¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
Date

Re: QCX QSO Party 25th March 2019 #qcx #qrp-dx

 

I also see this as a party not a contest. So I was more interested in how many QCX have been worked by a station than the score. If you want a score, than couldn't it be? that participants give RST plus serial Nr. and QCX give RST QCX and are counted 3 points. Multipliers by DXCC countries.

Martin
DK3UW


Re: QRP rags to riches #qcx

 

Egads! In a couple of years from now the C Programming Guide will be 40 years old! Man, I'm so glad I haven't aged during those years...

Jack, W8TEE

On Thursday, April 11, 2019, 8:32:23 AM EDT, KD8CGH <rkayakr@...> wrote:


I was lucky. There was an extension computing center in the basement of my dorm at Case (not CWRU then) in '67 with keypunches, and a window with a reader and a printer maned by a bored student. I could pad down there in my jammies at 2 a.m. to do my homework. As I recall I was an expert at duplicating a punched card just past the character I was trying to correct.
Then:
Hand soldered a mole of connections to build a Digital Group Z80 (bus but not S100) with 2K memory and computer controlled cassette tape drives. Programmed Z80 assembler
Commodore 64.? Programmed basic and 6502 assembler
Commodore Amiga: bitmapped graphics, multiwindow multitasking UNIX like OS. Programmed Fortran and FORTH, wrote a programming column for AMIGA Project magazine. The AMIGA had a modern file system, visual editor, symbolic debugger and optimizer for FORTRAN. At work I had an IBM dumb tube and a user hostile programming environment (JCL, no tools).? I wrote a transient coupled heat transfer and chemical reaction FEA code for process optimization at home and convected it to work. With the help of a plant db expert the optimizer was hidden under a simple interface for cure press operators. First deployed in '86, it's still in use in plants.
After that I convinced management to acquire some SUN workstations. That's when I started getting Jack's books that are still on my bookshelf and recently used.


Re: QCX QSO Party 25th March 2019 #qcx #qrp-dx

 

Will check :? The Issue appears to be from scores entered into 3830 manually and not understanding how it compiles total.? It would be helpful to determine how the scores were compiled/entered for the ones that appear to be incorrect.


Re: QRP rags to riches #qcx

 

I was lucky. There was an extension computing center in the basement of my dorm at Case (not CWRU then) in '67 with keypunches, and a window with a reader and a printer maned by a bored student. I could pad down there in my jammies at 2 a.m. to do my homework. As I recall I was an expert at duplicating a punched card just past the character I was trying to correct.
Then:
Hand soldered a mole of connections to build a Digital Group Z80 (bus but not S100) with 2K memory and computer controlled cassette tape drives. Programmed Z80 assembler
Commodore 64.? Programmed basic and 6502 assembler
Commodore Amiga: bitmapped graphics, multiwindow multitasking UNIX like OS. Programmed Fortran and FORTH, wrote a programming column for AMIGA Project magazine. The AMIGA had a modern file system, visual editor, symbolic debugger and optimizer for FORTRAN. At work I had an IBM dumb tube and a user hostile programming environment (JCL, no tools).? I wrote a transient coupled heat transfer and chemical reaction FEA code for process optimization at home and convected it to work. With the help of a plant db expert the optimizer was hidden under a simple interface for cure press operators. First deployed in '86, it's still in use in plants.
After that I convinced management to acquire some SUN workstations. That's when I started getting Jack's books that are still on my bookshelf and recently used.


Re: QCX QSO Party 25th March 2019 #qcx #qrp-dx

 

I agree some of the scores seem unlikely and there have been a few comments about the system being too complicated (for those not used to contest scoring) and how theoretically if you work 100 stations but none of them is a QCX then you score 100 X 0 = 0 points!? Its mainly a fun activity to get people on the air so the scoring is secondary and is still sorting itself out.

We are planning to try simplifying it for April's party (Monday 29th April) so it will be 1 point for a non-qcx QSO and 3 points for a qcx QSO, no extra multipliers.? See how that goes.? Is it possible/easy to get N1MM to do that?

