¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. BITX20
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.

 

There seems to be many amplifiers on ebay that put out about 70 watts for around $ 25 to $ 50.? Those are just circuit boards with parts mounted or kits. No filtering that you would have to add and a TX/RX switch and box to put it in. Going much about 10 watts would seem to knock it out of the portable weight limit .? I was talking with some friends on 80 meters this morning and using the 16 watts I get out (after the transistor mods) to drive a Drake L4B amp to somewhat over 150 watts out and getting good reports.

I am glad this rig is on the market as is.? Gives me a chance to make some modifications and my main goal is to use it with some transverters that need about 5 to 15 watts of drive depending on which one I use.

I am not much for designing things, but do enjoy playing around with others ideas.

de KU4PT


On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...> wrote:
One possible solution for those that want power....
Whats funny is I have built many QRP radios, I mean something over 10 of them all SSB.
Generally if the 3-5W didn't do it then 100 might have.? At one point I decided an amp
was a solution so I built it and it works well, though rarely use it.? Why, I find I make
contacts at?lower power and when I cannot 100W isn't enough.??

One thing building an amp that works and doesn't fry everytime you look at it is on face trivial.
At the same time its about as non trivial as one can get.? A good amp is a mechanical project
as you are managing heat and sometimes much more than guessed.

The next possible increment up is not 20W:
If your inclined look in the files area of this forum under KB1GMX, there are two files called
HF-use-Fet 1 and 2.? Its fairly simple and if built well its a solid amp.? Pay attention to the
mechanical build.? Its a 1-2 watts in for more than 40-50 out amp for all HF using two IRF510s.
I didn't design it but I can say that if you build it soldering and mechanical construction has
to be 100% and there are the tribal tricks not written up that need to be known.? An aside if
you cannot cut aluminum pieces and drill and tap holes your already on the short side?
skills required.? ?To farm out machine shop work is expensive even in bulk.

The path to 100W is not cheap:
_._,_
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

Vince Vielhaber
 

On 05/16/2018 10:55 AM, Tim Gorman wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2018 23:05:16 -0400
"Vince Vielhaber" <vev@...> wrote:

The radio doesn't come with a cd containing
the source code. You have to go download it. If you don't, you
can't modify it 'cuze you have nothing to modify. So download the
code you want to modify. You're the only one needlessly complicating
it.
So what? What do you download to modify when it is no longer workable
because of changes to the hardware? If I order another ubitx a year
from now and it is based on hew hardware and a tremendously complicated
standard software load then what good does the old, simple software do
me?

What good will it do a high school sophomore with his new ham
license trying to learn programming by forcing him to work with the
most complicated software instead of the simplest software?
When the hardware changes, it'll be something else. Think back to the B40. The only hardware changes were the ones the users made and until v2.0 of Allard's firmware, the original never changed. It wouldn't have mattered what was shipped with the radio, the hardware was/is the same - still... even today. When the hardware finally did change it wasn't a BitX40, it was a uBitx and came with a new Raduino and the B40 remained with all of that same old firmware still working.

Now I'm pretty much done with this conversation. You seem to be arguing just to argue and I have better things to do.

Vince.
--
Michigan VHF Corp.

Re: uBitx

 

I purchased the NJM2037 from Mouser. It's worked fine for me.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:01:23 -0700
"Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke@...> wrote:

Mouser sells the NJM2073D, I'd recommend that.
? ??513-NJM2073D, costs about $1, plus another $5 for shipping .

Or could get the UTC TDA2822 on Tayda, that looks second tier to me
judging from the looks of their datasheet.
The NTE7155 should also just drop in, not many are selling it.

Any of the three is a better bet than the WX clones.
The WX can simply fail if the supply voltage exceeds 8 volts or so,
or it might work fine at our 12v.? Luck of the draw (and whether it
was cut from the center of the wafer or the edge, that's my guess).

Here's a few suggestions to make the Mouser shipping charge
worthwhile: 283-200-RC? ? 200 ohm 3W resistors, put 4 in parallel for
a dummy load A BNC connector for the antenna, as the one in the kit
is not ideal. Some spare IRF510's?? 2n3904's?? RF gain pot?
?Cabinet?? Parts for a schottky diode RF probe?? Knobs?? Polyswitch
or fuse???

