Re: The issues of the TDA2822

#44205

With all due respect sir, I eventually would like to purchase this kit as soon as I finish my disability claim in a month or so. This seems like a pretty serious issue. I am sure you didn't plan on parts failing but simply pointing out is only a percentage of your total production run isn't a solution.?

Overall from all the posts I read this kit is great. However I suspect you realized when shipping the boards with bad audio amps that it was an issue. If the original part was less than a dollar, you can easily raise the price by .50$ to 1$ us to cover the cost of putting a good part in.?

Thats just my .02$

kf4ftr

Chris?

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

#44204

Allard,

I don't think I agree with you. PBT and "clariier" are two different
things. 

A "clarifer" or incremental tuning control is only useful for tuning an
off-frequency signal. The BFO must be at the suppressed carrier
frequency for proper detection of a SSB signal. If you deviate from that
frequency then the detected audio becomes distorted, the old "donald
duck" sound spoken of by the old-timers. One of my first
ham-band receivers was an old RME-4350, 1950's vintage. It had a "BFO"
control which was really useful on SSB because in a round-table not all
transmitters could be set to the exact same frequency - resolution of
1kc was pretty good! The BFO could be used to tune everyone in properly,
in essence it was what is today called an "receiver incremental tuning"
control.

Passband tuning (or IF Shift) does not impact the relationship of the
BFO to the suppressed carrier at all. You could do the IF Shift by
changing CLK1 in order to shift where the signal impacts the 12Mhz
passband of the SSB filter but CLK0 would still have to maintain the
same relationship to CLK2 in order to demodulate the signal properly.

tim ab0wr

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:09:24 +0100
"Allard PE1NWL" <pe1nwl@...> wrote:

Jerry,

I believe it works in a similar way as the PBT (or "clarifier")
function in the  Raduino v2 software for Bitx40.

It allows the user to slightly shift the BFO frequency from the
frontpanel (only during RX of course).
It's not IF shift in its true sense, but the behaviour is quite
similar. I have the impression that not many BitX40 builders actually
installed this mod, which has always surprised me as I personally
find it a very useful feature.

73 Allard PE1NWL

On Sun, March 11, 2018 00:52, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io wrote:
OK, so IF-Shift is just a BFO offset (relative to the crystal filter
passband)??
that is for receive only, the transmit BFO offset generally stays
put. Makes sense.

I went off into the weeds there because Gerald's original query
stated that
??In LSB I can adjust the received sound with the IF-Shift with a
very pleasing effect, but this does not work the same with USB.Sounded like there was something more going on.
But could be just that the code didn't quite handle the USB case
correctly.

Yes, eventually I'll move on to try some of the newer software.
But for now have my hands full with other projects.

Jerry????

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:49 pm, Mike Woods wrote:


Most commercial rigs have an IF Shift or Passband Tuning (PBT)
control.??
This control can help with removal of QRM on receive ( e.g.by (
 ) eliminating a strong carrier or another station on
the edge
of the passband by shifting the passband up or down by a few 100
Hz. It can also compensate for a poorly adjusted frequency
response on a signal that is being received (too bassy or too
trebly).? ??
Ian?€?s software implements just such a control.?? It functions in
a similar
manner to the BFO calibration routine, in fact, but unlike the
calibration
function, it should only operate on RX. This was the bug - it
didn?€?t turn
off on TX.?? I checked on my uBITx and found the same problem here.
??
If you haven?€?t tried the KD8CEC firmware you should.?? It has a
number of
other worthwhile software features!
??

Re: Endian issues...final chapter

#44203

I agree with Jack.
There are many cases where ASCII protocols are just too cumbersome.?

Show quoted text

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:58 am, Jack Purdum wrote:

Binary versus ASCII protocols simply hangs a second tool on your belt. You need to decide which best solves your design problem.

