The only ADC needed would be for S-meter. Tune by mouse (dragging across beneath waterfall like websdr.com) or scroll-wheel, or keyboard to dialog box. Mono audio, so one channel of a USB dongle could serve - what say?
73 ...

There already is a 2nd platform: Jack¡¯s Arduino Mega 2560 Mini based board. It does use an AD9850 instead of the Si5351, so using it as BFO would not be an option. But maybe the two platforms can cross-pollinate each other and we get something better on both sides.?

_._,_._,_

---

Thanks for all the great suggestions. Looks like I have the Etherkit library version 2.01 so I updated to 2.10. This makes a noticeable improvement to around 2.5ms but I can't duplicate Don's results of 735us. I don't understand how our results could vary so widely. Could it be frequency dependent? I am switching back and forth between 7.030Mhz and 11.946Mhz.

So then I followed one of Jerry's (KE7ER) suggestions and modified my sketch to use his?si5351bx code. That was really easy to do and?si5351bx_setfreq()?took about 2ms to execute. Not bad - at 30WPM that is about 5% of the morse element length.?

Here is an ADDED BONUS.... I think Jerry wrote that code to save code space and wow did it ever. Using his code instead of the Si5351 library cut my code size from 22.4K (72%) down to 12.4K (40%). That is awesome! Thank you Jerry!! Even if I eventually decide to use two outputs for this I will stay with the si5351bx code for the code size reduction.
73, Jerry, W0PWE

Hi all, i am trying to upload the raduino_v1.27.ino to my raduino via the web Arduino Editor.

it just stays uploading with a message that says 'Executing command: exit status 1'. the raduino yellow LED light continues to flicker.

does it take a long time to upload the software?
thx,
Paul

I received and unpacked my bitx40 this evening, and included was a surface-mount capacitor inside a hand-cut segment of tape, which seems to match the packing list for "16. 1 x 0.1uf smd capacitor". There is also a non-SMT capacitor marked "104 AEC" (so also 0.1uf) but not included on the packing list.

I assume they're both for US spurious signal suppression and I can use whichever one is easier to solder onto the board, or am I missing something?

Thanks,
John

?

?

If i remember correctly, the ?€?A?€? and the ?€?B?€? prefix designates if it is a linear taper or a logarithmic taper.? You should be able to google which is which.


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ


?Snip.......

On Nov 9, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Ben Piecora <piecorab@...> wrote:

Hello Everybody, just wondering is the 10K pot that has the switch on it a regular, 10K pot or is it special because it says "A10K" on it and all the pots I have in the parts bin say "B10K" would that work or no? I was thinking of putting a different pot with a different shaft on it and having a seperate power switch.

--
Ben
KD2NOU

Hello Everybody, just wondering is the 10K pot that has the switch on it a regular, 10K pot or is it special because it says "A10K" on it and all the pots I have in the parts bin say "B10K" would that work or no? I was thinking of putting a different pot with a different shaft on it and having a seperate power switch.

--

Ben

KD2NOU

Thanks for all the suggestions around expanding the number of ports and processor capacity.

I already have a port expander (8 bit) in one of my BITX, but this is not going to solve the problem of SRAM and program space.? It really only exacerbates the problem!

There are lot of different views, as anticipated, around alternative processors. Some would prefer to stay with Arduino compatibility, others are happy to move to another platform (Teensy or Raspberry Pi, etc). There are advantages and disadvantages of each option.? To my mind a particular disadvantage of moving to the Pi is that this requires some familiarity with Linux and the addition of monitor, keyboard and mouse (unless you use remote control type software and control the pi from a laptop as suggested by Doug KD9CYF). However, I agree it is an attractive option for other reasons (e.g. remote radio control).

This got me thinking about the principles involved with modding the BITX40.? I agree with Allard's approach to date in retaining backwards compatibility.

To my mind this means retaining the existing Raduino intact and the mods that Allard's software supports. There is a way to have the best of both worlds:? backwards compatibility and the option to add an additional processor. The answer may lie in using the existing communication channel for other devices (I2C is already used to control the Si5351). However, it can also be used to communicate between two processors.? e.g. See for a simple example.

Another Aduino Nano or a Mega Mini costs no more than a port expander, and has more ports!? This appeals to me as it also increases processing capability.

The existing sketch could be modified to transfer out key data relating to hardware controls (PTT Sense, CW key down, etc.) whenever another slave processor was detected, and allow the slave to disable some functions (to my mind I would be particularly interested in disabling control of the Si5351 and the potentiometer on the Master).? It would also need to allow the passing in of data from the slave processor for display of information on the screen, and accept changes to parameters that are tied to board control (e.g. CW mode parameters).

This would provide an open platform then for whatever processor people wanted to add to their Raduino/Bitx.

What do you all think??? I would be particularly interested in Allard's thoughts on this, as he "owns" the current software that most of us are using.? I would be reluctant to fork it when it is still being actively developed!

73 de Mike ZL1AXG

On 8/11/17 11:34 AM, David wrote:

What about using a multiplexer chip to reduce the number of I/O lines needed. A bit old school but effective.

Sent from my iPhone

--
Mike Woods
mhwoods@...