Jerry
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

Other options for Tim is to document his code and place it on the reflector "files" section. Users that want to use it can fetch the source and include it in their code.

Or Tim you can post your whole sketch like Ian and I do so people can load your sketch and
try it.

rOn

On May 16, 2018 at 11:36 AM Vince Vielhaber <vev@...> wrote:




On 05/16/2018 10:28 AM, Tim Gorman wrote:
Jack,


This makes no sense. If it's a
body of code that supports conditional compiles, whomever is
compiling the code can turn features on or off. There's a "stock"
body of code that is what HF Signals will ship. If it does support
toggling features in and out of that body of code via conditional
compiles, what the hell does John Doe have to do with your software
needs? If you are saying that John Doe wants your features AND
features you turned off, that's his problem, not yours or HF Signals.
Huh? If John Doe wants to use my software then it is *his* conditional
compile that is in question, not my software.

I AM NOT TURNING OFF ANYTHING! I need to be able to transmit a CW
signal. That leaves two options available. Either I use the existing CW
transmit functionality -- WHICH THE USER CAN TURN OFF -- or I duplicate
it in my software.

If I am also going to use my software in a fixed functionality
environment then I'll need to write two versions. Something I do *not*
want to do.
If your software depends on the CW code getting compiled in, then it's
your responsibility to test for, or make sure it's compiled in.

#ifdef TIMSCODE
# ifndef CODETIMDEPENDSON
# warning "You turned off something I need"
# else
TIMS CODE GOES HERE
...
# endif
#endif

If you want the compile to stop right there instead of just throwing the
warning, change #warning to #error

Vince.
--
Michigan VHF Corp.



Re: Digital communications with a USB sound card - dumb mistake #ubitx

Bo Barry
 

Nice, thanks for the input. ?

Since I'm only doing CW and the more modern digital modes I'll just leave the PTT line off and use CAT control.

Bo W4GHV?
Re: uBitx Opto Coupler / VFO not working #ubitx-help #ubitx

 

Red should be positive +5v while the yellow should be ground. I suspect
you had your voltmeter leads backwards. It's a good indication that you
have 5v however.

Does your multimeter have a resistance scale? Can you measure the
resistance across the encoder pins 4 and 5 with the encoder pushed in?
It should read Zero ohms.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 19:53:01 -0700
"kj6etl" <pa1zz@...> wrote:

Update I measured between the red and yellow wire on the arduino a
NEGATIVE -5Volts
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

Vince Vielhaber
 

On 05/16/2018 10:28 AM, Tim Gorman wrote:
Jack,


This makes no sense. If it's a
body of code that supports conditional compiles, whomever is
compiling the code can turn features on or off. There's a "stock"
body of code that is what HF Signals will ship. If it does support
toggling features in and out of that body of code via conditional
compiles, what the hell does John Doe have to do with your software
needs? If you are saying that John Doe wants your features AND
features you turned off, that's his problem, not yours or HF Signals.
Huh? If John Doe wants to use my software then it is *his* conditional
compile that is in question, not my software.

I AM NOT TURNING OFF ANYTHING! I need to be able to transmit a CW
signal. That leaves two options available. Either I use the existing CW
transmit functionality -- WHICH THE USER CAN TURN OFF -- or I duplicate
it in my software.

If I am also going to use my software in a fixed functionality
environment then I'll need to write two versions. Something I do *not*
want to do.
If your software depends on the CW code getting compiled in, then it's your responsibility to test for, or make sure it's compiled in.

#ifdef TIMSCODE
# ifndef CODETIMDEPENDSON
# warning "You turned off something I need"
# else
TIMS CODE GOES HERE
...
# endif
#endif

If you want the compile to stop right there instead of just throwing the warning, change #warning to #error

Vince.
--
Michigan VHF Corp.

Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

My last post as this is beaten to death already......


