Re: UBITX Assembly Wiki Page
#ubitx
I put the switch in the main line because relays can and do stick closed.? There is disagreement about whether the fuse or the switch should be closest to the battery.? Feel free to wire it according to your own opinion. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of K9HZ
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] UBITX Assembly Wiki Page #ubitx? Except you forgot the switch! ? 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 - J68HZ Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I. Rent it: ? email:??bill@... ?
On May 14, 2018, at 7:22 AM, MAX <max@...> wrote:
Someone asked for a better schematic.? Ask and ye shall receive. ? I don¡¯t know how to insert an attachment directly into the text body of the email.? You will have to click on it to open it. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ? ? That¡¯s the best one yet. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ? ? There is a really trivial solution to this reversing diode-fuse thing.? My drawing is awful but you get the idea¡? You just need a 50 cent 10A 12V relay.? ? <image002.jpg> ? ? 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 Group at Groups.IO. ? email:? bill@... ? ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx ? A search for 'reverse polarity" in this forum shows dozens of hits since the uBitx was released in early Dec.
Here's a few of mine:
??/g/BITX20/message/35353
??/g/BITX20/message/39877
??/g/BITX20/message/44499
I've given up trying to right that particular absurdity.
Unfortunately, we have hundreds of new hams with no fuse (or too big of one)
assuming they are protected when they are not.??
And some of them are bound to be a bit too careless as a result.
?
Jerry
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 07:23 pm, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote: One small point.?
If your using diode for reverse polarity protection it is better to place the
fuses BEFORE the diode as then the fuse blows and the diode is less
likely to be fried and also down stream circuits.
Allison
<uBITX Reverse Polarity Protect.gif>
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
I believe there are ¡°ElseIF¡±s for #define variables too so this is quite powerful.?
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 - J68HZ Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I. Rent it:
email:??bill@... ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 14, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io < jjpurdum@...> wrote: I think it could be done without too much confusion by using preprocessor directives. That way, you don't actually mess with the code; you only change the symbolic constants you wish to affect. For example, if you don't use CW or CAT, then #define CWINTERFACE ? ??????? false??????? // Set this to true if you want to use CW #define CATINTERFACE????????? false??????? // Set this to true if you wish to use a CAT interface and so on. The burden of getting everything right then falls on the programmer, not the user. The user would, however, be responsible for their own code additions/deletions.
As to how much space this saves will depend upon the programs kept/deleted and what you mean by "very much program space". For some users, 50 bytes might be enough to add something they want at the cost of deleting some existing feature. The answer to that's really a try-it-and-see answer.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM EDT, Tim Gorman < tgorman2@...> wrote:
This is where problems will begin to occur.
Are you going to add in functionality to modify ubitx_menu.ino
on the fly? Or are you going to break up ubitx_menu.ino into a lot of
little pieces that can be included/excluded at compile time? How do you
tie including/excluding menu items to controlling the actual compile of
functions in the code?
If you just inhibit access to the alignment software after it is used it
doesn't lower the amount of memory used for the program unless you do
so with a recompile and reload. Is that really what we want the user to
have to do?
Does deleting a mode actually save very much program space? Most
functions are common between modes, you still have to transition
between receive and transmit, only some variables change value.
Does doing all this actually make it harder for the experimenter to
modify the code because it makes it more difficult to lay out all the
interactions between the code that might be affected? I know it's hard
enough for me already to trace through all the code when I want to
change something. Making it more difficult is not what I would want to
see.
tim ab0wr
On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
> This is a good idea and might make it easier to peel off those
> features not desired. The source already lends itself to this
> approach. I have not studied it closely enough to know whether
> specific files (e.g., ubitx_keyer.ino, ubitx_cat.ino) can be taken
> out of the compile chain as it currently stands.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
>? ? On Monday, May 14, 2018, 10:05:13 AM EDT, K9HZ
>
> In fact, to expand on this¡ I think Ian should consider block defines
> for sections of the code that people want or don¡¯t want.? He has
> already done this in selecting the type of display (2 line or 4
> line).? Some of the things to block define might be:
>
>? ?
>
> 1.?????? CAT
>
> 2.?????? WSPR
>
> 3.?????? Alignment ?(if you¡¯ve done it once, why do it again?)
>
> 4.?????? CW? (some people only use SSB)
>
> 5.?????? SSB? (some people only use CW).
>
>? ?
>
> I¡¯m sure there are others.? This way there is plenty of room if you
> want to experiment.? Just shut stuff off.? In fact, there could be an
> experiment define that turns on or shuts off your experiments too.
