Not having to insulate the RD's tab from ground is definitely a win.

> the RD generates less heat per watt than the IRF510

Are you saying the RD is significantly more efficient?
Do you have numbers?
Or perhaps this is your way of pointing out that heat transfer from the die is somewhat slower for a given delta-T.

> Less drive per watt out is good, 20 watts if you need it at 13.8V.

I think you will have to do a significant redesign of the uBitx to get 20W out at 13.8v,
starting with the transformer at T11.
Considerably more involved than just swapping in some RD's.

I can believe that less drive is needed, but I'm not sure how big a factor this is.
I doubt it is terribly significant.?
The uBitx final is limited in part by how much power is available from the driver stage,?
but those who have tried swapping in RD's in the past have not seen much improvement.
Has anybody done measurements of drive required for RD's vs IRF510's from 3.5 to 30mhz?

The primary advantage of an IRF510 is that it doesn't cost $25 (with shipping) when you blow a pair.
There are disadvantages, but they can be designed around.

Jerry, KE7ER

Hmm,? that's a genuine "Arduino Nano Every".
Has anyone tried that on a Raduino yet?
I think it could be made to work, but may require some changes to the source code.

This might be a better web link:??
Mouser part number is??782-ABX00028

This board is based on the ATMega4809, which is an Arm Cortex M0+ 32 bit processor, a 20mhz clock.
Whereas the uBitx comes with a clone of the original Arduino Nano, which has an ATMega328P,
which is a much less advanced 8 bit processor.
With 48k of Flash and 6k of RAM it has somewhat more than the 328P, though it's possible
that the Arm Cortex M0+ uses it up more quickly.
This genuine Arduino will likely have better quality control than the Nano Clones.
The pin out of this module appears to be exactly the same as the older Nanos.
Price at $11 is very reasonable.

So it is possible that it could plug directly into the Raduino, you recompile the Raduino source code
for the new processor under the Arduino IDE, and it all just works.
I am guessing there will be more work than that.
For example, the old code might run faster on the ARM, and this might expose a timing bug.
Or, even though it has SPI and I2C and UART and Power and GND and digital and analog pins
in all the right spots, there might be some minor difference about how an analog pin works
that hangs things up.? ?

Jerry, KE7ER

Seems for continuous digital operation the RD might be preferred just for the fact that you can bolt it's tab directly to an aluminum radio's case,, giving a very large heat sink, add to that , the RD generates less heat per watt than the IRF510.? Those two things together seem important for digital operation and heat concerns in general.

Less drive per watt out is good, 20 watts if you need it at 13.8V. Nice that the Ubitx already has holes in the PCB for the RD. Being fairly new to the tech of radio I'd have to study the changes to the output transformer and ask do you have to change the output transformer if you keep the supply voltage to the finals at the 13.8V??

Comes down to what people need or want.? For any heat sink, get a big one, and get the best heat transfer paste you can find.? You can also run a fan, 24Volt fans run at 12v are quiet. I've never used a water cooled heat sink on a computer and ask those who know how sturdy and reliable they are, also how much power consumption and noise is acceptable.

Thanks for this discussion.

Slurm?

In HRD? - make sure you check the DTR box. That will reset the Arduino in the uBitx and it should connect and communicate ok.??

Other programs (WSJTX, and FLDIGI) don't expose this setting.? I find that AFTER I run and close HRD the other programs connect OK.??

There definitely seems to be a long standing issue with the way HAMLIB (the code inside many of the digital programs) interacts with Arduino based programs.

Dean

Greetings!

This is my first post to this group, and I'm more of a Raspberry Pi guy myself, so please be gentle. :-)

Would this work as a replacement?

Will B - AF7EC

Banggood claims their Nano Clones to be "improved", though I doubt this matters to us.

Banggood gives this rather cryptic comment regarding the CH340 USB chip that is used:

####################
Chip: CH340C/G Random delivery?(CH340B is the update version of CH340G, CH340B comes with crystal, but CH340G doesn't)
Note:??Improved USB chip for speed and stability using WIN7/WIN8.
####################

Here's something a bit more coherent from:? ??
Parts of that document look like a datasheet, others look like commentary about a bunch of different parts.
I have seen a CH340 datasheet in English, but perhaps some of the newer variants only
have datasheets in Chinese?? Anyways, here's the key passage from that document:

####################
Model differences: CH340C, CH340E and CH340B have built-in crystal, no external crystal; CH340B also has built-in EEPROM used to configure the serial number,etc.Some functions can be customized. CH340R provides reverse polarity TXD and MODEM signals.
####################

So perhaps banggood is now selling a mix of parts, some have the old CH340G chip with an external crystal,
some have a newer chip (either CH340B or CH340C) with the crystal inside the CH340 SOIC16 package?
Or perhaps they are now selling a mix of CH340B and CH340C, both of which have a crystal inside?

The CH340 chip is the 16 pin SOIC on the left side of the second photo in the banggood webpage.
A crystal can be seen just above and near the left end of the CH340 chip,
a long yellowish rectangle with traces to pins 7 and 8 of the CH340.
So the photo probably shows an older Nano Clone using the CH340G chip.

My understanding was that the Nano Clones are all using the cheap ceramic resonators
(12mhz on the CH340, 16mhz for the ATMega382P), not quartz crystals like the original Arduino Nano did.
I'm guessing what's inside a CH340B or CH340C is also a resonator of some sort,
so not a particularly stable or accurate source of 12mhz.