1. Keep base software.


2. Fix tuning - add freq increments or make accelerated tuning work.


3. Remove the resistor network kludge on the cw line and use the spare Analog pin.

??? More discussion has been on getting the voltages correct. So eliminate the whole

??? mess for the new buyers.


rOn

On May 16, 2018 at 11:16 AM Tim Gorman wrote:


Well said.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 23:31:17 -0400
"atouk" wrote:
The supplied software only needs to be enough for the new ham to put
the uBITX together, change basic functions and settings, plug in a
mic or key, and make a first contact. The current stock firmware
does that. Could it be improved? Maybe. But it's a STARTING point.
I'd wager a very small percentage of users will have the experience
to even know what else he/she may need. How many would even know
what CAT control is, and why they may need it? That's where the
aftermarket developers come in.

Once they get their feet wet and understand the landscape, then they
can decide which flavor of upgraded firmware to install. And either
pre-built, or roll your own from source.

The current software is just fine. The upgrade choices are nice with
lots of added features, but the shipped version should be geared
towards the beginner. Ashhar's version does that. It's his project,
and ultimately, he's going to be responsible for the support.

However, of Ashhar feels it's prudent to give the various third party
developers some space on the site to promote their various version,
even better.

Complexity confuses and scares beginners. Let them get a few
contacts before adding to the chaos.


Henry Forte
N2VFL


Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#49388): /g/BITX20/message/49388
View All Messages In Topic (148): /g/BITX20/topic/19183012
Mute This Topic: /mt/19183012/141851
New Topic: /g/BITX20/post
-=-=-
The original BITX
BITX40 by HFSignals
uBITX by HFSignals
BITX Store by Sunil
BITX Web Site of Mike ZL1AXG
/g/BITX20/wiki/home Wiki
-=-=-
Change Your Subscription: /g/BITX20/editsub/141851
Group Home: /g/BITX20
Contact Group Owner: [email protected]
Terms of Service: /static/tos
Unsubscribe:
/g/BITX20/leave/defanged<hr style="height: 0; border: 0; border-top: 1px solid #aaa; margin: 8px 0;">
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.

 

One possible solution for those that want power....
Whats funny is I have built many QRP radios, I mean something over 10 of them all SSB.
Generally if the 3-5W didn't do it then 100 might have.? At one point I decided an amp
was a solution so I built it and it works well, though rarely use it.? Why, I find I make
contacts at?lower power and when I cannot 100W isn't enough.??

One thing building an amp that works and doesn't fry everytime you look at it is on face trivial.
At the same time its about as non trivial as one can get.? A good amp is a mechanical project
as you are managing heat and sometimes much more than guessed.

The next possible increment up is not 20W:
If your inclined look in the files area of this forum under KB1GMX, there are two files called
HF-use-Fet 1 and 2.? Its fairly simple and if built well its a solid amp.? Pay attention to the
mechanical build.? Its a 1-2 watts in for more than 40-50 out amp for all HF using two IRF510s.
I didn't design it but I can say that if you build it soldering and mechanical construction has
to be 100% and there are the tribal tricks not written up that need to be known.? An aside if
you cannot cut aluminum pieces and drill and tap holes your already on the short side?
skills required.? ?To farm out machine shop work is expensive even in bulk.

The path to 100W is not cheap:
The better transistors path.? RD16HHF 4.75$ each from RF parts.? Its a 12V 20W device and
K5BCQ has gotten as much as can be done with those(20W near flat from 160 to 6).? The
next step up?is RF70HHF or 2SC2879 both types you need a pair (about 60$us) and do
about 100W and after all the other parts and materials expect to spend about 150$ or
more plus all the mechanical work required.? A pair of tubes can do this easy and then?
your looking for 900V power supply and high voltage components with the safety? risks.

My suggestion, likely the less expensive route:
Build a better antenna.? Less expensive and you will hear stations better.? Use a full size
dipole at least a half wave length high (or higher) for example 20M for the 40M band.? ?A
wire beam for 20M?can be a considerable equalizer.? A bit of wood, wire and rope.? I happen
to like the VE7CA tribander (20/15/10M).? ?A wire beam for 40m is not out of the question,
the group I hang with does both of those for field day.


