Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- QRPLabs
- Messages
Search
|
Weller WS51?
I noticed in a video I watched last night that Hans recommends a 60W soldering iron for building the QMX for quicker heat transfer. I have a Weller WS 51 that I have had for a long time. I am using Kester 63/37 usually at 325F. So is this set up good enough as I start a QMX+ build or should I get a higher wattage soldering ??
?
73 Paul w2eck |
|
Re: QMX receiver went deaf
Does the signal get lost at the input side of T401? (pin 9 of IC402)
Do you have the qmx on with the same frequency tuned as your input signal? (IC402 is the rx band selector).? Do you see your signal on the appropriate Yx input of IC402 for the band you are on?
Very common issues that silence rx on all bands are 1) the T401 connection to IC402 and its pair; and 2) the input connection to the BPF toroid(s), rx_in. |
|
Re: Iq enable and demodulated audio both over USB
Jerry,
?I really like the idea of reinvigorating PSK31 by making the QMX do stand-alone PSK31. It is a great mode for kybd to kybd QSOs. I know you can do that with JS8, but at a very significant time cost compared to PSK31. I would welcome that development.?
--
73, Dan? NM3A |
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
Glad to have you learning CW. You have a decent feel what is involved from building a QCX mini. Just a bunch more coils to wind for a QMX. Get a handle on qmx plus dimensions- put the front panel dimensions on a piece of paper to grasp it. I find it nice to have all band coverage in one rig. The case for the smaller qmx is that it fits within your pocket. FWIW here I am building a QMX plus, I am mostly a CW op but I did order the GPS to do a little low band wspr. Glad I built a mini but not anxious to build another tiny rig.?
?
Curt wb8yyy?
Skcc 2580s
? |
|
Re: QMX+ Build - No Power on Diagnostics screen (pressing T)
#power
#test
#troubleshooting
I second all that Chris said |
|
Re: File /QMX-PC-Controller6A.html uploaded
#file-notice
Thanks, Paul.
I like the "scan" concept.
Perhaps in the future you could use the wide I/Q data directly instead of sweeping the frequency.
Also, I really feel the need to click the sweep window to set the frequency to the area of maximum energy. : )
That would be a nice additional feature.
?
In playing around with it I found that sometimes the VFO would spontaneously set itself to a frequency of 0 Hz.
Sometimes the QMX display read 0 and sometimes it read the expected frequency.
And sometimes the rig got into a mode where the receiver was clearly not working, requiring power off/on to recover.
?
There's no CW activity on the bands right now so I'll have to wait to try the CW decoder feature.
?
Nice work.
?
73, Mike KK7ER
? |
|
Re: SDR with the QMX
NaP3 or HDSDR is easier to use with QMX than sdrpp.? Search prior messages in this list for details on how to set either of them up.
?
Ans note that you can do an ssb or cw qso, using the QMX key and an external mic into QMX, but transmit audio is not supported over i/q mode on the USB port.? Also, you cannot do a digi mode qso this way - i/q mode must be disabled for qmx digi mode.
? |
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
The QMX+ should work with a host computer just like the QDX,
no need to build the front panel if you rig a power switch somehow.
Much of the difficulty in building the QMX+ is winding all those inductors for every band from 1.8mhz to 54mhz,?
could do an initial build for just one band to make the build trivial.
It is more expensive than a QDX, but need not be much more difficult to build.
Gives room to grow.
?
The QMX+ doesn't attempt to be as small as possible, and so is an easier build than a QMX.
?
Jerry, KE7ER
?
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 08:09 AM, Nick Garrod wrote:
As from your call, I¡¯m assuming you don¡¯t use Morse, so the QCX series probably don¡¯t interest you, have you considered building a QDX? A simpler build than the QMX¡¯s and will give you FSK digital modes on multiple bands.? |
|
Re: Iq enable and demodulated audio both over USB
Hans wrote
> ?someone say something, there are higher priority items first, surely, before indulging in such frivolity.
?
OK, since you asked:
I'm sure there are many other things to do.
Once any significant bugs in current firmware are sorted out, I would like to see standalone PSK31 implemented.
?
As? ?Mike - N5AQM wrote in post ? /g/QRPLabs/message/145148
>? I was a big psk31 user decades ago using digipan and had alot of fun with it.
>? Activity just seemed to fade away. I hope it makes a comeback...
>? It is a great rag chew mode and a nice change from the drive by contact mode that FT8 is.
?
Making PSK31 easy to use on the QMX with just a keyboard jacked into one of the UART ports
would make it a killer PSK31 machine for portable use, displaying received text on the LCD.
Send that text out on the UART TX line to be displayed on an optional larger LCD and/or possible logging.
Optionally append a 32bit CRC at the end of each transmission so correct reception can be verified,
this might be a critical feature for serious use in emergency communications.?
With thousands out there, the QMX could single handedly revive PSK31 activity on the bands.
?
There are better digital modes these days, but PSK31 is good enough, simple, and easy to implement.
?
Jerry, KE7ER
?
?
?
?
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:52 PM, Stan Dye wrote:
|
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
Hi Mark, you don¡¯t mention how much construction experience you have had, I wouldn¡¯t recommend either of the QMX transceivers as a first project. ?I have built both the QMX and the QMX+ and the QMX+ is less demanding in terms of fitting the parts. ?Also because the power supply boards are integrated, rather than plug in, the QMX+ is tested before dispatch at least as far as the processor with firmware preloaded. You also don¡¯t have to worry about which bands you build for.?
As from your call, I¡¯m assuming you don¡¯t use Morse, so the QCX series probably don¡¯t interest you, have you considered building a QDX? A simpler build than the QMX¡¯s and will give you FSK digital modes on multiple bands.?
Hope this helps. Nick G0OQK |
|
Re: SDR with the QMX
On 13/05/2025 14:22, Zhenxing Han N6HAN via groups.io wrote:
HDSDR with OmniRig can do exactly what you want with QMX.Yes, read the SDR++ manual, no clues given about using anything other than a preconfigured radio. My HDSDR instructions here the QMX will be the same as the QDX. Or, the Nap3 software is used by others in this group. 73 Alan G4ZFQ |
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
That depends on the quality of your outdoor ham activity. If you are combining it with mountain climbing, or long hikes or physical activity, then you might consider the QMX mid band or high band because they are compact and light weight.? The QMX+ is bigger and a little heavier, but not so much you couldn't use it portable in a park or if you only have a short walk or drive to location. Just to be sure you should probably just get both :)
--
73, Dan - W2DLC |
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 04:28 PM, <mark@...> wrote:
I'm about to hit the button and order a QMX+ but, since I will be using it pretty much exclusively for portable working (POTA, SOTA, etc) the smaller size of the QMX does appeal. one "middle ground" alternative is to have a QMX+ with a battery + audio amplifier ( ). For POTA / SOTA, it means that the battery and the audio are integrated? thus the bigger volume of the QCX+ is partly offset by not carrying a battery. |
|
Re: QMX or QMX+ Which to go for?
QMX+ 160m-6m one radio. Larger footprint, easier build, plenty of room for expansion. < I have this
?
QMX multiple radios to cover the same frequency spread as the QMX+, MUCH smaller more portable build, tight build tolerances so harder to build. < I also want this.
?
Get both? |
Daniel Conklin
Richard Dyer
to navigate to use esc to dismiss