable, and eliminates one set of connectors.


Before proceeding with another revision I’d like to see an EMI requirement spec and a practical way to generate the expected noisy DC power.   This will also give the next group something to design and test to.


By the way, did you see my phase noise data?  I went back and tested again using another spectrum analyzer while mine is getting calibrated.  You’ll notice an interesting diversion between the two.  As the saying goes, “A man with a watch always knows what time it is.  A man with two watches can never be sure.”  I’ll run that again when I get the calibrated spec. a. back from the shop.





From: John B. Stephensen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:38 PM
To: [email protected]; 'Louis McFadin'
Cc: 'Dave Black (Work)'; 'Dave Black (Home)'; 'David Smith'; [email protected]; 'Samsonoff@Mac. Com'; 'Juan.Rivera (Work)'
Subject: Re: U-band receiver changes to reduce EMI and improve thermal regulation


If the CAN-Do module can be placed in a shielded compartment with multi-pole filters on all wires leaving the shielded area, we can get at least 80 dB of attenuation for conducted interference and the electric field component of radiated interference. Magnetic shielding is harder as it requires iron or mu-metal so a magnetically shielded inductor should be used in the CAN-DO module.


Synchronizing the switchers to a frequency with no harmonics at 10.5-10.9 MHz would help with radiated interference, but a shielded inductor may be sufficient if it can be moved far enough from the RF circuitry -- especially the PLLS and VCOs.


If we have only two adjacent sides available for connectors, the CAN-Do module and power supply circuitry could attach to the existing connector bracket. The RF and IF connectors would then exit along one long side of the box as far from the CAN bus connector as possible.






----- Original Message -----

From: Juan Rivera

Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 04:32 UTC

Subject: RE: U-band receiver changes to reduce EMI and improve thermal regulation


Hi John,


I had a chat or two with Bob Davis about chassis and I think you can bring SMA connectors out one side and the CAN-Do out the end, but nothing out the back.


Given the amount of conducted 5 kHz noise I’m seeing, do you think you can filter it out?  Don’t forget, I’m feeding the receiver with bypassed clean DC from the bench supply at the moment.  The CAN-Do switched DC is nasty.


In your next version why not raise the switching frequency up and get it out of the passband completely?  What do you think of Howard’s idea of synching the switching supplies?




From: John B. Stephensen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:24 PM
To: Louis McFadin; [email protected]
Cc: Dave Black (Work); Dave Black (Home); David Smith; [email protected]; Samsonoff@Mac. Com; Juan.Rivera (Work)
Subject: U-band receiver changes to reduce EMI and improve thermal regulation


For the next version of the 70 cm receiver, I'm thinking of an arrangement where the CAN bus exits out of the opposite side of the module from the RF and IF. Does this create any problems in the wiring harness?


The CAN-DO module would be mounted on a small PCB containing most of the power supply circuitry. This PCB would contain the switcher that generates 7 VDC for the receiver and some of the linear regulators. It would be mounted at one end of the module and be heat-sinked.


The RF circuitry would be mounted on a separate PCB at the other end of the module. This allows all RF and IF coax connectors to mount on this PCB and attach directly to the connector mounting bracket. It also eliminates the flying lead for the frequency reference input. The power dissipation would be limited so that it doesn't need to be heat-sinked. This protects the SAW filters from rapid temperature excursions and keeps them above -30 C at all times.


The two PCBs would be connected with a cable carrying DC power and the signals being monitored. Each PCB would have filtering for power and the signals being monitored by the IHU. The interconnect cable would travel through a common-mode choke using high-permiability ferrite.


If necessary for thermal reasons, the RF amplifier and first mixer would go on a third PCB with a heat sink. LO and IF would connect to the second PCB via 2 coax cables. Once the new requirements document is approved, the power dissipation can be calculated for each of the 3 PCBs and a thermal analysis would determine whether 2 or 3 PCBs are needed and how far apart they should be.


Unless more problems are found during testing of the current version of the receiver, the circuitry would be same as now, except that an MCU is added to initialize the PLLs and the second mixer and second IF amplifiers are changed to devices that dissipate less power in line with the new requirements document. Bob has expressed some interest in Peregrine PLLs that can have the frequency hard wired so they could be inserted instead of adding the MCU.






