开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. BITX20
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: ZBitx Bluetooth ?

 

I haven’t tried but this should be possible. ?I have it paired on sbitx. ?Should work on zbitx. ?May try this evening.?

KK6DZB
Re: ZBitx Bluetooth ?

 

Hello Everyone!

I just got my zBitx.
Is there a way to pair my BT keyboard to the PI?
I connected to the external monitor, and the BT is already activated, but cannot interact with it to have it scan for BT devices.
My BT keyboard has no pre-paired dongle, that would make it easier....
?
Thank you!
Re: CW on zbitx

 

Time for me to chime in again.
While it was working fine one day for me, the next it was not. Even with a keyer plugged in and the radio in straight key mode, it's not so good.
I eagerly await more updates to test.
Re: CW on zbitx

 

Re: "By now, sbitx/zbitx software has grown wild and unwieldy. changing one thing affects another."
?
Maybe we should back up and start over?
?
I rarely do ssb and find FT8 too slow making it boring and tedious, no matter to me if its popular with others.? If CW doesn't work on this radio, I fear I have wasted US$200 on a radio that doesn't work in the mode most useful to me.? Sadly, I ordered it just before this topic began so I didn't know this problem existed and the creator doesn't use the mode much and seemingly doesn't know how to fix it.?
?
I'd like to delay my radio shipment until we know if this thing is hardware handicapped or if this can be fixed in software or requires a hardware version 2????
?
Lincoln
N9IN
Re: sBitx v3 - next final MOSFET killed

 

开云体育

I get it. 100%. I have still bought, and likely will in the future, buy HF products. My only issue is that to those newer, less experienced hobbyists, the products are billed as both, works out of the box, AND "open source, hackable", when they are truly neither. As far as a usable radio, in the same class, my Radioberry v2 is the only one that I can count on working when I want it to. And guess what? If I wanted to modify it, in a major way, I can use the actual CAD files and do it properly. HF doesn't want you to have that option. It's their right, but don't call it open source.?






-------- Original message --------
From: HA3HZ <gyula@...>
Date: 4/14/25 2:40 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [BITX20] sBitx v3 - next final MOSFET killed

If you haven't noticed by now, HF Signals doesn't care if some people are unhappy with the product.
Profit and sales come from the fact that you can produce things cheaply.
For those who are bothered by this, there is the possibility to correct and modify the product according to their own taste.
The design can be quite diverse due to the diversity of components.
Things that have been proven in practice and work well can be sold at a higher price, against which those with little money would fall away from the product.
Now here some people say that they would pay, but the majority are probably happy with it being cheap and then modifying it.

This is a rubber bone that you can always chew on!
So don't stop, because development is driven forward by more people discussing it.
I see the problem in that no one likes to invest in uncertainty, but some people expect HF Signals to risk their money.
I also have an opinion about sBitx, the only difference between us is that I use the device, while many of you just buy it as a shelf decoration for your many devices.
Here's the point.
--
Gyula HA3HZ

--
Mike - K8MCB?
Re: zBitx +-2 MHz transmit spurs?

 

I found a note where I had seen 2MHz spurs.? ?You can see them in the screen of the spectrum analyzer.
/g/BITX20/message/104598

In that threat (of > 340 entries)? I finally apparently got everything fixed by adding a ton of capacitors and adjustments.? ?Some bypasses apparently made it WORSE.? ?

In this post, I listed all the changes I made -- including moving all the Si5351 oscillators to 2 mA drive instead of 8mA
/g/BITX20/message/105043

Building radios is not for the faint of heart!!? ?I have a lot of appreciation for Ashhar and all he has built -- this is NOT easy and bringing a product to market almost by himself is quite an achievement.

Gordon KX4Z
Re: Should I start with uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

 

I started building radios in the late 1960's. I realized one had to be a metal worker and own an expensive set of chassis punches to work with tubes so I quickly migrated to solid state. We could only dream of radios like the BITX series back then.

I own a uBIXv6 and waited until the issues were fixed in the earlier versions before purchasing the radio. It is a good radio for the price has it's limitations. It can easily overload from AM broadcast band intermodulation and has no AGC.

I installed a high pass filter in the receiver input to attenuate the AM band. The lack of AGC does not bother me; some users desire it.

