On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:46:38 -0700
"John" <vk2eta@...> wrote:

1. From Ashar's perspective, it is important to provide a unit that
is attractive to the whole range of users from appliance users to
experimenters, and the current software does, in my opinion, fall
short in some areas: functionally as you said it needs upgrading and
from a kit builder's perspective I believe it should have more basic
built-in diagnostics.

It is simple enough for appliance users, even advanced ones, to load
the CEC software. It is *not* simple for inexperienced users to modify
the CEC software if it is the base load.

2. From the new experimenter's perspective I am convinced that it
would be much easier if I wanted to add say an SWR function to change
a one line define statement and connect the described hardware that
having to get into the intricacies of even the current factory
software to implement the code.

It might be easier until the software no longer fits in the memory
space of the nano.

3. For the more savvy experimenter the beauty of the conditional
compile is that by following the ifdef enclosed blocks I can
immediately get to the core of the code in question and can if I so
desire modify it.

For the more savvy experimenter it is easy to download and compile more
advanced software and transfer it to the nano.

As far a regression testing it has to be taken in context: a] the
rate of release is not like in a daily software release so how often
do they expect to have to perform it, probably once only and b] It is
not mission critical and c] There is help at hand here.?

Ian's already had seven releases in less than a year with, apparently,
more to come.

Now as to a comparison with a commercial rig I don't think that is
the point since my FT-817 does *not* have a built-in tuner, a low
battery alarm, a digital VOX or the option to plug a handsfree ear
piece as a microphone to name a few. It does have a lot of other
features I don't care about and that are clogging the user interface
from my perspective.?

One of the thrills of kit building is the possibility to customize it
as per your own needs.

73, John (VK2ETA)

How does a newby customize complicated software when it is just a
struggle to work through Jack's basic book on programming for the
arduino?

tim ab0wr

As a noob coder I will *not* be trying to add features to Ian's
software. It's just too difficult to try and allow for all the various
combinations of conditional compiles that are being suggested in order
for the software to fit into the memory space of a nano.

If and when the "stock" software for the ubitx becomes Ian's software
then a lot of experimenters are just going to put the ubitx away
because it will become too hard to make modifications that work in
all circumstances.

For myself, I've already decided to move to the w2ctx software. It is
straightforward enough for even my limited coding skills to make
changes. And I won't have to worry about some combination of conditional
compiles breaking *my* code.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:18:13 -0700
"Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke@...> wrote:

Perhaps you could send this out for bid with Boeing and/or Lockheed.
?;-)

Demanding regression testing of various convenience factors for us to
hack the stock firmware of a $109 radio seems a bit over the top.
All I ask is that the stock firmware be usable.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:54 am, Tim Gorman wrote:

In complicated software like Ian's regression testing is a
requirement.

But this is supposed to be an experimental base for those just learning
how to code and how the software works!

It's not just a base for "competent coders".

That was part of my whole point. If you limit the base to only
"competent coders" then you limit the base to which this radio will
appeal.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:41:46 -0500
"K9HZ" <bill@...> wrote:

Made up scenarios dont really do this thought train justice as any
competent coder would then include the CW code when the Tune feature
is defined in the code. QED.


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ
PJ2/K9HZ
Owner - Operator
Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC
Staunton, Illinois

Owner – Operator
Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ
Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.
Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com

email: bill@...

On Tue, 15 May 2018 20:18:02 +0000 (UTC)
"Jack Purdum via Groups.Io" <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

Tim:

With the same amount of respect, I was not talking about coding style
as in brace placement. I was referring to good standard C coding
practices. In your example, if you want a TUNE feature and know that
it needs a CW feature that has been turned off, it's your problem to
make a non-standard change.

How do I know if they have turned off the CW feature or not? The only
thing I could do that would work under any software load would be to
duplicate the needed code in my module - i.e. program space bloat.

The conditional compiles would state the
impact: "If you turn this off, all CW features are turned off". Since
your example assumes you don't want CW features, but you do want a
TUNE feature, perhaps your solution is to figure out how to use the
Tone library to send a constant note through the transmitter chain
when the TUNE feature is needed. Perhaps you can bypass the CW
demands with some alternative approach. But again, your demands are
non-standard (not the conditional compile where CW is either ON/OFF),
so the ball's in your court to solve.