Allison
Re: Core for Output Transformer

 

I have made the modifications using the RD16HHF1 devices and the BN43-202 core.? I did not see what? type of wire to use. I used some # 24 solid wire with a plastic like coating on it.? Getting? about 17 watts out at 3.8 MHz and 7 watts out at 29 MHz in the CW mode with 13.8 volts, but that seems to drop to? 13 volts due to the loss of an inline fuse and power connector when transmitting.

The only other small wire I have around is some # 26 enamel covered and some # 24 Cat 5 cable I could strip for wire.??

Would I get better output if I changed to either of those wires, and if so , which one.?



On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:36 AM, K9HZ <bill@...> wrote:

Well as I look at the characteristic curve of the RD16HHF1 in the datasheet, 650mW is right at the lower edge to make full power¡­? What that means is that if the PA with transformer is designed right, it should put out about 25 watts on 10 meters.

?

?

Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ

?
Re: Core for Output Transformer

 

In my simulation I was driving the gates from a 50 ohm source through a 1-to-1 transformer.
? ??/g/BITX20/files/KE7ER/WA2EBYandUBITX.pdf

As I recall, the voltage across the 50 ohm source resistance was half of the RF voltage source when?
simulating at 7mhz, suggesting the IRF510's plus the two 47 ohm resistors were presenting a load
of around 50 ohms to the transformer.? The voltage and current were in phase going thorough
that source resistance.? ?The two 47 ohm resistors should present a 94 ohm load to the transformer,
so perhaps the gates were presenting an additional 50 ohms or so??

At 30mhz, the load presented to the transformer was more like 12 ohms, but curiously enough
the voltage and current through the source resistance were still in phase.
I assume the change is due mostly to the miller capacitance of the FET's, though I find it
puzzling there wasn't a significant phase shift between voltage and current at the 50 ohm source.resistance.

Bill is correct, at 30mhz the IRF510's need more drive than some of the other parts when operating at 30mhz.
Raising the supply voltage to the IRF510's will increase power on the lower bands, but not so much at 30mhz
were we are limited by the power available from the $0.03 2n3904's used as drivers.
Allison's suggestion of replacing the 2n3904's seems a good path, with that and some combination of
the C's and L's suggested here recently to smooth out the power vs frequency curve,?
we may get?a final that performs more or less evenly from 3.5-30mhz.

Be aware, this is not my strong suit, I am not much good at getting RF amps to behave.
And I did that simulation several months ago, some of the details may have gotten mushy?
at the edges since then.? Others may see errors in what I report above.?

Jerry, KE7ER


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:01 pm, Glenn wrote:
Jerry, does does that IRF impedance compare to the gate loading resistors? I assume the gate loading is dominant?
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

Well said.

tim ab0wr

On Tue, 15 May 2018 23:31:17 -0400
"atouk" <atouk@...> wrote:

The supplied software only needs to be enough for the new ham to put
the uBITX together, change basic functions and settings, plug in a
mic or key, and make a first contact.? The current stock firmware
does that. Could it be improved?? Maybe.? But it's a STARTING point.
I'd wager a very small percentage of users will have the experience
to even know what else he/she may need.? How many would even know
what CAT control is, and why they may need it?? That's where the
aftermarket developers come in.

Once they get their feet wet and understand the landscape, then they
can decide which flavor of upgraded firmware to install.? And either
pre-built, or roll your own from source.

The current software is just fine.? The upgrade choices are nice with
lots of added features, but the shipped version should be geared
towards the beginner.? Ashhar's version does that.? It's his project,
and ultimately, he's going to be responsible for the support.

However, of Ashhar feels it's prudent to give the various third party
developers some space on the site to promote their various version,
even better.

Complexity confuses and scares beginners.? Let them get a few
contacts before adding to the chaos.


Henry Forte
N2VFL
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

On Tue, 15 May 2018 22:07:50 -0500
"K9HZ" <bill@...> wrote:

Again Support? You think the uBITx is supported?
Really? So you think Ashhar will put out a ubitx in the future with
enhanced circuitry AND NO ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE TO USE IT?