LCD screen protector

#44202

Hi all,

Thought I'd mention what I did to protect the LCD screen from getting scratched. I bought a screen protector for an iPad (or any other device would work) and cut it to fit. Just clean the surface well before applying.

Jeff
AD6RH

Re: ubitx mount question regarding lcd display and bezel

#44201

Hi Tom, Not sure what bezel you have from the many that Digikey offers. My guess is that you are more interested in mounting the LCD without any visible fasteners. I know that some have mounted the display using only the pins into the main board for support and found that to be sufficient. That method does require careful positioning of the board and I see yours is already in place. Looking at your layout I think you could make some brackets which would be held in place by the tuning encoder,jacks, and volume control and hold the display from behind avoiding any thru holes in the front panel. Brackets could also be attached to the bottom panel to do the same thing. Of course you could get another bezel big enough to cover the thru front panel fasteners but it is always rewarding to figure out how to use what you already have.

GL and looking forward to seeing your solution.

73 Willy

Show quoted text

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Bert N8NN <bertgarcia73@...> wrote:

Tom -- Very nice tuning knob!? Can you provide the part number and source?

Thanks, Bert N8NN

Scan_20180311.jpg

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

#44200

Good catch.
My excuse for last night was it was too late.
Now it's too early.

The original (and incorrect) formulas from post 44182 was this:
? ? For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? For LSB, it's? ?VFO+(clk1-BFO)?

The correct formulas are the duplicated ones that you spotted:
? ? ?For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? ?For LSB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1+BFO)?

Thanks,
Jerry, KE7ER

Show quoted text

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:57 am, Rod Self wrote:

Jerry,

?Huh? The formula correction at the bottom seems to be
no-change.? Is that what you meant?

Rod KM6SN

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

#44199

Yes, the tone of the CW signal should not change if IF-Shift (and/or BFO-Adjust,
whatever you want to call it) is implemented correctly by changing both?
the BFO and the VFO as mentioned in post 44182.

The original uBitx code implemented BFO-Adjust by only moving the BFO,
so the CW tone did change, and SSB speech becomes unnatural/unintelligible.
I have no idea what the various new versions of the code do these days.

Moving clk1 as somebody suggested a few posts back won't work,
we must adjust the 12mhz BFO (equal to the incoming suppressed carrier)
relative to the 12mhz filter passband.
?
Jerry, KE7ER

Show quoted text

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:37 am, Tim Gorman wrote:

If you are listening to a CW signal then moving the IF Shift doesn't
change the tone of the CW signal at all. You are just moving the
passband. That can change the sound of a SSB signal because you are
removing some of the received audio along with the interfering signal.
Just like cutting the highs or lows with a treble/bass tone control.

Re: Endian issues...final chapter

Jack Purdum

#44198

Totally agree when moving data between internet users. The downside is that binary 255 takes one byte but ASCII takes three bytes to push down a com link. If you are doing something computationally intensive, like moving FFT data to an SDR spectrum display, minimizing data transfer time can make a large performance difference. As Hans Summers (designer of the super-cool QCX transceiver from QRP Labs) pointed out, the endian issue must be handled even when writing to EEPROM on the same machine. You could store numeric data in EEPROM as ASCII, but then you need to pass through atoi() going into EEPROM and itoa() coming out. Clearly, Hans is storing his EEPROM data in binary.

CAT protocols like the one Ian Lee has worked on use an ASCII data transfer and it makes it so much easier to debug when something goes south. Even then, however, when commands can be as short as 10 bytes, someone reported a noticeable delay in response time. If you're only tool is a hammer, it should be no surprise that every problem looks like a nail. Binary versus ASCII protocols simply hangs a second tool on your belt. You need to decide which best solves your design problem.

Jack, W8TEE

Show quoted text

From: Ashhar Farhan <farhanbox@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Endian issues...final chapter

ietf solved this by insisting that internet protocos SHOULD be in plain text. it makes debuggera out our eyeballs and prevents testing of friendships.

