On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:

> We may have to start a separate group for this topic.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 2:26:51 PM EST, Jim Manley <jim.manley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jack, et al,
> I would love to contribute to this effort and will start perusing the links provided to get up to (some?) speed during the holiday break, while trapped at my in-laws for
> nearly two weeks in the place with the coldest average temperatures in at least the lower 48.? There isn't even skiable snow, although drifts can get to around 24 feet that
> allow skiing from upper-story windows ... assuming you're in a multi-story building!
>
> 73_Animated_GIF.gif
> Jim? KJ7JHE
> Lame Deer High School Amateur Radio Club? KJ7JKU
> ?
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:46 AM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
>? ? ? Jack
>
> This might be interesting.? It is open-source and readily available.
>
>
>
>
>
> This has been around in UNIX and Linux systems for many years.? It is easy
> to use and is customizable for various rigs by simply linking to the appropriate
> Hamlib library.?? Resistance to it may be because there is no glory in using
> already available methods.?
>
> Arv? K7HKL
> _._
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:17 AM jjpurdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum=[email protected]> wrote:
> OK. We'll keep looking around...
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:45:49 AM EST, <jmh6@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> ? ? The only docs I have are a very old product manual that does not have
> the whole thing. Gotta get into some 6502 and 8052 code and then do some
> writing.
>
> ? ? Most stuff will be re-discovered once an open CAT protocol is being
> used.
>
> ? ? Works well. It is still being used by a dual 3.25 inch floppy IBM PC
> Clone for automated product testing. PC code was written in Power Basic.
>
> ? ? Very old stuff!! lol!!
>
> ? ? Lots of fun :).
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:
>
> > I'll start collecting stuff as I can. If you have docs on your NIWire, I'd
> > like to see it. If anyone else has related docs, please send them to me.
> >
> > Jack, W8TEE
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 6:29:55 PM EST, jmh6@...
> > <jmh6@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jack and All,
> >
> > ? ? I think a new simpler open CAT type interface is all that will really
> > work? Right now there is a very confusing mess of different protocols all
> > of which seem radio-centric rather than CAT centric.
> >
> > ? ? Since you are into writing documents, how about doing a first crack at
> > an 'open' CAT centric standard that we can all comment on?
> >
> > ? ? Our products used a 'simple' protocol we called NIWire that worked
> > pretty well, had a small software footprint and seemed to work reliably. I
> > doubt that it would be suitable as a 'standard', but it was simple both as
> > to signals on the wire and code complexity.
> >
> > ? ? Lots of fun :).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:
> >
> > > Arv:
> > >
> > > I agree. I know there are products out there being sold that use Open
> > Source software, including my own. Still, I made that decision when I made
> > it Open Source. My theory
> > > is that, if someone stands on my shoulders and makes something I started
> > better for everyone, we all win. However, I do get a little miffed when
> > someone takes something
> > > that is not Open Source and either sells it (M0NKA's SDR transceiver) or
> > gives it away (my books on torent sites).
> > >
> > > I do think the CAT interface does offer a way to extend the software
> > without making all of it Open Source. It appears that we are slowly
> > standardizing the CAT protocol. I
> > > would like to see the community pull together and formalize a CAT
> > interface. It would require support from The Big Three and that could
> > dissolve into a pissing contest. If
> > > that happens, I say screw 'em and we as users form our own CAT standard
> > interface. (If this is all Greek to you, check out
> > for a
> > > simple way to specify a series of CAT commands.)
> > >
> > > For CAT to work, processors need to be on the "radio end" and the "user
> > end" of the CAT connection. For Hans QSX, the radio end will be a processor
> > in the STM32F4 family.
> > > On the user end, it could be whatever the user wants. Me? I plan on having
> > a touch screen waterfall display that doesn't rely on a PC. It will be a
> > self-contained SDR a la
> > > M0NKA or the G-90. For others, write a PC program in your favorite
> > language that can read ASCII data from a port and do whatever you want with
> > the data you get via CAT.
> > >
> > > All of this could be super cool stuff. I know Al and I are going to dig
> > into it when the dust settle a bit.
> > >
> > > Jack, W8TEE
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 3:45:59 PM EST, Arv Evans
> > <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > Well-said.? You made it very clear what the pro's and con's are regarding
> > giving away
> > > intellectual property versus securing said property. ? Micro-controller
> > based systems are
> > > particularly problematic because some of the micro-controller chips can be
> > read back
> > > and copied at the bit or byte level.? The AVR is one of the
> > micro-controller chips that
> > > does have fuse bits that can be used to help protect the device from being
> > copied.?
> > >
> > > We are seeing some of this problem over on the BITX discussion group,
> > where individuals
> > > have made their own junk-box variations of the hardware, modified the
> > open-source software,
> > > and now seem to expect that Farhan will troubleshoot their mistakes.?
> > >
> > > Micro-processor ICs that do not have built-in copy protection have to rely
> > on "mouse-
> > > traps" that use hidden code to erase or mutilate the code if it is
> > tampered with.?
> > >
> > > Since recent trends seem to indicate that even homebrew rigs need to
> > support some form
> > > of CAT control, maybe that is where the user customization needs to
> > reside.? If there
> > > is an adequate set of basic functions, then maybe user code in the CAT
> > software could
> > > allow those who want something else could add that feature or function?
> > >
> > > Arv
> > > _._
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:58 AM jjpurdum via Groups.Io
> > <jjpurdum=[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Everything I've written since I retired is Open Source and, for me at
> > least, doing so is a true dilemma. That is: Two choices, both bad. I'll bet
> > Hans has waded
> > > through the same decision-making process.
> > >
> > > If you make your code Open Source, you lose control of it and it does end
> > up being stolen, sometimes for profit. Even worse, some people will attempt
> > to modify your
> > > code and, when it doesn't work, they actually have the audacity to ask you
> > to fix it...for free! Not good...not fair.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if you don't make it Open Source, some people think
> > you're a Grinch because they can't make your code do exactly whatever it is
> > they want it to
> > > do.? They, too, want you to add such-and-such a feature, but fail to
> > realize there are not a lot of deaf, blind, people who only speak Latin.
> > (The Grinch Factor, to
> > > me, is a myth. It's my code...you don't like it, write your own.)
> > >
> > > So, what's the answer? First of all, given what Hans has managed to stuff
> > into a Nano, there can't be more than a few bytes left. So, my guess is that
> > putting
> > > something in means taking something else out. For most of us, that means
> > "Leave it alone." However...
> > >
> > > The QSX is going to be another beast altogether, since it will be using
> > the STM32F4 series of microcontroller. Hans has some headroom there because
> > of the memory
> > > resource depth and a faster clock. Yet, from Hans' perspective, how does
> > he address the dilemma of lost control versus the Grinch factor? I think the
> > best solution is
> > > an API--Application Programmer Interface. An API provides entry points to
> > methods that allow you to extend the functionality of the program in much
> > the same way that
> > > libraries allow you to extend the Arduino core. The downside is that it
> > takes a lot more effort on Hans part to provide an API for us.
> > >
> > > So...what's the correct answer from everyones' standpoint? I don't have a
> > clue.
> > >
> > > Jack, W8TEE
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 9:23:11 AM EST, R. Tyson via Groups.Io
> > <tysons2=[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > As pointed out in another post I doubt there is sufficient memory left.
> > The radio has a remarkable set of facilities and Hans has done a brilliant
> > job on it.
> > >
> > > Someone suggested that the software should be open source... that would
> > enable others to produce cloned versions of Hans' work - in effect he does
> > the work and
> > > someone else steals it and profits from it.
> > >
> > > Tuning up and own the band is good exercise - I remember when we had to
> > get out of our chair and walk across the room to change T.V. channels and
> > there were only 2 or
> > > 3 of them.
> > >
> > > The facilities available from these little radios is amazing but there is
> > not the infinite capacity to keep adding stuff from "wish lists".
> > >
> > > Reg? ? ? ? ? ? ? G4NFR
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>



