Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
I would respectfully disagree.? Sure there are some short comings.? The receiver is quite good.? The transmitter needs some kindness here and there but nothing serious.? I also find the experimenting quite refreshing¡ something I can¡¯t do on my K3, 7800, etc¡
?
Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ
?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Smith via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [BITX20] A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
?
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
?
|
Re: Calibration - my approach
#ubitx
The calibration factor adjusts the nomially 875000000 value for si5351bx_vcoa down in ubitx_si5351.ino
in Farhan's stock ubitx code.
Any change to vcoa? (which is the frequency of the VCO inside the si5351 in Hz, nominally 875mhz)
is exactly proportional to the change you can expect in the operating frequency of the rig.
So if you are receiving a 10mhz WWV signal and find that your radio dial reads 10000030 when at zero beat,
then reduce vcoa by? ?875000000*(30/10000000) = 2625
With that, your rig should be exactly on frequency for anything from 500khz to 30mhz.
One of the joys of having all oscillators being based on a single 25mhz reference crystal.
Jerry, KE7ER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:52 am, <alans77@...> wrote:
Dave: Many thanks for your calibration post. I was able to load your data file to bring my uBitx back to life after screwing it up trying to perform the Cal using WWV. My radio is now about 30 Hz high. Have you or anyone figured out the relationship between the Master Cal numbers and frequency? as would like to adjust the 30 Hz frequency offset by manipulating the data directly.
|
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?
Jack, This makes no sense. If it's a body of code that supports conditional compiles, whomever is
compiling the code can turn features on or off. There's a "stock"
body of code that is what HF Signals will ship. If it does support
toggling features in and out of that body of code via conditional
compiles, what the hell does John Doe have to do with your software
needs? If you are saying that John Doe wants your features AND
features you turned off, that's his problem, not yours or HF Signals. Huh? If John Doe wants to use my software then it is *his* conditional compile that is in question, not my software. I AM NOT TURNING OFF ANYTHING! I need to be able to transmit a CW signal. That leaves two options available. Either I use the existing CW transmit functionality -- WHICH THE USER CAN TURN OFF -- or I duplicate it in my software. If I am also going to use my software in a fixed functionality environment then I'll need to write two versions. Something I do *not* want to do. I never said anything about "future software additions". In reality, I
know that the Nano will never be able to do all that I want the ?BITX
to do, so I did something about it. Al and I built a board with 1Mb
of flash, 256K of SRAM, 4K of EEPROM, a 180MHz clock, and over 50 I/O
lines. That's my "crapshoot" because I knew neither the standard nor
Ian's code would even come close to what I have in mind. Sounds to me
like you should be doing the same thing. Look for a new processor
that suits your needs and start coding for it if the current code
doesn't do what you want and conditional compiles won't help. Once
again, since your goals fall outside the current (pending??)
solution, it is your problem. I don't need a new processor. I need a software load with fixed functionality so I don't have to duplicate everything I might need. You are admitting that Ian's software is pushing the limits of the nano requiring some features to be excluded in order to fit the memory space but are advocating for it to become the standard software load? Does that mean you think Ashhar should move to a different processor as well? Does that mean that all those that have purchased the current model will have to buy a new processor and daughter-board if they want to keep up with future developments?
|
Re: Power rails and breadboards
Most producers are consistent about the color scheme on breadboard. The blue line on the top in the photo below is the ground (-) rail and the red line is closest to the positive (+) rail. Obviously, check with an ohmmeter if your breadboard is a powered version.
Jack, W8TEE
On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 9:20:08 AM EDT, N8DAH <Dherron@...> wrote:
yes top rail being GND bottom + Pos sorry I made it in a rush before work. R1 to radiuno power in. -- David
?N8DAH
|
yes top rail being GND bottom + Pos sorry I made it in a rush before work. R1 to radiuno power in. -- David
?N8DAH
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
|
Re: Calibration - my approach
#ubitx
Dave: Many thanks for your calibration post. I was able to load your data file to bring my uBitx back to life after screwing it up trying to perform the Cal using WWV. My radio is now about 30 Hz high. Have you or anyone figured out the relationship between the Master Cal numbers and frequency? as would like to adjust the 30 Hz frequency offset by manipulating the data directly.