Jerry, KE7ER

if radio seems functional I am concerned BFO still may be off - I tuned mine by ear but using an audio FFT program might be easier - but try by ear.?

the 40m band should be full of RTTY signals now with a contest going on.? if they are heard but also high pitched - its a sign BFO is way off.?

trust its something small

Curt

开云体育

Scot,

I doubt they have changed.
Perhaps you are looking at the bottom side of your board,
and the top side of the various product offerings?

Be sure to buy a Nano that does not already have the pins soldered,
because the raduino wants them installed upside down.

This webpage has images of top and bottom of the board:
??

Jerry, KE7ER

Fully agree that the IRF510 is O.K for amateur radio use. It can do the job and is very cheap.
Only one word of warning.... buy them from a reputable source that has branded devices. There are a lot of "fake" or sub-standard IRF510's around. There are some very cheap 70w RF amps on fleabay. The IRF510's they supply with the kit may even have the part numbers ground off. Throw away the supplied IRF510's and buy some known good ones, the rest of the components in the kit are O.K.

Reg ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? G4NFR?

Looking to get some more Nano's, however when shopping on Amazon, E-Bay and others, They look different. Don't see the 5 volt regulator for 1 among offer things. Have the Nano's changed? and if so, can tey be used in my current V6?
Thanks for any info, Scot WB7AVU

Evan
Just a follow up. I did it and and put it on the SD card ubitx_28_E.tft . This is just atrial run and it seems to have work OK!
I will play with it some more.
Thanks.
73

Jon

Evan
I thank you! I will followup if OK. I have formatted the SD card fat32.

Jon

Jon,
It is the UBITX_Netion_GUI_V3.ZIP

download and unzip the archive.? There is both a 2.8" Basic and 2.8" Enhanced tft and HMI files.? The tft are the already compiled files to transfer with a microSD card.

there is a filenaminfo.txt file in the archive that explains the naming convention:

73
Evan
AC9TU

Thanks Rafael and Curt,

I followed the procedure in on your recommendation, but the result is the same. On certain frequencies I can hear high pitched sound but nothing else, not even CW transmission.
I only use a 15ft wire as an antenna, I should probably have a suitable antenna and try the procedure again.
I'll keep you posted.
Thank you very much for your help and suggestions.

Alex KK4FAA

Bob,
Thank you for reply, I verified the speaker cable and is fine, must be something else.
Alex KK4FAA

It's so much different from using audio amplifier and TV sweep vacuum
tubes in the final stages of low power transmitters. They were not
designed for that job. But they worked well (and still do). I am a fan
of those IRF510 and some others. 6BQ6, 6L6, 6AQ5, etc too.

73,

Bill KU8H


On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 14:11:29 -0800
"Jerry Gaffke via groups.io" <jgaffke@...> wrote:

Mad,

I think we're mostly on the same page here.

The uBitx is not a mil-spec radio, or anything close.
It's a rock bottom implementation of an all-band HF SSB rig,
inviting hacks to improve something, or perhaps to learn what not to
do.

I fully understand that in other arenas it matters to design by spec,
I've been there. However, there have been some excellent professional
RF engineers figuring out how to use the IRF510 for low cost amateur
builds. WA2EBY, W7ZOI, NA5N, and KB1GMX for starters.
I doubt any of them have used the IRF510 as an RF part in a product
at work, though I'm sure they all find joy in making a $0.50 part
work well as a 30mhz power amp.? Finding ways to do as much as
possible with a minimum of resources is a core part of much good
engineering.

I find it a perfect fit for the uBitx.? There are thousands of uBitx
users, I'd be surprised if more than 1% have tried moving to a
different FET. And I will speak up if somebody tries to make them
think they should.

If designing from scratch I wouldn't mess with the $2 Nano clones.
Better to just put down a modern $2 ARM QFP from Mouser.
But I haven't heard of anything better than the 40 year old IRF510
for use as a cheap RF amp.

Snowing here in far NE Oregon as well.
Forecast says we have snow on the menu for a week, temps in 20's and
30's. Have plenty to do, but this is a good excuse not to work
outside.

Jerry, KE7ER

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 11:06 AM, MadRadioModder wrote:

This really is the same argument if you think about it.







The majors (Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood, etc.) don’t use a nano or
nano-clone in their radios (actually some use sister chips)… not
because of the hardware per se… but because they don’t want to
house and pay an entire army of firmware engineers on standby to
fix your meddling in their firmware. Thus its not a “open” system…
and using non-nano-like chips does aid in keeping the firmware
closed to the public and obscure. ??Most of us don’t care because
the learning curve for all of the hardware they used would be large.







Trained RF engineers will start from system specifications and
design using the most cost-effective parts.? Now, to your point, on
this one… there really are no specifications on the uBITx, other
than what is on the HFSignals website… and that isn’t much.? Maybe
Ashar just has not published them… or more likely… during the
design of the uBITx… he fiddled with parts in his basement until he
got something he liked.? No shame in that at all… witness the
number of uBITx owners.? But it is a different class of device from
one that is specified and designed from the ground up.







I won’t be mentioning the RD series of devices in this forum
again.? Takes too much of my energy for nothing.







By the way, its showing here in Wisconsin today… Great day to be on
the radio!? See you there!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-