You have a funny idea of what support actually is. That would be like
selling a new Ford without the computer installed! Let the buyer figure
out what computer to buy and how to install it and tune it!

tim ab0wr
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

On Wed, 16 May 2018 01:14:34 -0400
"D. Daniel McGlothin KB3MUN" <kb3mun@...> wrote:



No, I don't care whose software you choose to extend.? Or whether you
write your own from scratch.
Then why did you say: "As to the "CW support for TUNE" issue being
discussed, in circumstances like this, I would simply make the
conditonal compilation guides make the dependency clear--so no real
bother at all:"

How will this make my software work with other software that doesn't
have conditional compiles?


It doesn't matter to me, or even to you, as once one chooses to
change the uBITX software, whatever is factory loaded is erased and
over-written by your selected software modified by whatever changes
you choose to make to that selected software.
Then you are not understanding the fact that you either have to take
into consideration *all* possibilities that can be generated from
software with conditional compiles in order to keep your modifications
workable in all cases or you have to duplicate all needed functionality
in your own software.

If the standard load becomes a load that is full of conditional
compiles and is so complicated that it is difficult to even add a menu
item then it *does* matter what the factor load is.






This seems to be the point that others are making for you too. You do
not have to base your software modifications on any particular source
of software.
Sure I do. If I have to take conditional compiles into consideration
for one particular source but I don't have to take conditional compiles
into consideration in a different source then I *have* been forced to
base my software of the particular source I choose to modify.


? Once you make the decision to make the uBITX software
load different from the factory load, you accept all responsibility
for what you load into your radio, even if you choose to load an
unmodified software build from anyone, even if that is a copy of the
source code for the factory loaded firmware.
But if I am trying to make a useful contribution to the community at
large then I want to minimize the number of different options I have to
code for.


So use those software systems you know (and approve) of as the basis
for your changes.? You make the changes; you support the changes you
make to the software that you load to your radio.
That's what I'm going to do. But if I only code for my own use and
everyone else does the same then how does the community at large
progress?

In any case, I'll be happy to assist with software questions (from a
30+ year programming perspective), should you wish.? But I've no need
to argue for a viewpoint you reject.

Daniel KB3MUN
The only viewpoint that I reject is that the ubitx should become a
retail offering where you have to be at least a coder of intermediate
capability to play with the software.

For once the simple software load is abandoned its upkeep *will* be
abandoned as well. That's just how things work.

tim ab0wr
Re: uBitx Opto Coupler / VFO not working #ubitx-help #ubitx

 

KJ6ETL

Interesting that you measured a negative voltage on the red and yellow wires.?
There is no negative voltage supplied to the Raduino board.? Did you have the
voltmeter connected backwards??

Arv? K7HKL
_._


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, kj6etl <pa1zz@...> wrote:
Update I measured between the red and yellow wire on the arduino a NEGATIVE -5Volts


Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X

 

Yes, Nick, that's the spot....between where you have your HPF and the relays. Nice short leads for the RF. I'll upload the new board later today. You would plug it in with components towards C210 and could install the 1"x1" board with components down, board parallel to the uBITX board, and over R43.? It also provides points to be wired over to a RF Gain potentiometer.

73 Kees K5BCQ
Re: A friendly suggestion for Farhan.

 

The uBITX, like all the BITX and BITX-clone transceivers is first and foremost a QRP rig.?
Others have already mentioned its use as a learning platform, and the number of contacts
they have made with it.?

Working QRP is part of the challenge.? While it is easy to make contacts with most 50W to
2KW (and above) rigs, the real challenge of good operating technique and knowledgeable
use of propagation lies in use of no more power than is really necessary to get the job done.
This is what separates the QRO operators who rely on brute force from the QRP operators
who rely on skill, technique, and sometimes a bit of luck.

Complaints about a particular transceiver have more validity if the complainant actually owns
and uses the particular equipment.? If you don't own one, then what are you complaining about?

Arv? K7HKL
_._


On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:34 PM, John Smith via Groups.Io <johnlinux77@...> wrote:
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.


Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

On Tue, 15 May 2018 23:05:16 -0400
"Vince Vielhaber" <vev@...> wrote:


Why not just load it yourself then? You'll have to reload it after
you modify it regardless of what was originally on it.
Because I want a working unit to be delivered that is based on software
I can build on without becoming a professional programmer.


