|
I have to admit I really don't like using ft8, had tried it 3 years ago had taken it off my computer. In a previous installation I had put on an easydigi card? but for my current uBITX didn't have an easydigi card.
I used what Ashhar has described on this forum. Two 1/8" stereo patch cords, going to the sound card of the computer and a usb cable to the Arduino.?
One cable went from the headphone output to the mic of the sound card. The other runs from the mic jack of the ubitx to the headphone jack of the sound card. No need for any interface cards.
I started with the gains turned down and gradually brought them up. Success!
Used a usb sound card as the built in unit doesn't work, My radio is a v3 with a 3.5" touch screen display?
--
73
Dave
|
When we do the "Ashar Interface Method (AIM)", we are using a sound card, it's on the motherboard. Many of us use AIM and it works perfectly!? When the audio jacks on my tired computer broke (thanks kids!), I had to use an external USB $7.99 sound dongle just to gain working i/o audio jacks. And then I thought, hey, why not put the dongle in the radio -- then I have just the usb audio cable to mess with vice two audio cables.?
Brilliant I thought!? Ignoring the complications of mounting it, shortening the audio cables, plumbing the usb cable, etc etc etc.?
With FT8, I gained confidence that my beloved uBITX, and the coax, ATU, antenna, balun, and chokes ALL actually worked on both TX and RX, on a bunch of bands!
It was a miracle! Hahah?
But after the initial euphoria, it seemed a bit dull and repetitive.
I'll still use it for checkouts, but as a communications medium -- it is the wrong tool.?
|
Don in your quote:? ¡°I'll still use it for checkouts, but as a communications medium -- it is the wrong tool. ¡° Which one are you referring to the sound card or FT8?
73,
|
Does anyone consider FT8 a useful mode to exchange any information beyond callsign, grid square, and signal strength? Ken, N2VIP
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 5, 2021, at 09:43, Skip Davis via groups.io <skipnc9o@...> wrote:
? Don in your quote:? ¡°I'll still use it for checkouts, but as a communications medium -- it is the wrong tool. ¡° Which one are you referring to the sound card or FT8?
73,
|
Well, it's a good way to check out propagation conditions and, as Don said, to verify that your rig is working.
73....???? Mark?? AA7TA
|
You might check out JS8call: ? ? ? ?? /g/js8call/messages?expanded=1¡°The idea with JS8Call is to take the robustness of FT8 mode and layer on a messaging and network protocol for weak signal?communication?on HF with a keyboard-to-keyboard interface." I looked hard at JS8Call a few years ago, have never used it.? As I recall, it retains some of the cruft that FT8 has for compressing the callsign, grid square, and signal strength.? I'd prefer straight up ascii (6 or 8 bits) sent in the clear, error correction (RS 255/223 seems good enough) appended to each packet, a couple choices for time per bit to meet conditions, synchronized to a time standard as FT8 is.? A modulation scheme that does not require a linear amp would be a plus. Jerry, KE7ER
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 08:02 AM, Ken Hansen wrote:
Does anyone consider FT8 a useful mode to exchange any information beyond callsign, grid square, and signal strength?
Ken, N2VIP
|
JS8Call is a major upgrade to the FT8 type schemes. You can exchange actual content beyond ?FT8 call/grid/etc.?
And the msg control functions are amazing. Store and forward, acknowledgments, defined hopping paths, and the list goes on.?
For EM or AUXCOMM, JS8Call has real application.
For long chats, it is maybe not ideal ¡ª but for msg management, it is the bomb.
My 2 cents, and given current inflation trends, it is worth a good deal less than that. Hahahah
Don
?
|
The faster speeds get to be in the range of 40wpm with some loss of threshold sensitivity, but STILL it is way way more sensitive than voice, so much so that it is like going from QRP to a full gallon amplifier.? ? We owe a lot to the guys who developed these modulations.
Gordon
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Don - KM4UDX < dontay155@...> wrote: JS8Call is a major upgrade to the FT8 type schemes. You can exchange actual content beyond ?FT8 call/grid/etc.?
And the msg control functions are amazing. Store and forward, acknowledgments, defined hopping paths, and the list goes on.?
For EM or AUXCOMM, JS8Call has real application.
For long chats, it is maybe not ideal ¡ª but for msg management, it is the bomb.
My 2 cents, and given current inflation trends, it is worth a good deal less than that. Hahahah
Don
?
|
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:09 AM, Jerry Gaffke wrote:
I looked hard at JS8Call a few years ago, have never used it.?