73
Peter GM0EUL
? ??


Re: QCX QSO Party 25th March 2019 #qcx #qrp-dx

 

It certainly appears that some scores are not correct.? If you are using the N1MM+ custom template I provided above, ( Mar 26) you need to leave the last col QCX) blank if the other station was NOT a QCX station.? Unfortunately the software dose not distinguish entries, only blank and non blank entries.??


Re: QCX QSO Party 25th March 2019 #qcx #qrp-dx

 

I looked at the scores on 3860 and to me it looks that something is not ok with the mulitpliers K0PD 32 QSOs and 32 Multipliers wouldn't that mean he ahd QSO's with 32 QCX users ?

Also some others if the multipliers are the QCX users there must have been? a lot of QCXes on the air.

Next try 29.04. right ?

Martin
DK3UW


Re: U3S RF Power Transistor

 

I made an RD06HHF external amp, for my QRP Labs rigs and for general use.



I have one of my QRP Labs rigs set for about 200mw output, and pass it via a 3db attenuator.

I prefer to use an attenuator because it keeps the impedance constant at 50R regardless of frequency (RD06HHF is about 200R).

- Andy -


Re: U3S RF Power Transistor

 

Hi Michael,
Thanks for your post on this.

I understand how to replace the standard transistors with the Mitsubishi device. But how did you configure the extra bias pot? Did you simple replace this, or did you place a second pot in series or something like that? How did you avoid over driving the transistor by accident?

Thank you in advance for you advice and comments.


Testing T1 in situ

 

I recently had a QCX to look at and T1 had already been removed to rewind and wasnt likely to survive another
removal/ replacement sequence ( well the pcb wasnt going to survive)
So although you cab measure the inputs to IC4 against ground this doesnt give any phase information.
A better way would be to measure the differential signal going into IC4, thus giving some confidence that the phasing in T1
was correct.?
My 1980 edition of SSD for the radio amateur had the answer on page 154. A balun would do the job, balanced to unbalanced and?
so the signal could be measured against ground using this sortabalun.
The result in this case was an excellent signal measure across pins 7 and 9 of IC4, some 30 dB below injected signal but obviously at different
impedances. This measure gave enough confidence to go and find the problem elsewhere in the QCX.
Hope this is of some use. I used 8 bifiliar turns 34swg on a BN43-2402 core and isolation via two 470 pf ceramic caps, see photo
cheers
Geoff
GI0GDP


Second 30m Q using the QCX-17 is in the log.

n4qa at_hotmail.com
 

While the upper hf bands are not particularly stellar, I'm using the QCX-17, largely, on the 30m band.
Just worked Marty, K1FQL in Florida on 10101.7 kHz, while running 4 watts from the QCX-17, with appropriate output filtering, to the downspout antenna.
Sometimes, I choose an operating frequency which hints at the rig I'm using, hence a freq ending in 1.7 such as in this case :0)
So that I may move around the bands quickly & easily, I have the following freqs programmed into the QCX-17's Frequency Presets:
10000.8 kHz WWV & WWVH
10101.7 kHz
14001.7 kHz
15000.8 kHz WWV & WWVH
18069.7 kHz ( also 1.7 kHz inside the lower band edge )
20000.8 kHz WWV only
21001.7 kHz
Notice the 800 Hz offsets in the WWV / WWVH freqs to allow for my CW sidetone/offset freq of 800 Hz.

QCX-series rigs are so versatile !

72 / 73,
Bill, N4QA



Re: My morse keys

 

If you have access to a 3D printer, you can try to make this small and lightweight key and see if you like it.
The design can be downloaded from Thingiverse here:?

(And if you don't have a 3D printer, it is probably time to get one, if you are in this group, I would say :-)

Torbjorn, LA4ZCA


Re: QLG1 - Clarification on what the green LED should do

 

I have started to do some more precise frequency measurements using the Progrock and the QLG1 with "inverted logic" PPS output, with a 1kilohm resistor in the PPS line between the two boards (at the Progrock end, after about 2 m of shielded cable.).