73
N4AYE
|
If you are using the supplied electret capsule be sure you have the correct polarity, If it is reversed the audio will be very low. The negative side is connected to the case.
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
A wore jumper, eh?
Not quite sure which
spelling checker interpretation to run with there :)
Bill, VK7MX/3
On 16/05/2018 6:34 PM, Nick VK4PLN
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi Kees
A suggestion, if you are still designing the PCB, how about making
it to fit flat on the uBitx board to the left of the LPF. It is
easy to tap the RX RF there and keep the RF lines short, then an
easy jumper to 12v RX close by to the south by R38... And a wore
jumper over to tap audio from non relay side of R70?
Just a few thoughts..
73 Nick VK4PLN.
|
Thanks John
I will try that, I have made several contacts mostly with established nets.?
The propagation is not so good and to make up for the lack of power I benefit from a 440 foot delta loop antenna at 85 feet AGL.
Cheers WRS
|
Have you listened on another receiver to see if you are putting out an intelligible signal?
Dave K8WPE
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 15, 2018, at 10:18 AM, johnmbignell@... wrote: 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: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
Here, 
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
Just next to the right of my HPF
|
Ok
I will try that rc filter. Thats the 2 caps from supply line to ground with the resistor inbetween in the supply line ?
Thanks
|
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X
Hi Kees
A suggestion, if you are still designing the PCB, how about making it to fit flat on the uBitx board to the left of the LPF. It is easy to tap the RX RF there and keep the RF lines short, then an easy jumper to 12v RX close by to the south by R38... And a wore jumper over to tap audio from non relay side of R70?
Just a few thoughts..
73 Nick VK4PLN.
|
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
If a few watts isn't enough, build a linear kit. 45 watts for ?12.
Regards Geoff, G8BMI
On 16 May 2018 at 08:50, Dgyuro via Groups.Io <dgyuro@...> wrote: Isn¡¯t uBITX meant to be a QRP rig?? Some don¡¯t want more than 10 Watts for the challenge ?
I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
|
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
Isn¡¯t uBITX meant to be a QRP rig? ?Some don¡¯t want more than 10 Watts for the challenge ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 16, 2018, at 12:34 AM, iz oos < and2oosiz2@...> wrote: I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
|
Re: WANTED VK3YE LED LDR AGC diagram
Thanks Chris for the reply.
My question was how to integrate this AGC circuit on the BITX40 board.
I emailed Peter (VK3YE) and he gave me great response, but I wouldn't complain if I get more help.
Steve
|
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
Il 16/mag/2018 05:34, "John Smith via Groups.Io" <johnlinux77= [email protected]> ha scritto: While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
John,
The CW keying issue was purely a software problem. It has been fixed in the KD8CEC's firmware. You might want to try it.
- f
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:22 AM, John Smith via Groups.Io <johnlinux77@...> wrote: I have been here quite a while now, and learned many great things. I am aware that the uBITX is wildly popular. And the CAT rig control for it came about rather quickly compared to some other great useful hacks. But I have also seen power output charts from at least a few people here on this list indicating 10 watts at lower frequencies and 1 or 2 watts at higher frequencies, and disappointing CW performance with how it responds to keying. CW was one of it's biggest selling points. I feel too much work and money has to be invested into it after the initial cost to make it into something I would like. I would rather save my money and buy something else. That's just how I feel about it. And I feel that a dedicated band transceiver to begin with could have better overall performance, and would be popular with people who don't have or want an all band antenna. And thanks Jerry for not being too harsh with me. This list's reputation as being a hate group on other message boards and pages may need reassessing. I'll put in a good word for you on one of them somewhere.
|
K9HZ
N8DAH
Nick VK4PP
Jay - WS4JM
