I received my uBitx today
ordered January 8, 2018
notice of being shipped March 6, 2018
received March 9, 2018
john kg9dk
|
Re: RD16HHF1 power curve flattening...some
Nice¡ any power to it yet? ? ? Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ ? Owner - Operator Big Signal Ranch ¨C K9ZC Staunton, Illinois ? Owner ¨C Operator Villa Grand Piton ¨C J68HZ Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I. Rent it: Like us on Facebook! ? Moderator ¨C North American QRO Yahoo Group. ? email:? bill@... ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
Pete,
Maybe some more experimentation with the capacitor value is needed. The diode has some finite forward resistance so it will take some small amount of time for the cap to charge up. I originally had the circuit connected to U1 input as well and had settled by experiment on 330 nF. Didn't see any change in effectiveness when I moved it to M2. So maybe a somewhat smaller capacitor will fix it. (Don't remember what I have for the resistor, btw). Also by the way, my gate circuit is slightly different. I have only the diode in series with the T/R signal going to the gate. Both the capacitor and resistor are connected from the gate to ground. I seem to remember that I had a hard time getting it to work until I tried it this way. Don't know what difference it might make, though.
For R70, I knew I wanted something larger than 10 ohms to have the voltage divider produce enough output, but not so large that the maximum volume available from the volume pot would be reduced significantly. I saw that I had the 510 ohm part and thought, "try this". Simple as that.
73, John
|
" If you tear a lot of communication mics apart you will see that the mic element is wired through the PTT switch on most of them."
That is exactly what I would expect and have seen in the past, but again, the mic wire up I saw on an earlier post for an older version did have the PTT as a separate circuit, not wired serially with the electret. While it doesn't address the mic wire up specifically, the wiring diagram for the uBITX from the website seems to suggest the same, PTT and mic are two separate circuits. I think you have confirmed my original way of thinking of how I should wire it up, i.e. closure of the PTT switch applying ground to the MIC- side of the electret, and is the way I will go.? I am using an old HT spkr\mic and going that route just means I need to move one connection point internally and I'm where I need to be. Thank you for the assist, Tim
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...> wrote: Jerry,
Having a live mic with a separate, unassociated PTT switch can lead to
inadvertent transmissions if the PTT gets operated accidentally. If the
mic is not live all the time then all you transmit on an accidental PTT
operation is a suppressed carrier which hopefully won't bother anyone.
It doesn't happen a lot but it *does* happen. Someone accidentally
pushes his foot switch with a live mic and sends out a discussion with
the wife (spouse) over the air.
Admittedly you can butt transmit with a PTT CB mic or 2-meter ham mic
if you sit on it. It happens also.
For me, the switch is there in the mic and I don't see any reason not
to use it. If you tear a lot of communication mics apart you will see
that the mic element is wired through the PTT switch on most of them.
Apparently someone thinks its a good idea!
tim ab0wr
On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:54:26 -0800
"Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke=[email protected]> wrote:
> How is this an advantage?
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 07:23 am, Tim Gorman wrote:
>
> >
> > The mic is only actually connected when the PTT switch is
> > pushed. ....? ?This is why I recommend using a communications mike
> > instead of a standalone mic with a separate PTT switch.
|
Thank John, moving the Drain to R70 (changed to 510) helped restore my volume. However, I am getting the pop going key down RX to TX but no pop going from TX to RX.
So the MOSFET is not muting quite fast enough.?
How did you determine the value you used for R70??
Pete WK8S
|
Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester.
#ubitx
Thanks Ian. For a great updated to include WSPR, It was a surprise.
Philip G7JUR.
|
Re: Variable power control
Walter, What voltage are you feeding this with? I assume it is more than 24v in order for you to have a 24v position. If you are running in the 10 volt position, for instance, that would be drop of at least 24v - 10v = 14v. Fourteen volts at .5amp is 7W being dropped into that transistor. That's a pretty fair amount of heat. tim ab0wr On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:17:16 -0800 "Walter" <W9KJO@...> wrote: On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:23 pm, LKNDAVE wrote:
i did the hokie pokie and this jpg came out
Based on this design I built this attached circuit.
It controls voltage nicely.? Really helps limit output power while
working digital.
However the TIP 142 really generates some heat.? I have a heat sink
on it but it will need to be much larger.? it is only drawing
about .5 amp (1/2 amp) while transmitting.
Does that seem normal?? it the heat something I should be concerned
about?? Or just provide a better heat sink and run it?
Thanks for the circuit idea and plan.
?
--
73, W9KJO
Walter
|
Jerry, Having a live mic with a separate, unassociated PTT switch can lead to inadvertent transmissions if the PTT gets operated accidentally. If the mic is not live all the time then all you transmit on an accidental PTT operation is a suppressed carrier which hopefully won't bother anyone. It doesn't happen a lot but it *does* happen. Someone accidentally pushes his foot switch with a live mic and sends out a discussion with the wife (spouse) over the air. Admittedly you can butt transmit with a PTT CB mic or 2-meter ham mic if you sit on it. It happens also. For me, the switch is there in the mic and I don't see any reason not to use it. If you tear a lot of communication mics apart you will see that the mic element is wired through the PTT switch on most of them. Apparently someone thinks its a good idea! tim ab0wr On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:54:26 -0800 "Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke@...> wrote: How is this an advantage?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 07:23 am, Tim Gorman wrote:
The mic is only actually connected when the PTT switch is
pushed. ....? ?This is why I recommend using a communications mike
instead of a standalone mic with a separate PTT switch.
|
whats the latest on the new w8tee lcd vfo for the ubitx ?
|
Re: Pulling Arduino data apart
Here's a starting point on web resources regarding this big/little endian stuff in case you're curious.
? ??