My initial impression is that it is almost working, but not quite.

Test 1:

I asked a local station using an Elecraft K3 and internal 2 m transverter, both locked to GPS (using a Rohde and Schwartz GPS 10 MHz reference) to transmit on 144.175100 MHz, with the dial set to 144.174000 and WSJT-X generating an 1100 Hz tone.? I received him on? my receiver in USB mode (not GPS locked, so drifting a bit), along with the output from the Progrock/QLG1 combination, set to 144.175000 MHz.? Instead of a 100 Hz difference in audio notes from the two sources, the difference was about 120-140 Hz (as well as I could determine using the waterfall in WSJT-X, given slight drift in the receiver)? Pretty darn close, but not exact.? But then I do not know the accuracy of the Elecraft setup either.

Test 2:

I did a similar test at 15 MHz (receiver set to 14999.000 kHz USB).? WWV was quite strong with very little fading.? The Progrock was set to 5.000000 MHz, so I was hearing it on the 3rd harmonic.? This time I monitored the receiver audio with a sound card spectrum analyzer program (Spectran).? Upon turning on the Progrock and QLG1 the initial frequency was off from WWV's carrier by a bit, then started jumping around, as expected, then approached WWV's frequency from the low side.? But it never got closer than about 3 Hz from WWV's frequency.? After this point was reached the two frequencies started to diverge, ending up 5-8 Hz apart.? Again, quite close, but I am guessing that WWV should not be Doppler-shifted this much with a good propagation path and that the lock algorithm (based on my understanding of various descriptions from Hans) should be capable of better accuracy.

Turning the QLG1 off and on again did not restart the locking process, but turning both the Progrock and the QLG1 did restart it, with more or less the same results each time.? On the last try, after perhaps an hour, the two frequencies had drifted together again somewhat, with about a 2-3 Hz difference again.

It appears to be trying hard to lock, but then giving up before it succeeds, and does not seem to be continuously trying to maintain lock.

I guess I could try inverting the PPS signal, and removing or reducing the 1 kilohm resistor.

Any comments or suggestions?

73,
Steve VE3SMA


Re: QSX to be shown at FDIM this year?

 

Hi Dan

It wasn't YouTubed last year, but the audio was recorded for a podcast.? has the slides and the link to the audio.

Same procedure this year.

73 Hans G0UPL?
?

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 18:06 Dan Reynolds <on30ng@...> wrote:
Does anybody know if Hans' presentation will be captured in any way? I'd love to go to FDIM just can't swing it. I will go to Dayton this year. I know one of Hans' presentations last year was YouTube'd...
--
Dan Reynolds -- KB9JLO
<><


Re: QRP rags to riches #qcx

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

But you managed to avoid TECO.

John F5VLF

On 10 Apr 2019, at 15:40, David Birnbaum <dbirnbau@...> wrote:

Started on IBM 650 with direct machine instructions.? Then FORTRAN (no #), FORTRAN II on IBM 70954, 7044, PDPs 1,5,6,7,8,9,10, CDC6600, C on various microprocessors and Postscript (yes it''s a programming language).? Now content with Linux on IBM PC, plus R-Pi and Arduino.

dave
k2lyv


Re: QSX to be shown at FDIM this year?

 

Does anybody know if Hans' presentation will be captured in any way? I'd love to go to FDIM just can't swing it. I will go to Dayton this year. I know one of Hans' presentations last year was YouTube'd...
--
Dan Reynolds -- KB9JLO
<><


Re: Qrp-labs and a Huff and Puff circuit board

 

Hand = Hans in my last post.? Sorry Hans.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:45 AM Joe Street via Groups.Io <racingtheclouds=[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Hand for preserving a very cool bit of history so comprehensively on your website.? Chaz Fletcher G3DXZ also had a minimalist 1 chip stabilizer I thought was very clever and looks pretty easy to use although I haven't finished testing this yet.? It used a PIC processor and a software shift register and the XOR was done by using the bitwise XOR instruction as well.? The processor clock was the reference and it was divided down using a hardware timer overflow as an interrupt source which produced a sample rate of 2400hz and a lock step size of 5 hz.? Strangely the XOR instruction phase detector didn't work when the code was ported from PIC1684 to PIC16628 due to a change in the way the newer chip handles the carry bit and a work around was made using a few bit test instructions . I have ported this very simple code to PIC18 architecture as well if anybody wants it, let me know.



