Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- BITX20
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Jerry,
Ian's code may be easy for you to read and understand. That is most definitely *not* the case for many of us. Any code that can be changed on the fly by defining options to be included or excluded probably can't be considered "stable". It becomes a minefield for others trying to add their functionality. Regression testing to insure the software still works as intended becomes a nightmare of trying all the numerous options together in a multiplicity of option combinations. This is not meant as disparagement Ian's software. It has a lot of functionality that many people have asked for. Many people are using it. There is a good reason for that. But that doesn't mean it is suitable as the base load for all future ubitx units. Does Ashar have the resources to do a full regression testing of Ian's software as it stands today when changes are made to the ubitx hardware? tim ab0wr On Mon, 14 May 2018 22:42:01 -0700 "Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke@...> wrote: I haven't looked at Ian's code yet. |
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Tim ? On this point I agree with you 100%.? That is why our team (W0EB/N5IB/W2CTX) tries to supply a single package that has all the options people might want. All this discussion is like trying to cram 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag!? Lets face it the NANO is not the processor for what the future of uBITX is. rOn On May 15, 2018 at 9:48 AM Tim Gorman wrote: |
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Gordon Gibby
It would sure be nice if you could fix the acceleration feature.......
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 14, 2018, at 17:57, John Backo <jabac@...> wrote: |
|
Re: Testing my antenna
#ubitx
I am getting Tx when I ?push the PTT.?I have a 17' vertical wire from QRP Guys antenna
The idea of making sure I have power first...ist a great suggestion. Will dig out my CB metre and see what I am getting. |
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
John,
But what happens if the CW option is defined out of the software as has been suggested to save program space? Then the defined label won't exist. If my software assumes it *does* exist then it won't function correctly for some users that try to integrate it in their load. Who gets charged with doing the troubleshooting as to why it doesn't work? tim ab0wr On Mon, 14 May 2018 20:13:24 -0700 "John" <vk2eta@...> wrote: Hello Tim, |
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Ashar *does* support the software he provides. Significant testing was
done before it was used as the standard load. While it does have some problems it *does* work, it *is* usable as provided. And it provides a stable base upon which to build. When was the last time someone reported a problem with the standard software that prevents it from working correctly? tim ab0wr On Tue, 15 May 2018 00:59:58 -0500 "K9HZ" <bill@...> wrote: Support? You think the uBITx is supported? |
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi, May I order one AGC and one Click kit please for delivery to France ... Many thanks, Gilles Delpech, F1BFU?
|
|
Re: Variable IF
This filter really works like a variable low pass filter. ?One side of the passband, the low frequency side, stays fixed and is quite steep. ?The other side gets lower in frequency as the capacity is increased. ?It is not as steep as the low side.
If you are listening to a 750 Hz CW tone you can increase the capacitance until the nominal bandpass is about 750 Hz wide. ?If you are listening to a 200 Hz CW tone you can use more capacitance and make the bandpass as narrow as 200 Hz. It works great for getting rid of high pitched background noise. |
|
Re: Testing my antenna
#ubitx
John said ... OK, this is NOT a stupid question.? Have you verified that you're making power?? It is trivial to kludge up a field strength indicator, and a cheapo flashlight bulb and a piece of wire should be sufficient.? If you were competent to build a BITX, building a field strength indicator or a power meter should be easy.? And a CB radio power meter will work well enough with a BITX to at least give you a clue."I built the uBitx and have set up on the 20 metres. Can hear?CW and lots of chatter, but have been unable to make a first contact. I tested the PTT mic and the antenna lines seem to be working fine. But it seems like people can not hear me. Any suggestions on troubleshooting my radio's and making my first contact. As a new Ham I have really?been at a loss as to what is wrong with my rig?" 73 |
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Ron,
This really isn't my point. If I am adding menu software to send CW and measure reverse power how do I know if future users of the software will even have the CW software if it can be removed with a define? If someone does take the software and integrate it in their menu section and it doesn't work because they defined CW out of their software who is going to be responsible for troubleshooting why it doesn't work? The user or the software coder? It isn't an issue of others using my software, it is an issue of who will be responsible for it not working in a system with all kinds of options that could break its functionality? tim ab0wr On Mon, 14 May 2018 23:51:39 -0400 (EDT) "W2CTX" <w2ctx@...> wrote: Tim |
|
Re: my take on ?BITX panels for EF01 enclosures
#ubitx
#3d_printing
Thanks Craig.? While a router sure would be fun.? These are just printed.
