Is there a narrower filtering going on in CW?? 2.4 kHz won't be good
|
John:
I'm not getting how this Raduino is working. My issue is this. The
Arduino runs on 5V. When programmed as an output for I2C A4 and A5
drive up to 5 volts. I am seeing 4.6 volts. The SI5351 is supposed
to run on 3.3V. So we are over driving the SDA and SCL inputs by
trying to pull them above the 3.3 volts supply. In fact, the 3.3 V
supply is pulled up through the IC inputs to 4.4 volts. The
SI5351A isn't happy about this. This seems like a design problem,
unless the SDA and SCL lines are supposed to be driven as open
collector and the pull ups define the high level. This doesn't
seem to be happening either.
Howard
On 8/15/2018 8:05 PM, John wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
 This is the filter section of the codan Envoy. ?
Caps are under the pcb as you can see. ?Again this pa is rated at 125watts.
It’s quite compact?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 16 Aug 2018, at 8:52 am, Adrian Waiblinger < vk5zbr@...> wrote: Codan NGT,? Its getting old in the tooth now, we are up to Envoys.? Will see if I can take a phone of that. Easily 125Watts, Codan design there stuff to be tough.? We have these radios in service for the last 15 years with a 1% failure rate in the out back, (quite harsh)
|
|
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
Mr. Farhan,
We could sure use more that attitude these days! Your open architecture about the radio extends to your person!
I'm in for a new one, to play again.? These are a hoot, and I've been away since before chips, much less computers in radios.? My other rig is a KWM2.
Eddie
|
Re: uBitx v4 plus 3 AGC kits and 3 Pop Fix kits for sale
Any more AGC kits hidden away?
Eddie
|
appears to be a single relay switching of each filter, also.
|
Codan NGT,? Its getting old in the tooth now, we are up to Envoys.? Will see if I can take a phone of that. Easily 125Watts, Codan design there stuff to be tough.? We have these radios in service for the last 15 years with a 1% failure rate in the out back, (quite harsh)
On 16 August 2018 at 04:14, iz oos <and2oosiz2@...> wrote: Which Codan model? Can all these SMT caps handle 125w?
|
"comma" = "comms" in spellchecker language.
|
Hoeard:
You are correct. The menu is navigated with number plus Enter.
Please check that all comma parameters are as per the readme.txt including the line feed options.
Your oscilloscope test will tell you a lot too.
73, John
|
Re: Harmonic performance - SSB vs CW
Could you do a run on Digital?? We have a group planning on using this system to introduce hams to digital.? Does the digital approach simply use the CW system?
Peder, W7RPK
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
Very cool, I may well bite on that qsx40.
But the *Bitx* rigs scratch an itch.
There's a need for a simple back-to-basics almost-all-analog radio
you can poke a scope probe into.?
Educational, for one, not many of us will figure out the DSP code of an SDR rig
to where we can take significant whacks at it.?
And an analog rig can sound better.
Jerry
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 02:44 PM, Roy Appleton wrote:
Or like this one!
?
?
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
By utilizing a Teensy 3.6 board you are opening the way for DSP-based generation and reconstruction of SSB and other signals. For example a pair of 45 deg. symmetrical Hilbert transforms can take care of precise phasing to effectively suppress the carrier and unwanted sideband. Such Hilbert filter can simultaneously replace the second IF crystal filter, if the conversion is brought down to audio frequencies. Being a programmable filter, the Hilbert transform can also provide variable bandwidth for the desired mode of operation. Further audio processing, like the audio band equalizer that you apparently implemented is just as icing on the cake. With appropriate CODEC, the Teensy 3.6 with its DMA capabilities, can easily support 192 kHz sampling rate, which means that in principle you could show FFT an waterfall diagrams in real time for a much wider bandwidth. This becomes essentially a hybrid SDR architecture at a very low cost.
--Ron? ?N7FTZ? ?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:19 AM Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum= [email protected]> wrote: Carl:
Some very good ideas.
I'm showing the Rev 2 JackAl board here, partly to show what we done, but also to show the mistakes we made along the way. (We're doing
the Rev 4 board now.) First, we've taken the buck converter off simply because it was too fragile when adjusting...far to easy to rip the adjusting screw right off the board. Second, the 7W audio amplifier (big IC on lower left) is stupid for the nano acres it takes plus its cost. Most users have powered speakers or can easily add them. We don't have a direct I2C connection, but we do have an SPI interface for the touch screen display. (Our display handles the video processing.) The rest are connections that work through the exiting ?BITX headers, which would not be the same for a new design. Still, the above is less than 100mm x 100mm and parts are being taken off. Obviously, we have the Si5351 chip onboard, but that probably should be on the main board. The SMD parts will be part of the PCB when sold.
To me, perhaps the most important thing we've done is bring out a bunch of pins, both digital and analog, for others to use. I hope the selected processor for such a project has a bunch available.
Jack, W8TEE
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 12:27:03 PM EDT, RCBoatGuy via Groups.Io <ijnfan-HamRadio= [email protected]> wrote:
Here's some features I'd like to see in any new design that shouldn't cost much, but would make life/testing/experimentation easier:
- Sockets for CPU boards on any new Raduino design.? (Teensyduino has this already, and I think the JackAl does, too)
- Sockets for relays, as these have been a frequent source of failure
- Move any pull-up resistors required onto the Raduino/Teensyduino/JackAl board and not rely on the user to wire them up.? Many users either failed to wire up the 4.7K external resistor correctly or had the connection fail later, causing the rig to immediately go into transmit on power-up.? This is easily avoided by having the required pull-ups on the Raduino/Teensyduino/JackAl board itself.