>
>? ?
>
> Just a thought¡
>
>? ?
>
>? ?
>
> 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!
>
>? ?
>
>
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
I have seen this approach used on the Ten Tec REBEL and PATRIOT and in my opinion was a disaster for people who do not know what we are talking about!
Taking this approach I suggest an application, running on both linux and Windows, that is a configuration menu.? Check what you want and the app tells you if it fits.? The app generates and compiles the configured system for the user and
downloads it.
We are after all trying to solve an issue with uninformed users as the informed users have already figured out how to configure and load software from our community.
rOn
On May 14, 2018 at 12:38 PM "Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum@...> wrote:
I think it could be done without too much confusion by using preprocessor directives. That way, you don't actually mess with the code; you only change the symbolic constants you wish to affect. For example, if you don't use CW or CAT, then #define CWINTERFACE ? ??????? false??????? // Set this to true if you want to use CW #define CATINTERFACE????????? false??????? // Set this to true if you wish to use a CAT interface and so on. The burden of getting everything right then falls on the programmer, not the user. The user would, however, be responsible for their own code additions/deletions.
As to how much space this saves will depend upon the programs kept/deleted and what you mean by "very much program space". For some users, 50 bytes might be enough to add something they want at the cost of deleting some existing feature. The answer to that's really a try-it-and-see answer.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM EDT, Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...> wrote:
This is where problems will begin to occur.
Are you going to add in functionality to modify ubitx_menu.ino
on the fly? Or are you going to break up ubitx_menu.ino into a lot of
little pieces that can be included/excluded at compile time? How do you
tie including/excluding menu items to controlling the actual compile of
functions in the code?
If you just inhibit access to the alignment software after it is used it
doesn't lower the amount of memory used for the program unless you do
so with a recompile and reload. Is that really what we want the user to
have to do?
Does deleting a mode actually save very much program space? Most
functions are common between modes, you still have to transition
between receive and transmit, only some variables change value.
Does doing all this actually make it harder for the experimenter to
modify the code because it makes it more difficult to lay out all the
interactions between the code that might be affected? I know it's hard
enough for me already to trace through all the code when I want to
change something. Making it more difficult is not what I would want to
see.
tim ab0wr
On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
> This is a good idea and might make it easier to peel off those
> features not desired. The source already lends itself to this
> approach. I have not studied it closely enough to know whether
> specific files (e.g., ubitx_keyer.ino, ubitx_cat.ino) can be taken
> out of the compile chain as it currently stands.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
>? ? On Monday, May 14, 2018, 10:05:13 AM EDT, K9HZ
>
> In fact, to expand on this¡ I think Ian should consider block defines
> for sections of the code that people want or don¡¯t want.? He has
> already done this in selecting the type of display (2 line or 4
> line).? Some of the things to block define might be:
>
>? ?
>
> 1.?????? CAT
>
> 2.?????? WSPR
>
> 3.?????? Alignment ?(if you¡¯ve done it once, why do it again?)
>
> 4.?????? CW? (some people only use SSB)
>
> 5.?????? SSB? (some people only use CW).
>
>? ?
>
> I¡¯m sure there are others.? This way there is plenty of room if you
> want to experiment.? Just shut stuff off.? In fact, there could be an
> experiment define that turns on or shuts off your experiments too.
>
>? ?
>
> Just a thought¡
>
>? ?
>
>? ?
>
> 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: www.VillaGrandPiton.com
>
> Like us on Facebook!
>
>? ?
>
>
?
|
Hi Tom (or anyone else that knows :),
?
Curious where you sourced the diodes, an Ebay search only showed Asian sources, are there reliable ones there, or known good ones in the US?
?
Thanks, very.
?
Scott ka9p
?
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Muller <markvmuller@...>
To: BITX20 < [email protected]>
Sent: Mon, May 14, 2018 8:41 am
Subject: [BITX20] Variable IF
Hi Tom,
Is it possible for you to provide a sketch of the circuit, so we can be sure to understand what you've done and get it right when we hook it up on the board?
If not, then perhaps a little more detail on the connections to the pot, RX and TX voltages, 4.7k voltage control resistors, and 510k bleeder resistor?
I think this would be a fantastic addition to the uBitx operation - thank you for posting!
|
Re: Oops - variable bandwidth IF
One could try 2n7000, source grounded and the drain connected to a 470pf which is in turn connected as a tuning cap of the filter. Changing gaye voltage will change the effective reactance of the circuit. - f
Once the proper capacitance has been determined for 2800 Hz and 500 Hz
bandwidth, it should be possible to use fixed capacitors with diode, transistor,
MOSFET, or relay switching to select bandwidth.