--
Jack, W8TEE

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:46 AM, Jerry Gaffke wrote:

From Farhan's post of? ??/g/BITX20/message/73708
>? The V6 is just an easier to assemble v5. No difference at all but for the touch display.
>? You can buy the tft off ali express for about 5 dollars and upgrade the firmware.

So the answer is yes, you can update a v5 to have a v6 style display.
No need to swap out the entire Raduino, just the display itself.
Then burn the v6 firmware into the Nano.

I believe the Raduino board has not changed since first introduced for the Bitx40,
except that now a socket is used on the Nano to make it easier to replace.

The old 2x16 display just plugs in, hopefully the new display can plug into
that same old connector?with no soldering necessary.

In the past, it has been possible to buy a Raduino separately from hfsignals for about $30.
I don't see that as an option on hfsignals.com now, the only items to buy are the complete v6 uBitx and the Antuino.
But if the display is easy to swap out, and the Nano is socketed and thus easy to replace if it fails,
that covers most of why you would want a new Raduino.?
About the only other stuff on the Raduino is connectors, LM7805 regulator, and the si5351.
If you really do need a new Raduino there have been third parties posting to the forum
offering their own version for sale,?some of them with significant enhancements.

Jerry, KE7ER

I have a new uBITX kit and a spare uBITX board for sale.?

The uBITX board without the Raduino was part of a working system till I blew out the Raduino.?
The uBITX kit is new in the box and was purchased within the last 5 months.?
I'll include a display and various part from the first kit.?

$150 for both kit and additional board, parts and display
PayPal to my email and I can ship today CONUS - shipping on me.?

I enjoyed using the uBITX while the Raduino was OK, but am moving house and would not get back to this project for some time.?

Many thanks,?

Jim Sorenson
W3BH