- Add 3-pin 0.1" input and output headers/jumpers?to each section (Bi-di Amps, Audio Amp, Mic Amp, BPF, PA, LPF, etc) on a given board so that the given section can be isolated and tested independently.? For inputs to a section, 1st pin is output from prior section, 2nd pin is input to current section, 3rd pin is GND.? ?For outputs from a section, 1st pin is output from section, 2nd pin is input to next section, 3rd pin is GND.? Normal operation uses shorting jumpers across pins 1 and 2 to allow signals to flow thru, but jumpers can be removed and test inputs/outputs connected via molex/etc connectors to pins 2 and 3 (or to all 3 pins if desired).? This also makes it easier to replace a given section with an external circuit for experimentation/modification.
- Room for extra I2C headers on the Raduino (Teensyduino already has this, not sure about the JackAl) that the user can install later if desired
- Would be nice if the modular design had the PA on a separate board so different PAs can be used based on user preference.? Having different boards for a IRF510 PA, a RD16HHF1 PA, etc, would be nice as the user can pick and choose what they want, or build their own much easier.
- Support for adding additional BPF/LPF for those that want 160M, 6M, etc
- As for the LPF relays, I'd recommend using a relay scheme like that on the mcHF transceiver.? Their approach minimized the number of relays (only 4 DPDT relays needed for 4 filters), but still had filter inputs and filter outputs going to different relays.
- Design board so that the Raduino/Teensyduino/JackAl board has no obstructions from parts and/or connectors along the entire edge of the radio board.? The Teensyduino had to design in special cut-outs to use with the current uBitX due to obstructions. It would be nice if cut-outs like this were not needed in the future.
- Si5351 on main board, not on Raduino/Teensyduino/JackAl
That's my 2 cents.? Take it for what it's worth.? :)
73,?
Carl, K0MWC
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
Or like this one!
That's how I ended up here.
Gary
AG5TX
|
John:
I can get to the diagnostic menu. I assume I am to press 1 for the
core? I tried all of them, and I see nothing happening. I will
load my code, and look with a scope at the I2C bus.
Howard
On 8/15/2018 4:43 PM, John wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Howard:
The interaction with the diagnostic software is via the serial
port as I assumed the communication with the?display or the
encoder could be faulty.
Use the serial monitor of the IDE. See the README.txt file for the
comms parameters.
The i2c bus tests are:
1. Is the bus locked (lines pulled down)?
2. Is the si5351 at the expected address responding?
3. Can we write a byte to a register at that address?
If you get error 1 check the bus. You could change the blink
sketch to toggle A4 and A5 and measure the voltages (0V then
3.3V).
If you get error 2 it could be 3.3V not getting to si5351 or chip
dead, or other bus issue.
If you get error 3, prepare the (de)soldering station, chip gone
mad :(
73, John (VK2ETA)
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
Or like this one!
Roy WA0YMH
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 3:54 PM Tom, wb6b < wb6b@...> wrote: If we are upping the processing power on-board, why don't we build a Soft Rock type of transceiver with all bands, relay switched filters and 10 watts out?
Using the onboard processor instead of an external laptop or PC for the signal processing.
Tom, wb6b
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:54:43PM -0700, Tom, wb6b wrote: If we are upping the processing power on-board, why don't we build a Soft Rock type of transceiver with all bands, relay switched filters and 10 watts out?
Using the onboard processor instead of an external laptop or PC for the signal processing.
Why not indeed. Like the M0NKA-mcHF ? Tom, wb6b Diane, va3db -- - db@... db@...
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
Hi Tom,
something like?
Alan
On 15/08/2018 21:54, Tom, wb6b wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If we are upping the processing power on-board, why don't we build
a Soft Rock type of transceiver with all bands, relay switched
filters and 10 watts out?
Using the onboard processor instead of an external laptop or PC
for the signal processing.
Tom, wb6b
|
It would totally be on topic if the story said that these sweeping lightening whistles were detected by the bad harmonics of a uBitx and a scientist discovered it while building his ham radio in the lab. but nope, nothing of the sort. :)?
Joe kd2nfc
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Aug 15, 2018, at 4:29 PM, Dennis Zabawa < kg4rul@...> wrote:
Space, the final frontier!? These are the voyages of the Transceiver uBITX.? It's continuing mission to explore strange circuits, to seek out new contacts and new designs, to boldly go where no ham has gone before…
|
Re: Modular uBitx - "Ex: Harmonics"
I have a Softrock-based SDR that still makes use of a sound module connection to my PC for processing. It costs $100 more than the uBitX without an enclosure. It's similar in that it comes with the board fully populated, requiring just final assembly. It's a nice rig with LOTS of features, but it can be cumbersome because it needs a PC to complete it. I like the thing, but I wanted to build something I could easily take into the field without having to lug a PC with me to make it work. Hence the uBitX.
73,
Gwen NG3P
|
Alan de G1FXB
Gwen Patton