Mike N2MS

On 04/14/2025 9:04 AM EDT Jon via groups.io <vu2jo0@...> wrote:


Thanks a lot Mike for the clarification.

73
Jon, VU2JO


On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:26?PM Mike N2MS via groups.io () <mstangelo@...> wrote:
Jon,

The 1625 had a 12.6 volt filament instead of the 6.3 volt filament of the 807 but the plate voltage was still high voltage.

Earlier auto radios developed the high voltage for the plate via a mechanical vibrator.

Vacuum tubes with a low voltage plate were developed but did not have the high emission of higher voltage tubes. The Military R392 operated with 24 volt tubes on the plate as well as the filament.

Mike N2MS

> On 04/14/2025 6:15 AM EDT Jon via groups.io () <vu2jo0@...> wrote:
>
>
> Gerry,
>
> Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions, especially as you own all three versions.
>
> I did not know that there is a 12V version of 807! I thought that all vacuum tubes need high voltage. I had wondered how the early car radios worked from batteries.
>
> Regarding the filters and all, getting them here would be tough, though not impossible.
>
> Maybe i will wait till sBITX v4 reviews are out and then decide.
>
> Hope to meet you on air some?time soon.
>
> 73
>
> Jon, VU2JO
Re: zBitx +-2 MHz transmit spurs?

 

Ron, when I was working on one of the used sBitx V2's that I bought I had problems with spurs 4MHz or so off, and I believe I recall a 2MHz absolute spur once.? ?Of course the low pass filters won't stop most of these.? ? I went back through my records but couldn't find what I did to deal with those (it may be recorded in the posts I made however).? ?I suspect it might be adjustable by the comparator bias setting, but I'm not sure.? ? ?I'm sorry I don't have more remembrance.? ?But I've seen things like what you are setting?in the zBitx.? ? Perhaps others can provide more light.

Gordon KX4Z


On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9:09?AM Ron, N6YWU via <ron.nicholson=[email protected]> wrote:
Has anyone else looked for transmitter spurs from their zbitx? I'm wondering whether I got a build that can be fixed somehow ...
Ron
Re: zBitx +-2 MHz transmit spurs?

 

Has anyone else looked for transmitter spurs from their zbitx? I'm wondering whether I got a build that can be fixed somehow ...
Ron
Re: Should I start with uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

 

Thanks a lot Mike for the clarification.

73
Jon, VU2JO

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:26?PM Mike N2MS via <mstangelo=[email protected]> wrote:
Jon,

The 1625 had a 12.6 volt filament instead of the 6.3 volt filament of the 807 but the plate voltage was still high voltage.

Earlier auto radios developed the high voltage for the plate via a mechanical vibrator.

Vacuum tubes with a low voltage plate were developed but did not have the high emission of higher voltage tubes. The Military R392 operated with 24 volt tubes on the plate as well as the filament.

Mike N2MS

> On 04/14/2025 6:15 AM EDT Jon via <vu2jo0=[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Gerry,
>
> Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions, especially as you own all three versions.
>
> I did not know that there is a 12V version of 807! I thought that all vacuum tubes need high voltage. I had wondered how the early car radios worked from batteries.
>
> Regarding the filters and all, getting them here would be tough, though not impossible.
>
> Maybe i will wait till sBITX v4 reviews are out and then decide.
>
> Hope to meet you on air some?time soon.
>
> 73
>
> Jon, VU2JO
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

I stand corrected. I confused the 2 W with the previous Pi Zero. ?If running on a quad core, it should be possible to lock down the keyer process so it never gets suspended or delayed or otherwise misses a key input change.
?
With less memory, has anyone checked to see if the OS is swapping to virtual storage? ?That's another potential difference between the zbitx and older designs.
?
- Ron
Re: Should I start with uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

 

Jon,

The 1625 had a 12.6 volt filament instead of the 6.3 volt filament of the 807 but the plate voltage was still high voltage.

Earlier auto radios developed the high voltage for the plate via a mechanical vibrator.

Vacuum tubes with a low voltage plate were developed but did not have the high emission of higher voltage tubes. The Military R392 operated with 24 volt tubes on the plate as well as the filament.

Mike N2MS

On 04/14/2025 6:15 AM EDT Jon via groups.io <vu2jo0@...> wrote:


Gerry,

Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions, especially as you own all three versions.