Thanks Jerry, I played with WSPR and FT8 for a while and then lost interest in them. This sounds like a great mode perfect for my uBitx. In a quick look at the site I think it might have a mailbox mode.? I have the metal boxed Raspberry Pi, all the cables still looped through the RFI toroids and adaptors sitting in my miscellaneous uBitx stuff box. Time to get those all hooked up again. Tom, wb6b
|
I used my uBitX for FT8 a lot! Just two cables straight from headphone and mic jacks to the computer soundcard. Just as easy...
Where I live, the QRM level is absurdly high, and my antenna options are very limited.
FT8 works for me as a way to play with ham radio under those conditions. I really like the "let's see how far I can get" side of it.?
While I'd love to chat using SSB, experiment with RTTY or to exchange SSTV images, being limited to the higher bands and with my level of QRM I am stuck with FT8/FT4 or JS8.
Rafael, PU1OWL
|
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:20 PM, Rafael Pinto [PU1OWL] wrote:
Where I live, the QRM level is absurdly high, and my antenna options are very limited.
That's what I really liked about WSPR. With the little uBitx chugging along I could see my signal showing up in places like Antarctica. It was really cool to look at my little transmitter and think the little bit of RF I was generating here was having an effect in an piece of wire so far away.? Receive wise, not so good. The QRM level here really cut down on what I could receive. I wonder if switching power supply, LED lamps, smart phone chargers and such have a different noise characteristic than the more natural noise that modulation techniques have been optimized, for better signal to noise performance. I wonder if there any modulation modes that would have better receive performance with this unnatural noise we are now inundated?with? Tom, wb6b ?
|
Tom, A more aggressive front end filter migth eliminate the noise substantially. The ubitx front end is wide open. While tuned to 21 Mhz, it? can overload from a 100 khz noise from an smps.? The bitx40, being a monobander had the luxury of a triple tuned front end. You could add something similar and see if the noise drops.
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 2:12 PM Tom, wb6b < wb6b@...> wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:20 PM, Rafael Pinto [PU1OWL] wrote:
Where I live, the QRM level is absurdly high, and my antenna options are very limited.
That's what I really liked about WSPR. With the little uBitx chugging along I could see my signal showing up in places like Antarctica. It was really cool to look at my little transmitter and think the little bit of RF I was generating here was having an effect in an piece of wire so far away.?
Receive wise, not so good. The QRM level here really cut down on what I could receive.
I wonder if switching power supply, LED lamps, smart phone chargers and such have a different noise characteristic than the more natural noise that modulation techniques have been optimized, for better signal to noise performance. I wonder if there any modulation modes that would have better receive performance with this unnatural noise we are now inundated?with?
Tom, wb6b
?
|
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 04:30 AM, Ashhar Farhan wrote:
A more aggressive front end filter migth eliminate the noise substantially.
Hi Ashhar, That is a good idea. I can first try something like from the old time QST or shortwave listener magazine articles. A tunable preselector.? If that helps then I could switch to building a switchable bandpass filter, as is more popular now days.? Tom, wb6b
|
Using JTalert, I check the call to see if they are online, and if so I can message them. It's not OTA, but I've had some interesting conversation, from rare places.
|
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 04:30 AM, Ashhar Farhan wrote:
A more aggressive front end filter migth eliminate the noise substantially. The ubitx front end is wide open. While tuned to 21 Mhz, it? can overload from a 100 khz noise from an smps.?
The bitx40, being a monobander had the luxury of a triple tuned front end. You could add something similar and see if the noise drops.
I had this weird idea of having some external BPF on the uBitx for 15m, but never went ahead with it. Thinking again it could be rigged just by the T/R relay, but then I would lock the uBitx...
|
I took a different approach.? Using a battery for my BITX and turning the
mains power off, convinced me that most of the noise was originating
from local in-house sources.? I checked noise from each appliance and
found several local culprits that could be quieted down a significant
amount.? This is a different kind of noise, but I was able to bring an S-9
background down to S-2.? Now I can start to seriously look at external
noise and how to make the BITX more resistant to that problem.
Arv _._
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:22 PM Rafael Pinto [PU1OWL] < rafaelgcpp@...> wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 04:30 AM, Ashhar Farhan wrote:
A more aggressive front end filter migth eliminate the noise substantially. The ubitx front end is wide open. While tuned to 21 Mhz, it? can overload from a 100 khz noise from an smps.?
The bitx40, being a monobander had the luxury of a triple tuned front end. You could add something similar and see if the noise drops.
I had this weird idea of having some external BPF on the uBitx for 15m, but never went ahead with it. Thinking again it could be rigged just by the T/R relay, but then I would lock the uBitx...
|
_Dave_ AD0B
Skip Davis
Rafael Pinto [PU1OWL]