Arv? K7HKL
_._
|
Re: UBITX Assembly Wiki Page
#ubitx
Minor details.? Always minor details.? Grin. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of K9HZ
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] UBITX Assembly Wiki Page #ubitx? Except you forgot the switch! ? 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 - J68HZ Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I. Rent it: ? email:??bill@... ?
On May 14, 2018, at 7:22 AM, MAX <max@...> wrote:
Someone asked for a better schematic.? Ask and ye shall receive. ? I don¡¯t know how to insert an attachment directly into the text body of the email.? You will have to click on it to open it. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ? ? That¡¯s the best one yet. ? Regards. ? Max K 4 O D S. ? I've Never Lost the Wonder. ? Antique Electronics Site: ? ? ? There is a really trivial solution to this reversing diode-fuse thing.? My drawing is awful but you get the idea¡? You just need a 50 cent 10A 12V relay.? ? <image002.jpg> ? ? 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 Group at Groups.IO. ? email:? bill@... ? ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx ? A search for 'reverse polarity" in this forum shows dozens of hits since the uBitx was released in early Dec.
Here's a few of mine:
??/g/BITX20/message/35353
??/g/BITX20/message/39877
??/g/BITX20/message/44499
I've given up trying to right that particular absurdity.
Unfortunately, we have hundreds of new hams with no fuse (or too big of one)
assuming they are protected when they are not.??
And some of them are bound to be a bit too careless as a result.
?
Jerry
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 07:23 pm, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote: One small point.?
If your using diode for reverse polarity protection it is better to place the
fuses BEFORE the diode as then the fuse blows and the diode is less
likely to be fried and also down stream circuits.
Allison
<uBITX Reverse Polarity Protect.gif>
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
I agree with K9ZC. ?The easiest way to free up code space in the Nano is to use conditional compilation for "optional" features that not everyone wants.
This is the approach taken with the K3NG/ NANO Keyer. It allows everyone to have the core functionality and then pick and choose what
subset of additional (optional) functionality they really want included.
Cheers
Michael VE3WMB ??
|
I'll draw something up, take a picture and post it as soon as I get a chance.
I have some other changes, simple ones, that also are worth the effort and I should post them also.
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
Just uploaded the latest list of those interested in an AGC and Click Mini-kit as described earlier (in the "Files" section under my call). Since there does not seem to be a demand for the boards only, I'm going to drop those.?
Both Mini-kits should be in ND6T's hands for testing and the "OK". After that has completed successfully and maybe a bug worked out such as parts taped to the schematic or in a plastic bag, did it survive mailing OK, etc. we will open the gates. Yes, I think I need a bigger boat.
As i said earlier "I've looked at the numbers and think I can do it ...INCLUDING.... covering PayPal charges (nearly everyone wants to use that) and postage to you in the USA at $5 for 2 kits (either 2 AGC kits or, 1 AGC kit and 1 Click kit or, 2 Click kits). That way it keeps it all simple too .....which I need with about 351 kits requested to date. I still have to figure out overseas postage which may have to be a padded envelope for customs reasons.?
73 Kees K5BCQ?
|
Re: uBITX40 : power to IRF510
Yes. Spend? a little time at the ubitx.net site.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 12:32:47 PM EDT, Toni Cossio <a.cossio@...> wrote:
I have already built your BITX40 which I am using with great satisfaction.
I have just received your "Micro BITX40".
I ask you if I can feed the two IRF510s separately with a higher voltage to get a higher output power as expected in the project of the previous BITX40.
Thanks for your kind response.
?73 de IV3XHM, Toni Cossio
?
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
I think it could be done without too much confusion by using preprocessor directives. That way, you don't actually mess with the code; you only change the symbolic constants you wish to affect. For example, if you don't use CW or CAT, then #define CWINTERFACE ? ??????? false??????? // Set this to true if you want to use CW #define CATINTERFACE????????? false??????? // Set this to true if you wish to use a CAT interface and so on. The burden of getting everything right then falls on the programmer, not the user. The user would, however, be responsible for their own code additions/deletions.
As to how much space this saves will depend upon the programs kept/deleted and what you mean by "very much program space". For some users, 50 bytes might be enough to add something they want at the cost of deleting some existing feature. The answer to that's really a try-it-and-see answer.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM EDT, Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...> wrote:
This is where problems will begin to occur.