Not by any stretch of the imagination. The more limited code is
still available and you have to download it anyway, once again,
regardless of what was originally on it.
Once Ashhar moves to a new standard load how long will the old standard
be maintained by Ashhar. Especially if added hardware functionality
comes out? Or does the old standard software just gradually become
unworkable?

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. You're trying to prevent a more
useful version of the firmware for your own selfish reasons. I'm
just trying to figure out why.
Because if I started out trying to figure out Ian's software as a
beginning programmer I'm not sure I would have bothered. Jack seems to
think that the goal of everyone should be to become a professional
programmer like Ian and himself if they want to experiment with the
ubitx software. Many of us just want to be able to use the software as a
facilitator along the path. Beginning mountain climbers don't start out
climbing Mt. Everest.

If the goal is to make the standard the most comprehensive, complicated
software possible then count me out of further experimentation. I'll
just take what I have, put it in the go box, and use it when the need
arises.


If you're going to modify the software anyway then it doesn't matter
what's originally on it.
Of course it matters. If the standard keeps getting more and more
complicated then it *certainly* matters to beginners.

The radio doesn't come with a cd containing
the source code. You have to go download it. If you don't, you
can't modify it 'cuze you have nothing to modify. So download the
code you want to modify. You're the only one needlessly complicating
it.
So what? What do you download to modify when it is no longer workable
because of changes to the hardware? If I order another ubitx a year
from now and it is based on hew hardware and a tremendously complicated
standard software load then what good does the old, simple software do
me?

What good will it do a high school sophomore with his new ham
license trying to learn programming by forcing him to work with the
most complicated software instead of the simplest software?

tim ab0wr
Re: Should we adopt the KD8CEC firmware?

 

Tim,

When you say
That leaves two options available.
below, you create a "false dilemma" ( ).

There are at least THREE (3) options, a third has already been suggested that will address your concern.

Again, should you wish help with programming, ask.? I expect I'll not be replying further to this argument.

Daniel KB3MUN



On 5/16/2018 10:28, Tim Gorman wrote:
Jack,


This makes no sense. If it's a
body of code that supports conditional compiles, whomever is
compiling the code can turn features on or off. There's a "stock"
body of code that is what HF Signals will ship. If it does support
toggling features in and out of that body of code via conditional
compiles, what the hell does John Doe have to do with your software
needs? If you are saying that John Doe wants your features AND
features you turned off, that's his problem, not yours or HF Signals.
Huh? If John Doe wants to use my software then it is *his* conditional
compile that is in question, not my software.

I AM NOT TURNING OFF ANYTHING! I need to be able to transmit a CW
signal. That leaves two options available. Either I use the existing CW
transmit functionality -- WHICH THE USER CAN TURN OFF -- or I duplicate
it in my software.

If I am also going to use my software in a fixed functionality
environment then I'll need to write two versions. Something I do *not*
want to do.

I
never said anything about "future software additions". In reality, I
know that the Nano will never be able to do all that I want the ?BITX
to do, so I did something about it. Al and I built a board with 1Mb
of flash, 256K of SRAM, 4K of EEPROM, a 180MHz clock, and over 50 I/O
lines. That's my "crapshoot" because I knew neither the standard nor
Ian's code would even come close to what I have in mind. Sounds to me
like you should be doing the same thing. Look for a new processor
that suits your needs and start coding for it if the current code
doesn't do what you want and conditional compiles won't help. Once
again, since your goals fall outside the current (pending??)
solution, it is your problem.
I don't need a new processor. I need a software load with fixed
functionality so I don't have to duplicate everything I might need.

You are admitting that Ian's software is pushing the limits of the nano
requiring some features to be excluded in order to fit the memory space
but are advocating for it to become the standard software load?

Does that mean you think Ashhar should move to a different processor as
well? Does that mean that all those that have purchased the current
model will have to buy a new processor and daughter-board if they want
to keep up with future developments?
Re: ND6T AGC implementation for uBIT-X

 

I took it to mean w"I"re means a single wire, w"O"re means to use coax.?

73 Kees K5BCQ
67761 - 67780 of 116935