On 11 Mar 2018 12:27 am, "Michael Hagen" <motdog@...> wrote:

If Push comes to Stack, who wins Big Injun or Little Injun?

On 3/10/2018 10:48 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io wrote:

We agree that? "Endianness is a problem when a binary file created on a computer is read on another computer with different endianness."

Where we seem to disagree is that I am convinced this code will always prints a value of "4"
regardless of whether the machine is big or little endian:

? long data32;? ? int? data8;

? data32 = 0x04030201;

? data8 = data32>>24;

? printf("%d \n", data8);

From this, we can create the endian agnostic code at the top of post 44018.??
Arv is correct, this is not something most of you need to worry about.
I'm totally done here.
Unless you want to talk about Gulliver's Travels.

Jerry

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 08:42 am, Jack Purdum wrote:

?? Endianness is a problem when a binary file created on a computer is read on another computer with different endianness.

?
-- 
Mike Hagen, WA6ISP
10917 Bryant Street
Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
(909) 918-0058
PayPal ID  "MotDog@..."
Mike@...

Virus-free.

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

Rod Self

#44197

开云体育

Jerry,

?Huh? The formula correction at the bottom seems to be
no-change.? Is that what you meant?

Rod KM6SN

On 03/11/2018 07:43 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io wrote:

Show quoted text

It was getting late when I pressed send, a couple minor errors crept in:

>? The 12mhz filter is passing audio between roughly 500 and 2500 hz in its upper sideband,
>? so the 12mhz filter is probably centered around 11996500 + (500+2500)/2 = 1199800 hz.
>
>? With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that upper sideband in the 45mhz filter
>? would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
>? With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that lower sideband in the 45mhz filter
>? would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

When I say "upper sideband in the 45mhz filter", I'm talking about the upper sideband
of the original signal.? ?Should rewrite those last few lines with a few more words:

? With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that sideband within the 45mhz filter
? (now below the carrier due to sideband inversion from the high side VFO)
? would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
? With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that sideband within the 45mhz filter
? (now above the carrier due to sideband inversion from the high side VFO)
? would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

And I flipped the arithmetic at the wrong spot in these formulas:

>? The display shows the frequency of the suppressed carrier, always easy enough to compute:
>? ? ? For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
>? ? ? For LSB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1+BFO)?

Those two formulas should read:
?
? ? ?For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? ?For LSB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1+BFO)?

Jerry, KE7ER

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:36 pm, Jerry Gaffke wrote:

I think Gerald's complaint about USB sounding different than LSB winds up being due to
a USB signal going through the 45mhz filter a few khz away from where an LSB signal does.?
Gerald was using Ian's code which I have not yet looked over.
I assume Ian borrowed numbers from the original uBitx code.
Here's my argument:

The original uBitx code has the BFO at
? ??#define INIT_USB_FREQ? ?(11996500l)
and uses these frequencies for clk1:
? ??#define SECOND_OSC_USB (56995000l)
? ??#define SECOND_OSC_LSB (32995000l)

The 12mhz filter is passing audio between roughly 500 and 2500 hz in its upper sideband,
so the 12mhz filter is probably centered around 11996500 + (500+2500)/2 = 1199800 hz.

With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that upper sideband in the 45mhz filter
would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that lower sideband in the 45mhz filter
would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

That's a 4khz difference in where the center of the sideband of interest got placed
within?the 45mhz crystal filter passband.?

Assuming the the 45mhz crystal filter is truly centered at 44.995mhz as the notes in the code suggest,
then I figure that values of 56993000 hz and 32997000 hz should be optimal for clk1.

If the 45mhz crystal filter sweeps out to be somewhere else, then add the difference to those two figures.
For example, if the center is found to be at 44.997mhz (so 2khz higher) then the two figures for clk1
should be 56995000 hz and 32999000 hz.

Regarding Tim's writup:

> When you are talking about adjusting the BFO I assume you are talking about adjusting CLK1.