Joe ve3vxo

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hi all

Huff & Puff was a passion of mine. I was licensed in 1994, but for various personal reasons did not go on air. I did keep reading RadCom (monthly journal of the RSGB) and was fascinated by the Huff Puff articles which appeared in Pat G3VA (SK)'s monthly "Tech Topics" column. I collected everything I could find about Huff Puff and started making my Huff Puff library, eventually putting it online on my website that I created, initially just for this purpose, in 1999. So... everything grew from these roots!

In late 2001 David WN5Y emailed me and we started discussing Huff & Puff, he was using it in his "Electroluminescent Receiver" which he still to this day sells as a kit see??- and I actually finally purchased one of his kits a year ago but still have not finished building it! Anyway - as a result of that correspondence, I decided to also build my first Huff Puff circuit. It was also the first time I had built ANYTHING at all for 8 years. I wanted to try the magnetic field method of varying inductor core permeability that David used. The result was my stabilizer??and I built a 14MHz VFO that was stabilized by this circuit.?

That then became, with a mixture of other circuits also from Pat G3VA (RIP)'s column - such as the Tayloe detector (Quadrature Sampling Detector) and Polyphase networks - my first amateur radio receiver which you can read about here: .?
Then I built my 1-valve (tube) CW transmitter which was also from G3VA's column.?
My ATU was built around 1984 and was also a RadCom project at some point see ?

That was the station, in March 2002, that I used for my first ever QSO see??

So. This Huff Puff stuff is a very important part of my personal radio history. Later, the website was expanded to include lots of old projects, and I started adding new ones... so really 2002 was the birth of my amateur radio life.?

Anyway I wanted to say a few things about Huff Puff.?

1. PLL vs FLL is a debate that raged on sometimes (PLL = Phase Locked Loop, FLL = Frequency Locked Loop). A Huff Puff circuit is not exactly like either. You can make a reasonably convincing argument for why it is not a PLL or why it is not a FLL. However if the assumption, from your proof that it is not a PLL, is that therefore it must be a FLL... or vice versa - then you probably start falling into difficulty. I think not everything is as simply classifiable into one of two categories.?

2. A Huff Puff circuit doesn't exactly lock a VFO precisely on any particular frequency. What it does is compare pulse edges and try to line up the pulse edges. One is a divided down timebase, the other is the VFO. Actually which one is divided down can be swapped. It is continually hunting, around a target frequency. There are multiple stable target frequencies, separated by typically 10, 20, 30Hz etc depending on how your circuit is designed. The Huff Puff circuit will try to steer the frequency to the nearest target frequency.?

3. One critical aspect of Huff Puff is that the correction power of the circuit must be sufficient to correct any drift occurring, but not so aggressive that it overcompensates or that it does not allow you to tune the VFO normally. This is quite hard to set up properly. If the correction capability of the Huff Puff is too weak, then the VFO my drift far enough before being corrected, that the Huff Puff circuit "jumps" to trying to move it to the next stable target frequency. If the correction capability is too strong then it would make it hard for you to manually tune the VFO; additionally it makes for large excursions around the target frequency (which if extreme, could also make it "jump" to the next target frequency.?

4. If correctly set up, the Huff Puff circuit does not add much in the way of any objectionable sidebands or phase noise. In the days when PLL synthesizers were often not well designed, leading to quite high levels of phase noise, the way a Huff Puff circuit retains the cleanliness of the underlying VFO was said to be one of the advantages. That and the inherent simplicity (low parts count, at least).?

