¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. BITX20
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

William Cullison
 

A socket for the nano would help a lot.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Gary Anderson <gary.ag5tx@...> wrote:
The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.? But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. ??$10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.? This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.? One one hand, I want all the features.? One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost.?
?
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX
Re: Upgrade the software to Allard's version #radiuno #bitx40help #nano

 

Thanks Raj
it's the first thing I did! I checked all the connections!
By turning the VFO, the QRM increases on some frequencies but no QSO is heard. But stopping on one of these frequencies, if you remove the antenna the QRM should go to zero but instead it does not change anything! it's as if the antenna is not connected! I checked the antenna line up to the first transistor, passing through the relays and the frequency coils and everything is OK! See the attached diagram! I checked the one marked in yellow!
Thank you
Sergio

schema_bitx40.jpg

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

 

Lee:? Thanks for the microphone suggestion. Snagged it from a web site as a raster image.? Converted it to match the wire-up diagram.

If you find anything else in error, please advise.

73, Bob W4RJP

uBITX_wireup V1.8.pdf
uBITX_wireup V1.8.pdf

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

KB2HSH
 

I have been using my uBITX exclusively on CW for the last couple weeks. After getting used to the idiosyncrasies of the radio, and using KD8CEC v 1.061, it's actually quite a CAPABLE CW rig. Whether its making SKCC group contacts, working Special Event stations (got the Titanic SE in one call), or general rag-chewing, the uBITX is a great radio.

KB2HSH
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

 

Brady

The uBITx is never going to be a serious CW contest rig, but I imagine you are not expecting that.

I only operate CW, never more than 20W. Having installed the KD8KEC v1.061 firmware to deal with keying issues, and when combined with a good audio filter, I am very happy operating CW with the uBITx. I am straight key only so it would be good to hear from some paddle-key operators. I use a W3NQN passive LC audio CW filter built from a kit many years ago and sadly not available at present, but there are now many analogue and digital filter options out there to try. I am about to try the SOTAbeams Laserbeam digital audio filter, which comes with great reviews.

When I first assembled my uBITx I reported to my local club that it wasn't a viable CW rig. However, I now enjoy CW operating with my upgraded uBITx, especially as I've been able to customise the software. Last weekend I spent some time working CW in the YU and MM DX contests on the 40m and 20m bands (with my NorCal Doublet antenna). Whilst 47 contacts from on-off operating over the 2 days doesn't break any records, I had an enjoyable time hunting them down when I did go on the air. Significantly, I don't think I'd have done any better with my TenTec 579 (a nice very analog CW rig) running QRP and I much prefer operating the uBITx rather than my YouKits EK-1B or IC-703 QRP rigs because of the customisation I've been able to achieve.

The great strength of the uBITx is that provides a really good basis for experimentation and development, as well as operation, at a bargain price and I'm finding it is a real education when allied to all the support you can get from this Group. It is a true ham's rig and is fine for CW, with an audio filter, once the stock firmware has been upgraded. I am also very happy that I've had an introduction to programming the Arduino, something I'd been thinking about for years but had never taken the step.

Hope this helps.

73 Chris
G3SQU
Re: show your mic

 

Arv, I'm not using the carbon button,? "The original carbon element was bad so I put in a electret mic and MAX9812 module board"? See the picture of the button holder.
Re: show your mic

 

In continuation, i suppose that except salvaged ones , we may not be able to get carbon mics now a days.

Regards
MVS Sarma
?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Mvs Sarma <mvssarma@...> wrote:
Simple . It works with a DC bias and resistance variation of carbon granules packed in a mic? convey the speech content.
?Only diffiernce is that the bandwidth would be much less as against electret or dynamic mics.
regards
sarma
?vu3zmv

Regards
MVS Sarma
?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.? It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.? who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output.?

Arv? K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.? It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.? Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.? Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.




Re: show your mic

 

Simple . It works with a DC bias and resistance variation of carbon granules packed in a mic? convey the speech content.
?Only diffiernce is that the bandwidth would be much less as against electret or dynamic mics.
regards
sarma
?vu3zmv

Regards
MVS Sarma
?

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.? It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.? who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output.?

Arv? K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.? It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.? Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.? Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.



Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Robert Weiman
 

The one big difference in this application between the Raspberry Pi and a micro-controller like the Teensy and the Arduinos is how much overhead the OS imposes.? Linux is a full blown consumer OS and is not a real-time OS.? It can impose non-deterministic delays on how long it takes to respond to an interrupt / toggle an I/O pin / etc.? On most of the hobby micro-controllers, there is significantly less overhead imposed by minimal, almost not really an OS, provided by the Arduino build environment.? Personally, I will add a PI to my uBitx build, but it won't be replacing the micro-controller in the Raduino - more augmenting the system by providing higher level software and interfaces (Digital modes, etc).??


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:50 PM Gary Anderson <gary.ag5tx@...> wrote:
The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.? But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. ??$10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.? This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.? One one hand, I want all the features.? One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost.?
?
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX
Re: show your mic

 

Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.? It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.? who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output.?