No, we are talking about adjusting the BFO.
When adjusting the BFO, we should move the VFO to get us back to the displayed frequency.
The display shows the frequency of the suppressed carrier, always easy enough to compute:
? ? For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? For LSB, it's? ?VFO+(clk1-BFO)?
where VFO is clk2, and BFO is clk0.

RIT allows a different VFO setting on receive than transmit.
This IF-Shift thing apparently allows a different BFO setting (with attendant VFO correction)?on receive than transmit.

So IF-Shift will change what part of the sideband the 12mhz filter will capture (and thus capture a different range of audio frequencies)?
but does not change the frequency of the suppressed carrier that we are tuned to.

CW is a bit different, but easy enough.

Jerry, KE7ER?

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

#44196

It was getting late when I pressed send, a couple minor errors crept in:

>? The 12mhz filter is passing audio between roughly 500 and 2500 hz in its upper sideband,
>? so the 12mhz filter is probably centered around 11996500 + (500+2500)/2 = 1199800 hz.
>
>? With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that upper sideband in the 45mhz filter
>? would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
>? With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that lower sideband in the 45mhz filter
>? would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

When I say "upper sideband in the 45mhz filter", I'm talking about the upper sideband
of the original signal.? ?Should rewrite those last few lines with a few more words:

? With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that sideband within the 45mhz filter
? (now below the carrier due to sideband inversion from the high side VFO)
? would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
? With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that sideband within the 45mhz filter
? (now above the carrier due to sideband inversion from the high side VFO)
? would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

And I flipped the arithmetic at the wrong spot in these formulas:

>? The display shows the frequency of the suppressed carrier, always easy enough to compute:
>? ? ? For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
>? ? ? For LSB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1+BFO)?

Those two formulas should read:
?
? ? ?For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? ?For LSB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1+BFO)?

Jerry, KE7ER

Show quoted text

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:36 pm, Jerry Gaffke wrote:

I think Gerald's complaint about USB sounding different than LSB winds up being due to
a USB signal going through the 45mhz filter a few khz away from where an LSB signal does.?
Gerald was using Ian's code which I have not yet looked over.
I assume Ian borrowed numbers from the original uBitx code.
Here's my argument:

The original uBitx code has the BFO at
? ??#define INIT_USB_FREQ? ?(11996500l)
and uses these frequencies for clk1:
? ??#define SECOND_OSC_USB (56995000l)
? ??#define SECOND_OSC_LSB (32995000l)

The 12mhz filter is passing audio between roughly 500 and 2500 hz in its upper sideband,
so the 12mhz filter is probably centered around 11996500 + (500+2500)/2 = 1199800 hz.

With a clk1 for USB of 56995000 hz, the center of that upper sideband in the 45mhz filter
would be 56995000-11998000 = 44997000 hz
With clk1 for LSB of 32995000 hz, the center of that lower sideband in the 45mhz filter
would be 32995000+11998000 = 44993000 hz.

That's a 4khz difference in where the center of the sideband of interest got placed
within?the 45mhz crystal filter passband.?

Assuming the the 45mhz crystal filter is truly centered at 44.995mhz as the notes in the code suggest,
then I figure that values of 56993000 hz and 32997000 hz should be optimal for clk1.

If the 45mhz crystal filter sweeps out to be somewhere else, then add the difference to those two figures.
For example, if the center is found to be at 44.997mhz (so 2khz higher) then the two figures for clk1
should be 56995000 hz and 32999000 hz.

Regarding Tim's writup:

> When you are talking about adjusting the BFO I assume you are talking about adjusting CLK1.

No, we are talking about adjusting the BFO.
When adjusting the BFO, we should move the VFO to get us back to the displayed frequency.
The display shows the frequency of the suppressed carrier, always easy enough to compute:
? ? For USB, it's? ?VFO-(clk1-BFO)
? ? For LSB, it's? ?VFO+(clk1-BFO)?
where VFO is clk2, and BFO is clk0.

