Crosstalk from RX to TX line on the RS-232 side of MAX3232C

Asked
10 years, 4 months ago Modified
4 years, 6 months ago Viewed
3k times

We have a product which is using a MAX3232C for interfacing to a PC. Its RS-232 RX line is
tied to the MAX3232's R1IN pin and its TX line to T1OUT:
7

Your privacy
The problem
By clicking wecookies”,
“Accept all are having appears
you agree to Exchange
Stack be somecan
kindstore
of crosstalk
cookies onbetween theand
your device RX disclose
and TX
lines. in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
information

Accept all cookies Customize settings

 This scope image is showing exactly the same bit stream received on RX (yellow) coming out
of TX (green), but with a little distortion and a smaller amplitude (the TX bit stream following
the "crosstalk packet" is just the expected answer packet from the device).

The baud rate is rather low (9600 bps), so we wouldn't expect to see that due to PCB design
issues. To rule out a PCB problem, we exchanged the MAX3232C from Texas Instruments for
a pin-compatible device from ST Microelectronics, an ST3232C, and the problem vanished:

That said, has anyone ever experienced a similar problem with MAX3232? Can anyone
Your imagine
privacy other possible causes for the problem other than a faulty I.C.? Just for the record, we
observed
By clicking theallsame
“Accept problem
cookies”, with Stack
you agree otherExchange
units also using
can storeMAX3232C devices.
cookies on your device and disclose
information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

rs232 max3232
Accept all cookies Customize settings

Share Cite Follow edited May 31 2012 at 14:52 asked May 30 2012 at 18:48
 Share Cite Follow edited May 31, 2012 at 14:52 asked May 30, 2012 at 18:48
Claudio
386 5 13

What points exactly in your schematic are the scope traces showing? Your description implies you are
looking at the logic level side, but the voltage levels are way too high for that. Be clear about what you
are measuring and who is sending to whom.
– Olin Lathrop
May 30, 2012 at 19:02

@OlinLathrop, the yellow trace was taken at the RX mark (MAX3232C pin 13) and the green one at the
TX mark (pin 14).
–  Claudio
May 30, 2012 at 19:03

2 If you encounter this problem, then you are most likely dealing with a Chinese-made counterfeit
MAX3232 chip. I just went through this same ordeal, it is apparently very wide-spread.
– user91645
Nov
13, 2015 at 16:59

Sorted by:
1 Answer Highest score (default)

I would guess that it could be lack of supply stiffness with the MAX device.

Are the pump caps 0.1 uF as shown.

3
And what cap is on the 3V3 rail and how far away is it from the IC.

If the power supply is not stiff enough either because the "pump" lacks energy or the source
rail is noisy then something like you are seeing could happen.

Pin 2 and pin 6 (V+/V-) should have some ripple at the pump frequency but no signal
frequency noise to speak of.

What supply voltage are you actually using?

What is the drive voltage on the low voltage side?

It may well not matter but the TI data sheet in figure 4 bottom of page 7 shows differing cap
values for different supply voltages.

The Maxim data sheet shows the same values in table 2 at the top of page 12. Maxim say
these are minimum capacitor values. TI says that the same values are typical values.

Note that the spurious output is unipolar - it's not that it's low - the scope ground is at half
waveform height and the proper signal is ~+/- 5V, as it should be, but in spurious mode it's
-5/0V. This implies that the + side pump isn't working or that Murphy has proclaimed a bank
holiday. I'd start by checking voltages on C3 & C4, supply capacitor size and correct capacitor
values.
Your privacy
By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose
Share Cite Follow edited May 30, 2012 at 20:02 answered May 30, 2012 at 19:37
information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Russell McMahon ♦
144k 18 205 377
Accept all cookies Customize settings

McMahon, the 3V3 supply seems OK, and the caps are all 0.1uF and close to the IC (everything SMD).
– Claudio May 30, 2012 at 20:03
   Claudio
May 30, 2012 at 20:03

The 3V3 rail is fed by a low-noise and low-dropout 3V3 regulator (LP3982) with a 47uF cap at its output.
Its allows caps over 10uF as long as their ESR is lower than 0.5 ohm. I have to check that out since I

didn't design the hardware, but on the scope the 3V3 line looks pretty stable. I'll check your suggestions
and get back here.. thanks!
–  Claudio
May 30, 2012 at 20:29

1 One thing which is making my colleague believe this is a problem with this batch of ICs is that the
ST3232 parts do not show the crosstalk effect, and neither another MAX3232I part he also tried in
exchange for the original MAX3232C.
–  Claudio
May 31, 2012 at 13:57

1 @RusselMcMahon, sorry for the long "silence", but I was very involved in another firmware project and
this question I raised here was indeed more related to my colleague's problem (he's not much into
online communities, so I couldn't get him to keep tracking down the cause so we would get to the end
of this). In the end he just exchanged the MAX3232C part for both a MAX3232I and a ST3232 and was
happy about them not being faulty :P, but I still want to get my hands on the original MAX3232C and
isolate it along with the strict minimum components required to test it (more on next comment...)
–  Claudio
Jun 18, 2012 at 21:50

1 (continuing...) One interesting thing to note, as you can see on the first scope image, is that the input on
this MAX3232C seems to act as a load, clearly attenuating the source signal (yellow trace) if you
compare it to the next scope image, which shows the ST3232 part with no attenuation on the input
signal. Another thing worth mentioning is the crosstalk on the MAX3232C output (pin 14, marked with
TX) also appeared when the input signal was applied to the other channel's input (pin 8, marked with
DSR).
–  Claudio
Jun 18, 2012 at 22:01

Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation (not counting the association bonus) in order to answer this
question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.

Your privacy
By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose
information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Accept all cookies Customize settings