5. As Allison KB1GMX said, and what Pat G3VA said before, something like: "A Huff Puff circuit does not turn a bad VFO into a good VFO; it turns a good VFO into a better VFO". Every effort should be made, to make the VFO as good as possible before trying to add a Huff Puff circuit to make it really perfect!?

6. The "Fast" style Huff Puff circuit developed initially by Peter G7IXH, is effectively like an array of ordinary stabilizers all acting in parallel on the same VFO. What it allows you to do, is
a) stabilize a worse VFO?
b) stabilize a good VFO better
Using it for a) is not a good idea, according to the make-the-VFO-as-good-as-possible-first principle. Stabilizing a good VFO better, means that you can make the Huff Puff corrections much smaller, it means that the frequency excursions become a lot smaller. The circuit is also a lot more forgiving when setting it up.?

7. Some practical and simple designs I worked on are here:??, which are targeted towards minimalist implementations. The 1-chip version??was an experiment to really see how far a Huff Puff stabilizer can be minimized. It is very inefficient and not easy to set up. I don't recommend it for other than curiosity value. The 2-chip "Fast" type??with discrete-component XOR gate (though an ordinary XOR gate could also be used) is a good circuit, it works reliably and efficiently and isn't fussy to set up.?

Overall Huff & Puff circuits are a bit dated now but who cares, they are really fascinating to play with and very educational.?

73 Hans G0UPL


Re: Qrp-labs and a Huff and Puff circuit board

 

Thank you Hand for preserving a very cool bit of history so comprehensively on your website.? Chaz Fletcher G3DXZ also had a minimalist 1 chip stabilizer I thought was very clever and looks pretty easy to use although I haven't finished testing this yet.? It used a PIC processor and a software shift register and the XOR was done by using the bitwise XOR instruction as well.? The processor clock was the reference and it was divided down using a hardware timer overflow as an interrupt source which produced a sample rate of 2400hz and a lock step size of 5 hz.? Strangely the XOR instruction phase detector didn't work when the code was ported from PIC1684 to PIC16628 due to a change in the way the newer chip handles the carry bit and a work around was made using a few bit test instructions . I have ported this very simple code to PIC18 architecture as well if anybody wants it, let me know.



Joe ve3vxo

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:55 AM Hans Summers <hans.summers@...> wrote:
Hi all

Huff & Puff was a passion of mine. I was licensed in 1994, but for various personal reasons did not go on air. I did keep reading RadCom (monthly journal of the RSGB) and was fascinated by the Huff Puff articles which appeared in Pat G3VA (SK)'s monthly "Tech Topics" column. I collected everything I could find about Huff Puff and started making my Huff Puff library, eventually putting it online on my website that I created, initially just for this purpose, in 1999. So... everything grew from these roots!

In late 2001 David WN5Y emailed me and we started discussing Huff & Puff, he was using it in his "Electroluminescent Receiver" which he still to this day sells as a kit see??- and I actually finally purchased one of his kits a year ago but still have not finished building it! Anyway - as a result of that correspondence, I decided to also build my first Huff Puff circuit. It was also the first time I had built ANYTHING at all for 8 years. I wanted to try the magnetic field method of varying inductor core permeability that David used. The result was my stabilizer??and I built a 14MHz VFO that was stabilized by this circuit.?

That then became, with a mixture of other circuits also from Pat G3VA (RIP)'s column - such as the Tayloe detector (Quadrature Sampling Detector) and Polyphase networks - my first amateur radio receiver which you can read about here: .?
Then I built my 1-valve (tube) CW transmitter which was also from G3VA's column.?
My ATU was built around 1984 and was also a RadCom project at some point see ?

That was the station, in March 2002, that I used for my first ever QSO see??

So. This Huff Puff stuff is a very important part of my personal radio history. Later, the website was expanded to include lots of old projects, and I started adding new ones... so really 2002 was the birth of my amateur radio life.?

Anyway I wanted to say a few things about Huff Puff.?