RIT allows a different VFO setting on receive than transmit.
This IF-Shift thing apparently allows a different BFO setting (with attendant VFO correction)?on receive than transmit.

So IF-Shift will change what part of the sideband the 12mhz filter will capture (and thus capture a different range of audio frequencies)?
but does not change the frequency of the suppressed carrier that we are tuned to.

CW is a bit different, but easy enough.

Jerry, KE7ER?

Re: #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc. #ubitx

#44195

Vince,

If you are listening to a CW signal then moving the IF Shift doesn't
change the tone of the CW signal at all. You are just moving the
passband. That can change the sound of a SSB signal because you are
removing some of the received audio along with the interfering signal.
Just like cutting the highs or lows with a treble/bass tone control. 

tim ab0wr

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:07:17 -0500
"Vince Vielhaber" <vev@...> wrote:

IF Shift is supposed to shift the signal thru the passband without 
changing the frequency.  So if you're listening to 3930 and there are 
signals on 3928 (it happens daily) at the same time, you can use the
IF Shift to move the signals on 3928 out of the passband.  If affects
the sound of the desired signal like a tone control but that's a side
effect of the action.

Vince.



On 03/10/2018 09:02 PM, Ronald Pfeiffer via Groups.Io wrote:
Yes I was confused a while back when Ian announced his IF shift.
The code looked just like our RIT.  Our RIT displays the freq on
bottom line and the line above displays the plus/minus offset as
you move the encoder.

rOn



------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:24 PM
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #uBITX Firmware KD8CEC - IF-Shift etc.

I wonder if we need to define some terms here. Passband tuning and
IF Shift typically move the *filter*, not the carrier. The carrier
will remained tuned to the same frequency when adjusting this. For
instance, if you use IF Shift when listening to a CW signal the
tone of the CW signal should not change. You can move the filter
bandwidth up or down to eliminate an interfering carrier that is
close to the desired frequency.

What you are describing is more like an Incremental Tuning, e.g.
RIT or XIT. When you move the BFO you move the carrier frequency,
not the filter bandwidth.

Ideally the BFO would be set to replicate the suppressed carrier
frequency. The filter then determines what is heard.

The ubitx uses a 12Mhz crystal filter. I don't know its bandwidth or
what the actual absolute frequencies are. I haven't had a chance to
run a spectrum analyzer against mine. Let's assume it has a 2400hz
bandwidth and goes from 12,000,300hz to 12,002,700hz.

If you want to listen to a signal at 10Mhz then CLK2 should be
tuned to 55Mhz to generate the 45Mhz signal the first IF needs.

CLK1 should then be set to generate a 12Mhz signal, i.e. 33Mhz. For
an USB signal we should then see frequencies of 12Mhz to 12.003Mhz
(or whatever the transmitted bandwidth is, e.g. 0-3000hz). You will
then see frequencies of 12.0003Mhz to 12.0027Mhz out of the filter.

This is how an ideal receiver would work.

When you are talking about adjusting the BFO I assume you are
talking about adjusting CLK1. If you adjust CLK1 to move the actual
suppressed carrier frequency somewhere else in the filter bandwidth
then your frequency indication is going to be off. What should be a
10Mhz signal is going to look like something else.

This will cause an asymmetric USB and LSB response and frequency
indication.

If you want to change the BFO frequency on the fly then it should be
understood as being an incremental tuning so you can remember what
the base frequency should be.

Now each filter is probably going to have a different actual
physical, absolute bandpass. The BFO will have to be adjusted to
allow for this but the frequency indication needs to be adjusted as
well to match. It should be a fixed reference, not a variable one.

Your transmitted frequency has to be offset from the CW-tone if it
is to be zero beat with the received signal. If it isn't then
you'll never be zero beat. I'm assuming that the CWL and CWU
frequencies are indicating a frequency CW-tone away from the actual
transmitting frequency. That may be because your receive BFO
frequency isn't set to indicate actual carrier frequency.

