¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. DXLab
  2. Topics

CI-V bus collusion

 

Hello, I have two Icoms-a IC-7300 and a IC-7200, plus a Flex 5000A connected to DL LABS Commander ver 14.4.0
I see a red CI-V indicator on the very bottom of the Commander box.
Please advise a way of troubleshooting this issue.

Tom W7TJM
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Hello, I have two Icoms-a IC-7300 and a IC-7200, plus a Flex 5000A connected to DL LABS Commander ver 14.4.0
I see a red CI-V indicator on the very bottom of the Commander box.
Please advise a way of troubleshooting this issue.

+ As the explanatory popup indicates when you let the mouse cursor hover over that red "CI-V" indicator, the indicator appears when the primary radio reports that is has detected a CI-V bus collision.

+ How are your three radios connected to your PC?

+ In the Radio panel on the Configuration window's General tab, to what is the Interrogation interval set.

+ Is your IC-7200's "CI-V Transceive" menu item enabled or disabled?

+ Is your IC-7300's "CI-V Transceive" menu item enabled or disabled?

+ Commander will tolerate CI-V bus collisions if you enable its "Verify CI-V command acceptance" option on the in the Radio panel on the Configuration window's General tab, but it would be best to first understand why collisions are occurring before deciding to enable this option.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

The 7300 and the 7200 are connected by USB (Silicon Labs CP210x USB to URART bridge- Icom ver 1.30 USB driver) cable.
Both the 7200 and the 7300 have both the "CI-V Transceive" disabled.
The Flex 5000A connects to the computer thru a firewire cable.
The Flex, and the IC-7300 work just great with Commander , I just having issues with the IC-7200.
The main issue I have with the IC-7200 is being able to transmit both voice and data. it seems to be an either or situation

Tom W7TJM
 

Also the interval is set to 200 for all three radios
 

+ AA6YQ comment below

The 7300 and the 7200 are connected by USB (Silicon Labs CP210x USB to URART bridge- Icom ver 1.30 USB driver) cable.
Both the 7200 and the 7300 have both the "CI-V Transceive" disabled.
The Flex 5000A connects to the computer thru a firewire cable.
The Flex, and the IC-7300 work just great with Commander , I just having issues with the IC-7200.
The main issue I have with the IC-7200 is being able to transmit both voice and data. it seems to be an either or situation

+ With the two Icom transceiver's connected to your PC "point-to-point" with USB cables, "CI-V transceive" disabled in each Icom radio, and a 200 ms interrogation interval, there should be no CI-V bus collisions unless one of the radios is reporting a collision at startup.

+ Click the red "CI-V" indicator to extinguish it; how soon before it re-appears?

+ Power down your 7200, and restart Commander with your 7300 running; does the "CI-V" indicator illuminate?

+ Power down your 7300, and restart Commander with your 7200 running; does the "CI-V" indicator illuminate?

+ I don't understand what "The main issue I have with the IC-7200 is being able to transmit both voice and data. it seems to be an either or situation" means; please elaborate.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

I only have one radio at a time power up when I am using them.
The issue I have is I am using ARMY MARS software M110A, that controls transmit thru CAT control in the software.
For some reason I an having trouble getting the software to key the data transmit
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

I only have one radio at a time power up when I am using them.
The issue I have is I am using ARMY MARS software M110A, that controls transmit thru CAT control in the software.
For some reason I an having trouble getting the software to key the data transmit

+ I can't help you with that. Perhaps someone else here can.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

against Gremlins in radio shack, I've found this on the internet:



It would be interesting to know what do you think about this gadget.

73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

against Gremlins in radio shack, I've found this on the internet:



It would be interesting to know what do you think about this gadget.

+ My understanding is that this device was developed to provide a private CI-V bus for the PW-1 amplifier, the need for which is described by Larry K8UT here:

<>

+ DXLab users with a PW-1 have no need of this device, as Commander's Secondary CAT port can be configured to provide the required private CI-V bus.

<>

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

hello Dave,

My understanding is that this device was developed
to provide a private CI-V bus for the PW-1 amplifier
I've seen, but I have also seen here



a picture where a different scenario is depicted, with other CI-V dependent devices connected to this router, such as Steppir controllers or maybe other devices.

73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

hello Dave,

> My understanding is that this device was developed
> to provide a private CI-V bus for the PW-1 amplifier

I've seen, but I have also seen here



a picture where a different scenario is depicted, with other CI-V
dependent devices connected to this router, such as Steppir controllers
or maybe other devices.

+ Collisions can occur on an Icom CI-V bus for the same reason that
collisions can occur on an Ethernet segment. Collisions on a CI-V bus are
only problematic if one or mode nodes fail to comply with the CI-V
specification. The PW-1 is the only hardware device I know of that can send
CI-V messages but does not comply with the CI-V specification for collision
detection and retransmission.