-- |
|
Re: Testing my antenna
#ubitx
Does it go into Tx? when you push the PTT?? Looks like you are trying to transmit in SSB/voice are you set for LSB?
What is your exact antenna and feed line set up? -- |
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 15, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Scott Bridges <sabridges@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Jack Purdum
I agree with Ron, here. Tim's statement:
????It's important to have a *standard* to write to. would be nice, but as we all know, there is a difference between coding style and functionality. Cut-and-paste code is also nice to have, but any code may be useful if you can read and understand it. To me, the litmus test of good code is code that can be read and understood easily. When that's true, it becomes much easier to adapt it to your needs. Simple things like using #define's instead of "magic numbers" make it easier to read and adapt code. (If the IDE had a symbolic debugger, I might use constants, although symbolic constants are typeless and that can be a huge benefit in writing reusable code.) Writing "clever" code is rarely a benefit. Which would you rather read: ?? a = b >> 1; or ?? averageVoltage = baseVoltage / 2;?? // Voltage divider derives average voltage that's applied to pin AVERAGEVOLTAGE Perhaps the only real reason the first version might make sense is to cause some speed gain in the executed code, or perhaps save some memory. Even that, however, often makes no sense because the Gnu compiler is quite good at optimizations. Indeed, my guess is that the two forms above generate exactly the same code. You can examine the *.lst file to get a feel for the final answer. The final step before making it available to the public is to ask yourself: What can I do to make it easier to read and understand this code? If you cannot find changes that enhance readability, it's read for prime time. Even then, readers will have difference preferences on the way they would write the code...that's to be expected. However, the fact they have preferences means they can read, understand, and hopefully use the code. For reasons most can guess, I have not read Ian's code recently, but I'm sure it's readable. The fact that Farhan has even suggested using it as the standard means he's happy with it. If it's possible to conditionally compile the code (e.g., why have a keyer if you know you'll never use CW, leaving some room for additions you know you want), it seems to me to be a moot question. And to those who argue: "But conditional compiles means the users have to be able to change the code!" Yeah, so what? If you can't change the code, you still have several options: 1) accept the radio "as is", 2) learn enough programming to make the changes you want, or 3) pay a programmer to implement the changes you want. Trying to get a boo-hoo from me for people who don't want to invest a weekend in learning how to make such changes is pretty much going to fall on a deaf set of ears. Besides, this kind of programming is going to get more important down the road, not less. May as well bite the bullet and jump on board...you may even find you like it! Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 11:53:47 PM EDT, W2CTX <w2ctx@...> wrote:
Tim ?? When I write software I don't have reuse as part of my mindset.? I try to make something work that is broken or develop something new that does not exist.? Once it is tested it is given to the community to use. ?So if I don't care if others use my code how does that advance the radio?? Well one case comes to mind in that my keyer code had iambic A/B working correctly.? After I published the firmware I believe Ian looked at it.? Now he could not cut-n-paste my code into his firmware because he used different timing and different hardware pins. As he stated in his description of his keyer routine, he looked at my logic and? adapted my code into his. And as all good programmers do gave me acknowledgement in his header of his keyer module. So you don't have to create code that can be cut-n-paste to be useful. rOn On May 14, 2018 at 10:32 PM Tim Gorman wrote: |
|
Re: Are the uBITX receivers ripe for improvement? -- And some other miscellaneous thoughts.
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýthe Bitx40 was also reviewed in QST Labs...back a couple years ago..same circuit as the Bitx20A ( Hendricks )? except 40 meter operation. the specifications were impressive... I can run it along side my IC756 Pro III and it is amazing how well it does perform.. especially sensitivity.. could it be those complaining have bad construction, alignments? ?
K4DSB From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Ashhar Farhan <farhanbox@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 1:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BITX20] Are the uBITX receivers ripe for improvement? -- And some other miscellaneous thoughts. ?
The QTC, the sweden's ham radio magazine has put the ubitx+rtl_sdr on par with some top rated ICOM dsp radio. You might want to see how that author did it.?
- f
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Zbigniew L
<zlipecki@...> wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 08:10 pm, Tom, wb6b wrote: |
John VE1JMB
David Nelson
Scott Bridges
to navigate to use esc to dismiss