I did not know that there is a 12V version of 807! I thought that all vacuum tubes need high voltage. I had wondered how the early car radios worked from batteries.

Regarding the filters and all, getting them here would be tough, though not impossible.

Maybe i will wait till sBITX v4 reviews are out and then decide.

Hope to meet you on air some?time soon.

73

Jon, VU2JO
Re: sBITX V4

 

Thank you!? ?I had the wrong email address. Going foward I will send to the sales email address.?
Re: Should I start with uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

 

JJ,

Thanks a lot.

Any idea whether sBITX v4 is likely to ship with your 64 bit version of software?

73

Jon, VU2JO

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:18?AM JJ - W9JES via <jj=[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 07:37 PM, Jon wrote:
Does sBITX also allow transverter options? Currently I have an IC-2730 which I use for FM repeaters and LEO satellites.
?
73
?
Jon, VU2JO.
?
My build has extended operability for use with a transverter on 10 meters. I'd go for the sBitx platform. Much better than the other offerings.
?
?
-JJ
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

I just tried an external keyer with the radio set to straight key, and on a dummy load. The keyer is set to 17 WPM. Listening on a nearby receiver I can hear incomplete characters and the odd missing character. What the sidetone presents to the speaker is what the nearby receiver hears; phrased another way you can trust the sidetone is accurately representing what is being transmitted.
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

Unfortunately this update didn't fix the issues.
?
First, IambicB is still broken, I put Ron Carr's fix in a PR.
?
Second, when I took the radio out and attached it to a EFRW, through a tuner, on several bands I had significant RFI issues, they keyer did not work well at all. The second time with the same antenna I had put a ferrite on the keyer cable and that fixed that issue. I had no problems at home.
?
But for the main issue, I agree with Gordon. With modifying what's happening in the polling loop it is possible to make responsiveness to the key work better. It's not perfect, when I call cq using paddles again and again, at 25 wpm I get about one error every 5 times so quite noticeable, but at 20 wpm it's very infrequent, and I blame any errors on my keying.?
?
Erik - n2epe
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

Ah, THANKS, Steven!? ?
page 3:? "? Processor: Broadcom BCM2710A1, quad-core 64-bit SoC"

Then there really is no obvious reason that the same fix that worked for the sBitx, that was subsequently employed in the 64-bit code version as well, and has been verified as working in the zBitx software....shouldn't be strongly considered for release to the larger group of purchasers.? ?After all, they were assured the unit works for all modes, right?? ? ?

Thank you for straightening that out.??

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 4:39?AM Steven Dovich via <Dovich=[email protected]> wrote:
Before this goes much further, we should correct the record. The Pi Zero 2W does not have a single core processor. It has a quad core of the Pi 3B+ era, but with half the memory of that board. Thus the zBitx should not suffer the single core bottleneck issues that were described earlier in the thread.?

Steven, AC1RZ
73


On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 03:20 Gordon Gibby KX4Z via <docvacuumtubes=[email protected]> wrote:
Ron, thanks for taking the time to write such a nice explanation!
I guess the real question is "what is the distribution of delays caused by operating system housekeeping operations on a single core processor?"
?
I posit that in order to be considered "acceptable" a CW product must be able to send every single dot or dash, and more than HALF of each dot.? ?Without any studies to prove it, I suspect that most CW operators (copying in their own head) will be able to tolerate an "dot" that is shortened by less than "half" of its normal time unit.? ?But MISSING a dot is unforgiveable because it changes the code symbol to either nonsense or incorrect.
?
Apparently the length of a "dot" at 24wpm is on the order of 28 milliseconds (I looked that up, so I could be wrong)
?
We can tolerate no more than 10 milliseconds or so of delay or failure to respond.? ?Can a single core Linux raspberry provide that response more than 95% of the time?
?
We have another piece of evidence.
?
Erik (and at least one other) have already taken the revised code, which not only has fantastic interrupt-driven response to the paddle, but crucially ALSO has sped-up polling to DO SOMETHING in response to the detected changed state of the paddle --- and with this sped-up polling (20X sped up) -- they uniformly report that it "works".? ? ?In fact, they were quite positive about its acceptability.
?
So this would suggest that the bottleneck is NOT the uncontrollable operating system overhead, but is instead the every-20th-tic response pointed to time and time again by Mike Johnshoy and others.? ??
?
This is quite testable.? ? The number of ticks that go by, before anything is DONE in response to a noted change in state of the paddles, can be set to any number between 0 and 20 and users can report whether they consider the code "useable"? ? We already have two datapoints:
?
@20 tick polling:? ?we have multiple reports it is considered UN-useable
@? 1 tick polling:? ?we have at least two reports that it is considered "GOOD"
?
So wouldn't it seem reasonable that the operating system is NOT the bottleneck, and that the code itself IS the problem here?? ?We are not talking difficult code.? ?It is only a line or two of changes.? ?I made the change in my own 32-bit version in moments and my sBitx Version 2's immediately worked "useably" - in fact, excellently.? ? I don't have a zbitx on which to try, but many many others do.? ? I'm unclear why this research hasn't been furthered to allow understanding of exactly what is needed for an excellent product.
?
73,
?
Gordon KX4Z
?
?
Re: Should I start with uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