Sending a tone through on SSB is not the same as using CW. It might
work for some uses but not for all.

My demand is not "non-standard". My demand is to have a common set of
functionality that can be used by anyone and that is not dependent on
conditional compiles.

Where you state:

??? If they add my functionality what's the first thing they are
going to see happen? It won't work. Who then gets to ????figure out
why and then who gets to fix it?

That answer's simple: You do. If you added your functionality and
stated it will work without the CW features compiled into the code
and it doesn't work, clearly there's a bug in your software. The key
there is "...they added my functionality...". If that means they used
your code and it fails, I think they rightly can expect you to tell
them where they went wrong. If they modified your code, that now
becomes their problem.

In other words I have to do regression testing to make sure my software
will work with all combinations of conditional compiles.

Also, I think you're overstating the regression testing demands.
True, they may be a bit wearisome, but they are not difficult.

And every time the CEC software has a functionality set up for
conditional compile then the regression testing must be done anew. That
is more than wearisome. It soon becomes an impediment for experimenters
to offer changes.

Again,
if someone wants to modify the stock software, it's up to them to
make the changes. Well-designed conditional compiles are either ON or
OFF, even with multiple options only one option should be active and
the end of the preprocessor pass. The user can always revert to the
stock software if they can't get it to meet their special needs. My
guess is that you will see the same evolution for the stock software
that you saw here: Users will supply code for non-standard
enhancements, like your TUNE feature.

Jack, W8TEE

Ian's software, at least the way John modified it, has multiple options
that can be active or inactive in many different combinations, not just
one.

When you multiple compile options then what is the "standard" software?
All options on? All options off?

tim ab0wr

For what it's worth, I did post a while back, but here's my MPSH10 PA driver strip again.??

The stock sweep is on my uBITX but lifting the caps into the PA FET's and measuring there. Not ideal Z wise. But ok for comparison I think.

You can see the dramatic lift at the top end using MPSH10's and 220pF bypasses, which covers 6M now.?? Note Freq scale is different on each plot.

The MPSH10 plot was done on the PCB as shown, a copy of the uBITX except for the MPSH10's and 220pF on emitters.

Would be nice if others can do similar tests to confirm.

glenn
vk3pe

Hello Gary,

It's not necessary to send money yet.?

Don has completed some testing and we found a small number of problems, the largest one being the batch of surplus 2N7002 parts I have are not good enough quality, so more are on order.....should be easy to fix. Engineers being Engineers and not wanting to leave well enough alone.... we have come up with some improvements and a much better mounting technique for the AGC board.?The AGC had 1 missing wire (gotcha) and the diode footprints need to be larger. Don also mentioned how the Click board is connected to the uBITX board and attachment would be much more robust if two more parts (C50 and C63) were moved to the Click board.? ?

The net is that I have more coffee cup coasters and will recycle the order......small delay but we ship no wine until it's time.

73 Kees K5BCQ

I would like to order one of each kit.
AL? VE3RRD

With "Lead #5" do you mean the #5 as marked on the encoder as shown in the diaram??or is it pin #6 on the raduino (red wire 3rd from the right ?

When I disconnected the connector and measured pin #6 on the Raduino to ground I have no voltage.

Kees,
I would like to order 2 each of the AGC and Click Mini-kits.? So from your estimated PayPal price listing that would be $10.
I'm sending you a check via USPS, to reserve mine and help on your initial cash outlay, as this must be adding up quickly.? No rush to full-fill. If I missed the boat, OK.? No worries.
If it ends up costing you more, another check or PayPal can make up the? difference.
Thank You for all the effort and work to support this!??

Regards,
Gary
AG5TX

Any advice for me?

Tim,

I doubt Ashhar will adopt Ian's code as what ships with new units unless Ashhar is confident it works well, that he fully understands it, and that he can fix any minor bugs that come up if Ian gets waylaid by other interests and commitments.?
So not an issue.

You seem to be mistaking this for a project consisting of a few million lines of code.
If that were the case, then you have a point.




Of course, it is possible to write code of less than a few million lines that is perhaps opaque to some.? Here's another example of the same ilk as pointed to in post 49174
? ??

This is very very cool and well worth discussing in spite of being off the current topic, which arguably is not.? ? From the description at?
? ?