But for most of us this is a non-issue, and you needn't worry about it.
And you certainly don't have to suffer anybody arguing about it.
Code on the Nano (and likely in most any Arduino environment) is little endian.
Though on an 8 bit machine like the Nano, endian-ness is mostly a matter of what the compiler wants to do.
? ??
? ??
Jerry, KE7ER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:46 am, Dr Fred Hambrecht wrote:
Anytime knowledge is imparted it cannot be viewed as ¡°wasted bandwidth¡±. I for one enjoyed the conversation.
?
|
I found a much better place to connect the drain of the MOSFET. First I replaced R70 with a 510 ohm resistor that I happened to have in the same footprint.
Then I connected the MOSFET drain to the relay side of that resistor, i.e. to the point M2 on the schematic. This setup still shorts the incoming audio to ground and kills the pops, but leaves a voltage divider of R253 and R70 connecting the sidetone to the volume control. Depending on your value of R253, this may be perfect as is. My R253 was 220 k and I needed more volume, so I put a 50 k trimpot across R253. It is just about right for me at maximum resistance, but I can adjust it downward if I should want more volume still. If your R253 is a smaller value and the sidetone is too loud, just replace it with something of higher resistance.
The volume control will now have final control over the level and can be tweaked in operation if needed.
73,
John AD0RW
|
Re: RD16HHF1 power curve flattening...some
|
|
|
Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester.
#ubitx
So simple.... TKS Philip Carlos
Carlos.
Just enter it in the box, it is in hz. Not Mhz, so no decimal point.
Philip.
-- Carlos Wenzel ik2yra@...+39-3284684518
Skype: IK2YRA
|
Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester.
#ubitx
Carlos.
Just enter it in the box, it is in hz. Not Mhz, so no decimal point.
Philip.
|
Re: Pulling Arduino data apart
Anytime knowledge is imparted it cannot be viewed as ¡°wasted bandwidth¡±. I for one enjoyed the conversation. ? v/r Fred W4JLE ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 17:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Pulling Arduino data apart ? Agreed, we've wasted too much time on something not at the top of our priorities here.
Anyone wishing to continue this discussion is welcome to send me a private message.
In parting, I believe that once the data is in the CPU, in this case stored as a 32 bit integer
in a register, endian-ness is not a factor.? This code?looks correct to me:
Here's C code for machine A to send a 32 bit integer as a sequence of four bytes in little endian order::
? ? sendbyte(data32);? sendbyte(data32>>8);? sendbyte(data32>>16);? sendbyte(data32>>24);
And code for machine B to receive that 32 bit integer (assumes getbyte() returnes an unsigned 8 bit integer):
? ? data32=getbyte();? data32|=getbyte()<<8;? data32|=getbyte()<<16; data32|=getbyte<<24;
This C code doesn't care if the machine it is on is big endian or little endian.
?
An as I understand it, Jack disagrees, here's his argument: My comment about putting bits on the floor meant that you had to know something about
the byte order, otherwise why are you interested only in the high byte. Your code: ? ? sendbyte((data32>>24)&0xff); to send a byte works great if the data is big endian:? ????????01010101?00000000 00000000 00000000. ??????? // Yellow is the byte of interest However, if you don't know the byte order and it is:? ????????00000000 00000000 00000000?01010101 Your code would throw the relevant data on the floor. Your code is only safe if you know
the order. A?union?is a simple way to determine that order. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:53 pm, Jack Purdum wrote: We've wasted enough bandwidth on this. I think unions are a great way to learn how data are organized for a given compiler and are well-worth knowing about. Anyone who doesn't think so can easily ignore them.
|
Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester.
#ubitx
Hello Phillip, How can you enter 14.094850 on Band 2 Box??? tks Carlos
Hi Ian.
The frequency error is down to the way uBITX manager calculates the RF frequency. If I enter into the Band 2 box 14094850 Hz, then the audio comes out of my radio at 1.5 KHz, when it is tuned to 14.09560 MHz.
Now my WSPR is going all around the world.
I do find that I get a bit confused by all the calculations, when trying to work out all this stuff.
Anyway thanks for putting WSPR in to the uBITX, a great bonus.
Philip G7JUR?
-- Carlos Wenzel ik2yra@...+39-3284684518
Skype: IK2YRA
|
I ordered mine Dec 19 and had shipped India Post.? Arrived March 6 in VE3 Land.
Rod
|
Hi,
Ordered ?Bitx on december 26 ($ 109)
Shipped on february 26? (India Post).
Received on march 8.??
It only took 10 days with India Post?!
But ...? before I could even see the package, had to pay additional $ 55? (€ 43,87), Belgian taxes and handling !
Robbery ...? :)
By the way,? U1 is WX.? I will replace it.
73
Herman
|
Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester.
#ubitx
Ian
The problem has gone. It was a wrong/thin/broken cable. I changet it. I also found a missing power output if you operate wspr function far away from the original ubitx frequency. I agree with Phillips abt this issue, BPF maybe remains locked on the original band.
"
?the display shows 14.097100?MHz which is the frequency I selected in uBITX manager, but the RF being transmitted is in fact 14.099330?MHz..??"?
cero beat on 14.099330 mHz when ubitx displays 14.097100 mHz (is not right?.... 2.2kHz)
Carlos
Philip
Thank you very much Your feedback is a great help to me because I am not in an environment where I can test now.
I will update the program within a day or two and upload it again and announce it through the group.
Note that the BPF selection uses some tricks as a constraint on program memory.
I will check that again.
Once again, I sincerely appreciate your test.
Ian KD8CEC
--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
(my blog)
-- Carlos Wenzel ik2yra@...+39-3284684518
Skype: IK2YRA
|
John KG9DK
K9HZ
Nick VK4PP