----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 02:36 UTC

Subject: [eagle] Re: CAN-Do EMI - Let's Get Going on This!



Why not think out of the box, Put the Can Do module outside the box, perhaps on top of the module.

I think that is a more likely solution  than re building the Can-do module.


Lou McFadin


[email protected]



On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:25 PM, Juan Rivera wrote:




I'm sorry to pick on you, but you seem like a good guy to complain to...


I seem to be having a problem stimulating a discussion.  After saying that I

though the CAN-Do power supply needed to be completely scrapped and replaced

with one running at around 1 MHz I expected to be buried in email, but I've

only received one message referring to this so far, and it wasn't from

anyone working on CAN-Do.


The CAN-Do module is unique in that it is going to be an integral component

INSIDE of every payload, so any deficiencies it may have are going to have a

large impact.  


Let me restate my finding so far:


There are 4 categories of EMI and the CAN-Do module / 70 cm Receiver

combination is experiencing all four.  They break down into radiated and

conducted emissions and susceptibility, and they are generally referred to

by a two-letter designation - RE, RS, CE, and CS.


RE and RS go together - the CAN-Do module's switching power supply inductor

radiates the 5 kHz switching noise out the back directly towards the

receiver (RE.)  The Receiver's VCO's are both very sensitive to EMI and are

impacted by the CAN-Do module if they are within 4-1/2 inches of the

inductor (RS.)  I've had to move the CAN-Do module off of the receiver PCB

and interconnect it with a ribbon cable to deal with this problem.  The good

news is that I am fairly confident that It can be fixed by going to a

two-compartment chassis, with a bulkhead separating the CAN-Do module from

the analog Receiver to provide shielding.  The bad news is that I think this

means we need a milled module chassis.


CE and CS also go together, and this is the real problem I see since you

can't fix conducted EMI with a shielded enclosure.  It requires filtering.

The CAN-Do module is trashing the DC input from the power source and also

feeding noisy power to the Receiver.  The outgoing noise is the bigger

concern because it will add to the CS problems for everything connected to

the power source.  In the other direction, the switched power from the

CAN-Do module shows up in the IF output as 5 kHz spurs.  Moving the CAN-Do

module physically away from the Receiver only dealt with the RE/RS issue.  I

had to bypass the CAN-Do module and run clean power directly from the lab

bench supply to deal with the CE/CS problem.  This means that there is no

current monitoring and no power control.


The 5 kHz switching frequency is bad for two reasons - it makes filtering

this noise a much larger problem than it needs to be, and the impact is more

severe since it is putting spurs all over the passband of the IF at 5 kHz



If you sit back and think about the impact of a dozen noisy power supplies

all feeding EMI back to the common power source where they all mix together

and make their way back to each payload, it starts to look nasty.  All these

supplies will be drifting around and beating with each other to produce sum

and difference noise on the power bus.  5 kHz noise is hard enough to get

rid of but what if there are difference components at a few hundred Hz?  How

can you design a filter when you won't know what to expect until you hook

everything up and turn it on?  And by then you're out of time.


I'm not making this stuff up.  People I know have run into this exact

problem before and the result was very bad.


A while ago Howard Long made a suggestion that I think has great potential.

Here's what he had to say: the original SDX PSU design I had in San Francisco last year is an

SMPS using the LM2672 device. These can be fitted with an AC coupled SYNC

signal to override the internal default SMPS frequency. I selected 375kHz

for my unit (6MHz divided by 16) to ensure its harmonics were outside the

10.7MHz IF passband. If the external SYNC fails the internal SMPS oscillator

takes over.


My Suggestions:


1) Revise the CAN-Do module to move the switching frequency up as far as

possible to move spurs out of the passband of sensitive analog circuitry,

and to ease the burden on EMI filtering.

2) The power and grounds must be filtered in both directions to minimize CE

back to the power source and to the payload.

3) The switching inductor should be a shielded to reduce RE inside the

module chassis.

4) A power supply capable of synching to a master oscillator should be

strongly considered.


This topic needs to be elevated to the top of the queue.  The EMI

environment surrounding the CAN-Do module impacts the design of the next

revision of the 70 cm Receiver, and also directly impacts the chassis

design.  What do we need to do to get going on this?




Juan - WA6HTP  







Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA


Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
[email protected]