Arv? K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.? It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.? Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.? Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.


Re: #ubitx SSM2167 mic compressor speaker feedback issue - resolved #ubitx

 

Hello Alan, yes I have added a little 4 pin molex connector for D7 (T/R), the two I2C bus lines and +5V for my 2nd Arduino.

All the best,

73, John
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

All true.?

As for impairments¡­blindness is, paradoxically, no big deal and also not for wimps :-) And ham radio has been great in a lot of respects, including in travel to other states and other countries. It kept my sanity when in Ukraine for five weeks adopting my daughter in 2004, when we were literally locked in because the adoption guy had no idea what else to do with us. The KX1 was a great travel companion back then, though obviously not a lot of great contacts with just a wire tossed out a 6th story apartment and another counterpoise lying across the floor. Still helped with not climbing the walls.?

Getting hf station back on the air, after not being very active for theist couple years, so maybe will see you on the bands sometime. Am about 90% cw, usually with a straight key or bug.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

?man, my hat is off? to you getting ANYTHING done with such impediments!? ?More power to you!!!!

If there isn't any statc---there's not much propagation either!!!

Gordon


From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent:?Monday, April 23, 2018 12:22 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes.?

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I¡¯m interested in trying some kit building myself¡­it¡¯s one aspect I feel like I¡¯ve missed out on¡­especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still¡­being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish.?

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

?I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!? ?to run a headset.? ?I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.? ??

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon

??
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent:?Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?

In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation??
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM?
Poor Reception

Jeff Davis
 

Poor reception... My receiver was one of the first to ship. I have made no modifications to it. The vfo seems to be about 2800 Hz off. My Drake 2B receives a signals
with one foot of wire attached to the antenna . At the same time, I have 35 feet of wire attached to the uBitx, and listening to the same signal, it is difficult to hear
on the uBitx. I swapped it out with another uBitx transceiver, and it was not much better. I swapped the nano board and no difference on either except the receive frequency was different.
The 2800 Hz was not enough to put it out of the band-pass filter... I should not think a software upgrade would make any difference... or would it.

Jeff ve3coj
Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

 

The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.? But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. ??$10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.? This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.? One one hand, I want all the features.? One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost.?
?
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Jack Purdum
 

Buddy:

There are some very interesting filters available in software where you can not only set the "center" frequency, but also the edges where the skirt "knees" are located. When I'm listening to code, I dial 'er down pretty tight as I find listening to the Big Bang during a CW session distracting rather than soothing. It all a matter of choice.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 12:22:30 PM EDT, Buddy Brannan <buddy@...> wrote:


Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes.?

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I¡¯m interested in trying some kit building myself¡­it¡¯s one aspect I feel like I¡¯ve missed out on¡­especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still¡­being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish.?

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

?I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!? ?to run a headset.? ?I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.? ??

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon

?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent:?Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?

In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation??
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM?
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Gordon Gibby
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

?man, my hat is off? to you getting ANYTHING done with such impediments!? ?More power to you!!!!


If there isn't any statc---there's not much propagation either!!!


Gordon



From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes.?

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I¡¯m interested in trying some kit building myself¡­it¡¯s one aspect I feel like I¡¯ve missed out on¡­especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still¡­being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish.?

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

?I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!? ?to run a headset.? ?I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.? ??

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon

?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent:?Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?

In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation??
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM?
Re: show your mic

 

The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.? It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.? Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.? Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes.?

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I¡¯m interested in trying some kit building myself¡­it¡¯s one aspect I feel like I¡¯ve missed out on¡­especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still¡­being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish.?

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

?I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!? ?to run a headset.? ?I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.? ??

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon

?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent:?Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To:?[email protected]
Subject:?Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?

In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation??
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM?
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

 

The uBitx works well enough as a CW rig out of the box if you have clean enough key contacts.

Here's an old post regarding possible enhancements:
? ??/g/BITX20/message/36947

The stock uBitx firmware uses an ADC channel to listen to a straight key and two keyer paddle contacts
all over one wire, distinguishing between the three by a resistor network that gives each a different voltage.
That's been a bit problematic if the key or paddle has any dirt on the contacts, I'd recommend upgrading
the Raduino firmware to something else.? The firmware could use the PTT digital pin when in CW mode
as a straight key input.



On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:04 am, Buddy Brannan wrote:
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?
?
In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?
?
Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?
?
Vy 73, de KB5ELV
?
Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Gordon Gibby
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

?I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.


A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!? ?to run a headset.? ?I may even still have the thing.


Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.? ??


Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!


Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!


gordon


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
?
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-)?

In all seriousness, Gordon¡¯s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it¡¯s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they¡¯re pretty good¡­or can be¡­and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio.?

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won¡¯t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I¡¯m sure what you will get will be pretty decent¡­especially given how popular the rig seems to be.?

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation?
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM

69261 - 69280 of 116150