 

Gerry,

Thanks a lot for the detailed suggestions, especially as you own all three versions.

I did not know that there is a 12V version of 807! I thought that all vacuum tubes need high voltage. I had wondered how the early car radios worked from batteries.

Regarding the filters and all, getting them here would be tough, though not impossible.

Maybe i will wait till sBITX v4 reviews are out and then decide.

Hope to meet you on air some?time soon.

73

Jon, VU2JO

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 7:04?AM Gerald Sherman via <ve4gks=[email protected]> wrote:

Jon

I would say the uBit is probably the easiest of the lot for a new user to use, although it lacks some of the features of the SDRs.? It's a much less expensive radio than the sBit.? Since you say you won't be operating portable, and you do have a resonant antenna system, you can get away with just an AC power supply and a key to start with.? You might be able to build a suitable power supply, or buy something ready made.? I'm in Canada, so I don't know what it's like to get things locally in India.? It's easy to add a few features later to the radio, after you get familiar with it.? The ones I would suggest are a memory keyer, an audio filter, and an AGC system.? The uBit isn't really designed to handle some of the more modern things like FT8, etc., just plain old CW and SSB.? It may be possible to use these with a sound card and a computer.? I haven't tried this.

With either of the SDRs, you are looking at updates, especially with the zBit, as it is quite new.? You won't have this issue with the uBit.

I have all 3 of these radios, so I do have some experience.

Sotabeams has a good audio filter at a cost of about ?25.00, plus shipping.? Hamcrafters (K1EL) has the K16-EXT keyer, although at the moment his situation is unsettled, as things are uncertain in the USA with some of the president's ideas on international trade.? A lot of his raw materials are imported.? Both of these can be built into the uBit, although the keyer has some practice features that make it very useful on its own.

Your comments about 807 tubes bring back over half a century of memories with 1625s (the 12 volt version of the 807) and WWII surplus equipment.? I used a 1625 in my first transmitter, back in 1970.

Gerry Sherman

On 2025-04-13 23:45, Jon via wrote:
I do not have a BITX yet, but have been closely following the discussions on the group.

My experience in homebrewing was a few decades back, of a VU2VWN QRP with BD 139 final and a 3 x 807 vacuum tube TX running about 120W DC input.

That means I have not meddled with any radio circuit for the past few decades.

Which one should I start with: uBITX, sBITX or zBITX?

As of now, I have no option for portable operations. Only a fan dipole for 40-10m and a dipole for 80m.

Hoping to receive your valuable suggestions.

73

Jon, VU2JO
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

Before this goes much further, we should correct the record. The Pi Zero 2W does not have a single core processor. It has a quad core of the Pi 3B+ era, but with half the memory of that board. Thus the zBitx should not suffer the single core bottleneck issues that were described earlier in the thread.?