1. PLL vs FLL is a debate that raged on sometimes (PLL = Phase Locked Loop, FLL = Frequency Locked Loop). A Huff Puff circuit is not exactly like either. You can make a reasonably convincing argument for why it is not a PLL or why it is not a FLL. However if the assumption, from your proof that it is not a PLL, is that therefore it must be a FLL... or vice versa - then you probably start falling into difficulty. I think not everything is as simply classifiable into one of two categories.?

2. A Huff Puff circuit doesn't exactly lock a VFO precisely on any particular frequency. What it does is compare pulse edges and try to line up the pulse edges. One is a divided down timebase, the other is the VFO. Actually which one is divided down can be swapped. It is continually hunting, around a target frequency. There are multiple stable target frequencies, separated by typically 10, 20, 30Hz etc depending on how your circuit is designed. The Huff Puff circuit will try to steer the frequency to the nearest target frequency.?

3. One critical aspect of Huff Puff is that the correction power of the circuit must be sufficient to correct any drift occurring, but not so aggressive that it overcompensates or that it does not allow you to tune the VFO normally. This is quite hard to set up properly. If the correction capability of the Huff Puff is too weak, then the VFO my drift far enough before being corrected, that the Huff Puff circuit "jumps" to trying to move it to the next stable target frequency. If the correction capability is too strong then it would make it hard for you to manually tune the VFO; additionally it makes for large excursions around the target frequency (which if extreme, could also make it "jump" to the next target frequency.?

4. If correctly set up, the Huff Puff circuit does not add much in the way of any objectionable sidebands or phase noise. In the days when PLL synthesizers were often not well designed, leading to quite high levels of phase noise, the way a Huff Puff circuit retains the cleanliness of the underlying VFO was said to be one of the advantages. That and the inherent simplicity (low parts count, at least).?

5. As Allison KB1GMX said, and what Pat G3VA said before, something like: "A Huff Puff circuit does not turn a bad VFO into a good VFO; it turns a good VFO into a better VFO". Every effort should be made, to make the VFO as good as possible before trying to add a Huff Puff circuit to make it really perfect!?

6. The "Fast" style Huff Puff circuit developed initially by Peter G7IXH, is effectively like an array of ordinary stabilizers all acting in parallel on the same VFO. What it allows you to do, is
a) stabilize a worse VFO?
b) stabilize a good VFO better
Using it for a) is not a good idea, according to the make-the-VFO-as-good-as-possible-first principle. Stabilizing a good VFO better, means that you can make the Huff Puff corrections much smaller, it means that the frequency excursions become a lot smaller. The circuit is also a lot more forgiving when setting it up.?

7. Some practical and simple designs I worked on are here:??, which are targeted towards minimalist implementations. The 1-chip version??was an experiment to really see how far a Huff Puff stabilizer can be minimized. It is very inefficient and not easy to set up. I don't recommend it for other than curiosity value. The 2-chip "Fast" type??with discrete-component XOR gate (though an ordinary XOR gate could also be used) is a good circuit, it works reliably and efficiently and isn't fussy to set up.?

Overall Huff & Puff circuits are a bit dated now but who cares, they are really fascinating to play with and very educational.?

73 Hans G0UPL


Re: QSX display #qsx

 

Hi Steve

Yeah, happy days.?

By the way, the URL is - but because the site has an old version of Joomla content management system, there seems to be some issue, sometimes the URL gets replaced by other websites hosted on the same machine. That's why you see weird URLs sometimes... but in fact it is all harmless.?

73 Hans G0UPL

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:09 PM Stephen Farthing G0XAR JO92ON97 <squirrox@...> wrote:
Hi guys,

I¡¯m waiting for Hans to complete the design of the QRP Labs computer. But wait. He¡¯s already done it?

Have fun!?

Steve G0XAR?


Re: QSX display #qsx

 

Hi guys,

I¡¯m waiting for Hans to complete the design of the QRP Labs computer. But wait. He¡¯s already done it?

Have fun!?

Steve G0XAR?