OCR - Obfuscated Character Recognition of Handwritten Text

==========================================================

This entry takes a BMP image file of hand-drawn (mouse-drawn?) text, specified as the first command-line parameter, and converts it to an ASCII text document. Magic!

and

- Newcomers to C find it hard to learn all those different ways to control flow: for, while, if, do, goto, continue, break and heaven knows what else! So, in this program we only use for, so absolute beginners can get into the code straight away.
- To teach newcomers all the important features of C, we demonstrate the importance of the liberal use of short circuits, sequence points, the ternary operator, using x^y or x-y instead of x!=y, using ~x in place of x!=-1 for conciseness, mixing x[y] and y[x] for variety, educational #define's, and so on.
- main is the most useful function in all of C - so it is a mystery to the author why most programs use it only once. Here we use it over and over for maximum benefit.

Excellent!
Maybe I should've?posted this to that other thread regarding programming style?
Folks would't give me such grief after seeing what some real code looks like. ;-)
?
Jerry,? KE7ER

It might be that the SDR has some noise blanking or filtering. And I tend to set the receive bandwidth around 2500 HZ.?

With both the uBITX and the SDR I hear the noise floor on 80M but the SDR is able to separate the signal from the noise with more clarity and volume than the uBITX; making it easier to understand what the person transmitting is saying. I've switched back and forth with two antennas I use, the result is the same. ?

Because the uBIX seems to have the needed sensitivity and the designed filter bandwidth choice is good, handling last little bit of noise blanking and bandpass adjustment with active audio filtering (analog or a digital approach) may be the way to go. Outboard active filters used to be very popular before the receivers in transceivers became so much better over time.?

Tom, wb6b

开云体育

I could not get a good picture but I was able to see TDA2822M. ?Is that the bad guy?

I'm not confusing anything. The issue at hand is software, not
hardware.

Ashar has included software that is simple, basic, and which works. The
trouble shooting was done before it was issued. That is a form of
support, putting out something that works.

But you do bring up a good point that was asked earlier by someone else
and was never answered. If Ian's software becomes the standard and
Ashar makes a hardware change is he going to have to wait for Ian to
update his software before implementing the hardware change in
production? Does Ian become a supplier for Ashar? Albeit a software
provider rather than a hardware supplier?

Lot's of implications in that and not just for Ashar. If someone
creates a peripheral that communicates with the Radiuno over I2C are
they going to have to wait for Ian to include it in his code before
others can use it? With the current standard load there is lots of
program space to handle the needed code. That's not the case with Ian's
code.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:59:49 -0500
"K9HZ" <bill@...> wrote:

I think you are confusing the concepts of “beta testing” and
“support”. Clearly this group is the support for the firmware.


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ
PJ2/K9HZ
Owner - Operator
Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC
Staunton, Illinois

Owner – Operator
Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ
Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.
Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com

email: bill@...

On May 15, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Tim Gorman <tgorman2@...> wrote:

Ashar *does* support the software he provides. Significant testing
was done before it was used as the standard load. While it does
have some problems it *does* work, it *is* usable as provided. And
it provides a stable base upon which to build.

When was the last time someone reported a problem with the standard
software that prevents it from working correctly?

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 00:59:58 -0500
"K9HZ" <bill@...> wrote:

Support? You think the uBITx is supported?

This is right off the HFSignals webside as indicates the limit of
support: " This program is distributed in the hope that it will be
useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty
of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." And..." If
you are interested or building any of the HF Signals’ kits, you can
join the BITX20 group by visiting /g/bitx20.
That’s the only support we provide. The level of collective
wisdom and experience on the Forum is enough to sort out almost
any technical problem or question you may have. You will also meet
some really great builders on the Forum."

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

Owner - Operator
Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC
Staunton, Illinois

Owner – Operator
Villa Grand Piton – J68HZ
Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.
Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com
Like us on Facebook!

Moderator – North American QRO Group at Groups.IO.

email: bill@...

where is this new code..I can download it and reverse engineer it to create some useful documentation for the beginner..You'll go crazy trying to learn from the source code.
Brian K9WIS

---- Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:

=============
This is only loosely related to the question regarding what should be the
standard
uBITX Arduino software system, but it might be interesting to some.





Arv K7HKL
_._

开云体育

I stole this picture from atouk a few posts ago.? Can you find the part circled in red and tell us exactly what is printed on it or post a picture?? It may or may not be in a socket.



--