Steven, AC1RZ
73


On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 03:20 Gordon Gibby KX4Z via <docvacuumtubes=[email protected]> wrote:
Ron, thanks for taking the time to write such a nice explanation!
I guess the real question is "what is the distribution of delays caused by operating system housekeeping operations on a single core processor?"
?
I posit that in order to be considered "acceptable" a CW product must be able to send every single dot or dash, and more than HALF of each dot.? ?Without any studies to prove it, I suspect that most CW operators (copying in their own head) will be able to tolerate an "dot" that is shortened by less than "half" of its normal time unit.? ?But MISSING a dot is unforgiveable because it changes the code symbol to either nonsense or incorrect.
?
Apparently the length of a "dot" at 24wpm is on the order of 28 milliseconds (I looked that up, so I could be wrong)
?
We can tolerate no more than 10 milliseconds or so of delay or failure to respond.? ?Can a single core Linux raspberry provide that response more than 95% of the time?
?
We have another piece of evidence.
?
Erik (and at least one other) have already taken the revised code, which not only has fantastic interrupt-driven response to the paddle, but crucially ALSO has sped-up polling to DO SOMETHING in response to the detected changed state of the paddle --- and with this sped-up polling (20X sped up) -- they uniformly report that it "works".? ? ?In fact, they were quite positive about its acceptability.
?
So this would suggest that the bottleneck is NOT the uncontrollable operating system overhead, but is instead the every-20th-tic response pointed to time and time again by Mike Johnshoy and others.? ??
?
This is quite testable.? ? The number of ticks that go by, before anything is DONE in response to a noted change in state of the paddles, can be set to any number between 0 and 20 and users can report whether they consider the code "useable"? ? We already have two datapoints:
?
@20 tick polling:? ?we have multiple reports it is considered UN-useable
@? 1 tick polling:? ?we have at least two reports that it is considered "GOOD"
?
So wouldn't it seem reasonable that the operating system is NOT the bottleneck, and that the code itself IS the problem here?? ?We are not talking difficult code.? ?It is only a line or two of changes.? ?I made the change in my own 32-bit version in moments and my sBitx Version 2's immediately worked "useably" - in fact, excellently.? ? I don't have a zbitx on which to try, but many many others do.? ? I'm unclear why this research hasn't been furthered to allow understanding of exactly what is needed for an excellent product.
?
73,
?
Gordon KX4Z
?
?
Re: Fixed: cw latency and wsjtx/flidigi sidetone

 

Ron, thanks for taking the time to write such a nice explanation!
I guess the real question is "what is the distribution of delays caused by operating system housekeeping operations on a single core processor?"
?
I posit that in order to be considered "acceptable" a CW product must be able to send every single dot or dash, and more than HALF of each dot.? ?Without any studies to prove it, I suspect that most CW operators (copying in their own head) will be able to tolerate an "dot" that is shortened by less than "half" of its normal time unit.? ?But MISSING a dot is unforgiveable because it changes the code symbol to either nonsense or incorrect.
?
Apparently the length of a "dot" at 24wpm is on the order of 28 milliseconds (I looked that up, so I could be wrong)
?
We can tolerate no more than 10 milliseconds or so of delay or failure to respond.? ?Can a single core Linux raspberry provide that response more than 95% of the time?
?
We have another piece of evidence.
?
Erik (and at least one other) have already taken the revised code, which not only has fantastic interrupt-driven response to the paddle, but crucially ALSO has sped-up polling to DO SOMETHING in response to the detected changed state of the paddle --- and with this sped-up polling (20X sped up) -- they uniformly report that it "works".? ? ?In fact, they were quite positive about its acceptability.
?
So this would suggest that the bottleneck is NOT the uncontrollable operating system overhead, but is instead the every-20th-tic response pointed to time and time again by Mike Johnshoy and others.? ??
?
This is quite testable.? ? The number of ticks that go by, before anything is DONE in response to a noted change in state of the paddles, can be set to any number between 0 and 20 and users can report whether they consider the code "useable"? ? We already have two datapoints:
?
@20 tick polling:? ?we have multiple reports it is considered UN-useable
@? 1 tick polling:? ?we have at least two reports that it is considered "GOOD"
?
So wouldn't it seem reasonable that the operating system is NOT the bottleneck, and that the code itself IS the problem here?? ?We are not talking difficult code.? ?It is only a line or two of changes.? ?I made the change in my own 32-bit version in moments and my sBitx Version 2's immediately worked "useably" - in fact, excellently.? ? I don't have a zbitx on which to try, but many many others do.? ? I'm unclear why this research hasn't been furthered to allow understanding of exactly what is needed for an excellent product.
?
73,
?
Gordon KX4Z
?
?
181 - 200 of 115890