Last month QST did a write up on the BITX40, with all the published lab tests.  It would be interesting if they were do the same with the uBitx.    It might get FCC attention and stop all future imports to the USA,  is that what we want?  Maybe it is time to tone down all the attention to these problems.

Just a thought.

K6KWQ

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

---

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 9:30:20 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Humble suggestion future Ubitx versions #ubitx

 

Iz oos,

For some its was the FT817 for 109$.  There is a lot of distance and people complain about the FT817!

I also agree if you transmit, do so cleanly.  Its a kindness to friends around the world  The bitx40 is far cleaner.

As to many rigs... guilty.

For hf I have two old Tentec the 505 QRP 5 band and its bigger brother the 340 100W 5 band.
I have no worries depite the fact they were design in the 19070s that they meet current standards
or maybe even exceed them.

More modern a Ft817 and the Tentec Eagle.

That and KNQ7A, KD1JV Slopbucket20, WM20, and Diz's 1W, for the
kit radio world.  Then I have my first 20M SSB , 10M SSB, 15M SSB,
radios from the ground up.  All meet the numbers required and then some.
All have decent carrier suppression.  The only one with issues that needed
help was the KNQ7A that being a really loud pop on TX, easy fix too.

Others manage to do it well and inexpensively and with attention it works.
As is the ubitx has more of my time in it than a few scratch builds including
building their  filters and PLL systems(pre Si 5xx parts).

Mine however is in the "junkbox" as a result of slicing it up to get to root causes.
Its salvageable but a clean sheet would be less time consuming.

Allison