+ Collisions cannot occur on a CIV bus whose only nodes are a PC running
Commander and a single Icom transceiver whose "CI-V Transceive" menu is set
to "off"; additional passive ("listen only") devices like antenna switches,
antenna controllers, and amplifiers can be attached without causing
collisions. If "CI-V Transceive" is set to "on", or if more than one device
that send CI-V messages are attached to a CI-V bus, collisions will occur,
and all nodes must therefore comply with the CI-V specification; Commander's
"Verify CI-V command acceptance" option should be enabled in this scenario.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
 

In a Danish ham radio newsletter I saw a brutal but supposedly effective?
fix for the PW-1 "issue". It may have some serious limitations since I?
have not seen it spread.

A reversed diode between the CI-V line and the tranceivers's PTT?output.?

Providing the PTT line is either high impedance or a voltage higher than?
that of the CI-V, it will do nothing while receiving but pull the CI-V line to?
ground when transmitting. Effectively preventing the PW-1 to be mislead?
into changing band while transmitting.

Bj?rn SM7IUN

Den s?n 1 mars 2020 kl 16:47 skrev Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...>:

+ AA6YQ comments below

hello Dave,

?> My understanding is that this device was developed
?> to provide a private CI-V bus for the PW-1 amplifier

I've seen, but I have also seen here



a picture where a different scenario is depicted, with other CI-V
dependent devices connected to this router, such as Steppir controllers
or maybe other devices.

+ Collisions can occur on an Icom CI-V bus for the same reason that
collisions can occur on an Ethernet segment. Collisions on a CI-V bus are
only problematic if one or mode nodes fail to comply with the CI-V
specification. The PW-1 is the only hardware device I know of that can send
CI-V messages but does not comply with the CI-V specification for collision
detection and retransmission.

+ Collisions cannot occur on a CIV bus whose only nodes are a PC running
Commander and a single Icom transceiver whose "CI-V Transceive" menu is set
to "off"; additional passive ("listen only") devices like antenna switches,
antenna controllers, and amplifiers can be attached without causing
collisions. If "CI-V Transceive" is set to "on", or if more than one? device
that send CI-V messages are attached to a CI-V bus, collisions will occur,
and all nodes must therefore comply with the CI-V specification; Commander's
"Verify CI-V command acceptance" option should be enabled in this scenario.

? ? ?73,

? ? ? ? ? ?Dave, AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

In a Danish ham radio newsletter I saw a brutal but supposedly effective
fix for the PW-1 "issue". It may have some serious limitations since I
have not seen it spread.

A reversed diode between the CI-V line and the tranceivers's PTT output.

Providing the PTT line is either high impedance or a voltage higher than
that of the CI-V, it will do nothing while receiving but pull the CI-V line to
ground when transmitting. Effectively preventing the PW-1 to be mislead
into changing band while transmitting.

+ That wouldn't prevent a collision while receiving to change the PW-1 frequency just before it is instructed to transmit.

73,

Dave
 

Very true. Let's hope ICOM learned their lesson with the PW-2.

Bj?rn SM7IUN

Den s?n 1 mars 2020 kl 17:50 skrev Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...>:

+ AA6YQ comments below

In a Danish ham radio newsletter I saw a brutal but supposedly effective
fix for the PW-1 "issue". It may have some serious limitations since I
have not seen it spread.

A reversed diode between the CI-V line and the tranceivers's PTT output.

Providing the PTT line is either high impedance or a voltage higher than
that of the CI-V, it will do nothing while receiving but pull the CI-V line to
ground when transmitting. Effectively preventing the PW-1 to be mislead
into changing band while transmitting.

+ That wouldn't prevent a collision while receiving to change the PW-1 frequency just before it is instructed to transmit.

? ? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ? Dave
 

The information in the message below is now available via

<.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2020 11:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DXLab] CI-V bus collusion

+ AA6YQ comments below

hello Dave,

> My understanding is that this device was developed
> to provide a private CI-V bus for the PW-1 amplifier

I've seen, but I have also seen here



a picture where a different scenario is depicted, with other CI-V
dependent devices connected to this router, such as Steppir controllers
or maybe other devices.

+ Collisions can occur on an Icom CI-V bus for the same reason that
collisions can occur on an Ethernet segment. Collisions on a CI-V bus are
only problematic if one or mode nodes fail to comply with the CI-V
specification. The PW-1 is the only hardware device I know of that can send
CI-V messages but does not comply with the CI-V specification for collision
detection and retransmission.

+ Collisions cannot occur on a CIV bus whose only nodes are a PC running
Commander and a single Icom transceiver whose "CI-V Transceive" menu is set
to "off"; additional passive ("listen only") devices like antenna switches,
antenna controllers, and amplifiers can be attached without causing
collisions. If "CI-V Transceive" is set to "on", or if more than one device
that send CI-V messages are attached to a CI-V bus, collisions will occur,
and all nodes must therefore comply with the CI-V specification; Commander's
"Verify CI-V command acceptance" option should be enabled in this scenario.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

1 - 15 of 15