I didn't mean for this to get so complicated but it isn't an easy
subject.

tim ab0wr


On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:08:55 +0100
"ge_clipboard" <clipboard@... <mailto:clipboard@...>>
wrote: 
Hi All

Many thanks for all the response concerning the BFO adjustement and
about using the IF-shift. I have been playing around with the BFO
setting while monitoring myself on another transceiver but as I’m
not getting there where I really would like to, I returned to the
factory settings. Leastening to the transmitted LSB and USB on
another transceiver was never symetric, maybe the steps to set the
bfo are not fine enough to do this or I am making something wrong.

Yes, the IF-shift is often a very helpfull feature within crowded
bands and as Mike pointed out, it is also nice to be able to adjust
the sound of a ssb signal on receive. So, if this could be
corrected in the software would be very fine.

Another point I’ve noticed today while using CW, dx-cluster and CAT
to jump to a anounced station... When the CWL-, CWU-feature is
enabled, then the frequency is not spot on but offset by the amount
of the CW-Tone.

Nevertheless, this little rig is a joy to play with, especially
with all the added features by Ian‘s software.

Vy 73, Gerald - HB9CEY
 



  

Re: Board won’t power up.

#44194

Ooops! the last couple of mails was men=ant to be private!

Show quoted text

At 11-03-18, you wrote:
Send me a photo preferably by whatsapp, email will take more response time.

Re: Board won’t power up.

#44193

Send me a photo preferably by whatsapp, email will take more response time.

Show quoted text

At 11-03-18, you wrote:
I have checked twice that the sacrificial diode is installed correctly.

Re: Board won’t power up.

#44192

Bruce,

Check the voltages with your -ve probe on the mother board. In case there is a ground fault in P1 or wire!

Raj

Show quoted text

At 11-03-18, you wrote:
I think my microBitx main board may be defective. When powered up (without the raduino attached), according to the wiring instructions, it only draws 60-80 micro amps, rather than 90-110 mA the instructions specify. I have checked twice that the sacrificial diode is installed correctly. 

Any ideas how to proceed?

Thanks,

Bruce W1BWA

Re: Final implemented version of audio fix

#44191

My ubitx is still in production but I like your idea.

I wonder if the supply voltage could be limited with a resistor maybe a pot. At high power it would limit the voltage more also giving it a quasi AGC.?

Re: ubitx mount question regarding lcd display and bezel

#44190

Tom -- Very nice tuning knob!? Can you provide the part number and source?

Thanks, Bert N8NN

Re: [uBiTx] last frequency memory?

#44189

I have the same problem.Mine defaults at 7.350.

Re: Board won’t power up.

#44188

Bruce,

Check on the uBitx board if you get the 12V power. Start first just below the power jack  P1.
Sometimes these wires are crimped well and may not be making contact.

It is almost impossible to see uA unless something drastic wrong with P1 or your measurement! This has happened before.

Raj

Show quoted text

At 11-03-18, you wrote:
I think my microBitx main board may be defective. When powered up (without the raduino attached), according to the wiring instructions, it only draws 60-80 micro amps, rather than 90-110 mA the instructions specify. I have checked twice that the sacrificial diode is installed correctly. 

Any ideas how to proceed?

Thanks,

Bruce W1BWA

Board won’t power up.

#44187

I think my microBitx main board may be defective. When powered up (without the raduino attached), according to the wiring instructions, it only draws 60-80 micro amps, rather than 90-110 mA the instructions specify. I have checked twice that the sacrificial diode is installed correctly.?

Any ideas how to proceed?

Thanks,

Bruce W1BWA

Re: uBITX Firmware CEC Version Added WSPR function, I am looking for a beta tester. #ubitx

#44186

Hello Ian.

Is the WSPR frequency calculator in uBITX manager working correctly. Or is the uBITX transmitting on the wrong side band ?.
I would like test the update when you have done it.

Philip G7JUR