Are you going to add in functionality to modify ubitx_menu.ino
on the fly? Or are you going to break up ubitx_menu.ino into a lot of
little pieces that can be included/excluded at compile time? How do you
tie including/excluding menu items to controlling the actual compile of
functions in the code?
If you just inhibit access to the alignment software after it is used it
doesn't lower the amount of memory used for the program unless you do
so with a recompile and reload. Is that really what we want the user to
have to do?
Does deleting a mode actually save very much program space? Most
functions are common between modes, you still have to transition
between receive and transmit, only some variables change value.
Does doing all this actually make it harder for the experimenter to
modify the code because it makes it more difficult to lay out all the
interactions between the code that might be affected? I know it's hard
enough for me already to trace through all the code when I want to
change something. Making it more difficult is not what I would want to
see.
tim ab0wr
On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
> This is a good idea and might make it easier to peel off those
> features not desired. The source already lends itself to this
> approach. I have not studied it closely enough to know whether
> specific files (e.g., ubitx_keyer.ino, ubitx_cat.ino) can be taken
> out of the compile chain as it currently stands.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
>? ? On Monday, May 14, 2018, 10:05:13 AM EDT, K9HZ
>
> In fact, to expand on this¡ I think Ian should consider block defines
> for sections of the code that people want or don¡¯t want.? He has
> already done this in selecting the type of display (2 line or 4
> line).? Some of the things to block define might be:
>
>? ?
>
> 1.?????? CAT
>
> 2.?????? WSPR
>
> 3.?????? Alignment ?(if you¡¯ve done it once, why do it again?)
>
> 4.?????? CW? (some people only use SSB)
>
> 5.?????? SSB? (some people only use CW).
>
>? ?
>
> I¡¯m sure there are others.? This way there is plenty of room if you
> want to experiment.? Just shut stuff off.? In fact, there could be an
> experiment define that turns on or shuts off your experiments too.
>
>? ?
>
> Just a thought¡
>
>? ?
>
>? ?
>
> 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: www.VillaGrandPiton.com
>
> Like us on Facebook!
>
>? ?
>
>
|
uBITX40 : power to IRF510
I have already built your BITX40 which I am using with great satisfaction.
I have just received your "Micro BITX40".
I ask you if I can feed the two IRF510s separately with a higher voltage to get a higher output power as expected in the project of the previous BITX40.
Thanks for your kind response.
?73 de IV3XHM, Toni Cossio
?
|
Re: boosting the power on 28 MHz
#ubitx
Hi Allison
The?KSP10BU looks like a twin of the MPSH10.? It is available from DigiKey for $0.19, quantity of 1.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:49 am, Henning Weddig wrote:
Allison,
concerning the bifilar balun choke to supply the DC voltage to the drains of the IRF510 is one big step forward in equalizing the gain!
I got a large improvement on the famous 20W G6ALU amp for my PIC A STAR after inserting this choke.?
I also agree that the ft of the 2N3904 for a high gain stage is not sufficient-- my LTSPICE simulations already show that the W7ZOI bidi amp in the receive chain drops by about 3 dB @45 MHz i.e. the first If.? So the MPSH10 or its SMD equivalent may be the better solution.
I just have ordered this transistor from a chinese supplier.
Henning Weddig
DK5LV
?
Am 13.05.2018 um 19:36 schrieb ajparent1/KB1GMX:
Seems like the variation between radios is significant.
For certain I nee to look at the power chain.? My breadboard is better behaved but there are a handful of significant
differences.? The first of which is that based on other radios I've built the 2n3904 is not adequate above 20mhz.? I've
used 2n2369 for the first two stages and 2n2222A for the driver.? I think the MPSH10 in the driver might help further
but I'm waiting for some..? Significantly different transformers for t10 and t11 and used? a bifilar balun at l8/l9.
That amp is standalone and for a given output power (enough for 10W at 80M) that same input power at 10M
gets me 6w, thats ok but I know it needs more work.? That was the point it was at about 2 years ago. I got side
tracked by other projects so now it the time to revisit.
Generally the firmware makes no difference unless you have moved the various oscillator frequencies out of range.
