When these boards are done and tested will you be able to buy them all programmed up ready to go for the likes of us who don't have a PC I not in a rush as I am on pre order for my micro bitx like my poor bitx's I have 3 never going to get upgraded chris
On 12 Jan 2018 20:15, "Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum=
[email protected]> wrote:
Arv:
Agree with all that you said. Obviously, that won't solve all issues but test points and the additional mile that Hans has gone raises the bar for everyone. Our VFT/TFT board for the BITX40 has a number of test points, with holes for pins, silk screened onto the board (e.g., TP2). Alas, I can't tell you how many emails I got saying "Part TP2 marked on the board isn't listed in the BOM". Ya can't win...
You're absolutely spot-on with the comment about running out of I/O pins, which is why our board brings all of the unused Mega 2560 I/O pins out for experimentation. Al Peter, AC8GY, and I are redoing the board for the ?BITX since it has so many features plus the AD9850 II is now stupidly priced. (BTW, this source has them listed for $12.30: .) The new board is going to stick with the Si5351. We are a LONG way off from having anything even ready for testing, but we are watching what's going on with everyone here very closely. We will definitely have more test points on the board (and a note in the manual telling what they are!) and maybe even try for some of the features Hans has added to the bar.
Is this fun stuff or what?
Jack, W8TEE
Michael?? KM4OLT
A possibly better approach seems to be on the horizon from several fledgling ham
radio kit designers.? QRP-Labs has included digital voltmeter capability in the QCX
transceiver that can be configured to monitor strategic points.? Enhancement of that
built-in-test-equipment may be the new future of ham radio kits.? This requires a
significant number of digital and analog inputs to the micro-controller.? This may
force migration to something like the Arduino Mega-2560 board with its 50-plus
inputs and outputs, and a small price increase to support that action.? The larger
processor would also increase amount of memory available for software to support
testing and additional features.
Of course that does not help if the control system is the problem.? For this your idea
of returning to documented test points may be a good idea.? Maybe it would suffice
to silk-screen test points as being connections to specific parts of installed components.
That would point to appropriate places to test without the cost and real-estate
requirement of adding hardware for connection pins and pads.
Arv? K7HKL
_._