Allison
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
This is where problems will begin to occur. Are you going to add in functionality to modify ubitx_menu.ino on the fly? Or are you going to break up ubitx_menu.ino into a lot of little pieces that can be included/excluded at compile time? How do you tie including/excluding menu items to controlling the actual compile of functions in the code? If you just inhibit access to the alignment software after it is used it doesn't lower the amount of memory used for the program unless you do so with a recompile and reload. Is that really what we want the user to have to do? Does deleting a mode actually save very much program space? Most functions are common between modes, you still have to transition between receive and transmit, only some variables change value. Does doing all this actually make it harder for the experimenter to modify the code because it makes it more difficult to lay out all the interactions between the code that might be affected? I know it's hard enough for me already to trace through all the code when I want to change something. Making it more difficult is not what I would want to see. tim ab0wr On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:18:46 +0000 (UTC) "Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum@...> wrote: This is a good idea and might make it easier to peel off those
features not desired. The source already lends itself to this
approach. I have not studied it closely enough to know whether
specific files (e.g., ubitx_keyer.ino, ubitx_cat.ino) can be taken
out of the compile chain as it currently stands.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 10:05:13 AM EDT, K9HZ
<bill@...> wrote:
In fact, to expand on this¡ I think Ian should consider block defines
for sections of the code that people want or don¡¯t want.? He has
already done this in selecting the type of display (2 line or 4
line).? Some of the things to block define might be:
?
1.?????? CAT
2.?????? WSPR
3.?????? Alignment ?(if you¡¯ve done it once, why do it again?)
4.?????? CW? (some people only use SSB)
5.?????? SSB? (some people only use CW).
?
I¡¯m sure there are others.? This way there is plenty of room if you
want to experiment.? Just shut stuff off.? In fact, there could be an
experiment define that turns on or shuts off your experiments too.
?
Just a thought¡
?
?
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: www.VillaGrandPiton.com
Like us on Facebook!
?
|
We need a bit more information in order to help troubleshoot your uBITX.
?
?1)? Which opto-coupler on the schematic drawing are you referring to as being inoperative?
????? Is it the manufacturer provided mechanical rotary encoder that you say is not working?
?2)? What test equipment do you have available?
?3)? What troubleshooting steps have you already taken, and what were the results?
?4)? Which schematic (URL) are you using to troubleshoot your uBITX?
?5)? Is it just the VFO frequency adjustment that does not work, or are there other configuration
?????? and adjustment options that do not work properly?
?6)? Have any modifications been applied to your uBITX build?
Arv? K7HKL
_._
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:32 PM, kj6etl <pa1zz@...> wrote: Today I completed the build of my uBitx.
Unfortunately the Opto coupler / VFO is unresponstive. No matter what I do it stuck at LSB A : 7150.00
I tried to push the the reset button on the small board behind the display to no avail.
On closer inspection of the manual I noticed a discrepency between the text and the picture. The text tells that the brown wire has to be connected to the Pin B of the opto coupler while the picture shows a purple wire.
Earlier in the manual it states that the purple wire from the Raduino board is redundant so I removed it...
Looking forward to your input!
|
Re: CONTEST!!!! New Board Naming Contest
#ubitx
Me-O-My-O I/O board.
Jack, W8TEE
On Monday, May 14, 2018, 11:54:51 AM EDT, Jim Sheldon <w0eb@...> wrote:
Regarding this contest, I forgot to mention -- you may enter as many times as you like (different name for each entry though).? In case the winning entry is duplicated by another person, the earliest date/time on the submitted entry will determine the winner.
Should NO entry be deemed suitable to name the board (we reserve the right to accept or reject any/all entries), the contest will be extended for another time period (to be decided if necessary) and that will be announced.? Remember, no entries submitted to this list or to any email address other than the one listed in the initial announcement ( jrg.qrv (at) gmail dot com ) will be eligible to win the prize.
Jim - W0EB
|
|
|
Re: BITX QSO Afternoon/Evening, Sunday, May 13, 3PM & 7PM Local Time, 7277 kHz in North America, 7177 kHz elsewhere.
|
Re: CONTEST!!!! New Board Naming Contest
#ubitx
Regarding this contest, I forgot to mention -- you may enter as many times as you like (different name for each entry though).? In case the winning entry is duplicated by another person, the earliest date/time on the submitted entry will determine the winner.
Should NO entry be deemed suitable to name the board (we reserve the right to accept or reject any/all entries), the contest will be extended for another time period (to be decided if necessary) and that will be announced.? Remember, no entries submitted to this list or to any email address other than the one listed in the initial announcement ( jrg.qrv (at) gmail dot com ) will be eligible to win the prize.
Jim - W0EB
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
I think it's a great idea to see what we can squeeze out of the existing Raduino with it's Nano by using the KD8CEC code. No changes other than a HEX download for existing uBITX machines (if you keep the existing 2x16 display) and we're all (or most) "on the same page".?I just read through the 1.07 manual....I assume that's the latest one.
73 Kees K5BCQ
|
K9HZ
kj6etl
Jim Sheldon