Date   

Re: Antenna selection

Jack Purdum <econjack@...>
 

I find my 5W adequate when I switch over to this antenna:





From: College Professor Simon Thompson <nwccenglishprofessor@...>
To: BITX20@groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Antenna selection

The KX3 Yahoo forum always has interesting conversations about how to get the most for the least in terms on antennas. It is very hard to beat a resonant dipole for efficiency and portability and simplicity.

On Apr 12, 2017, at 08:52, davetelling . <davetelling@...> wrote:

To get some idea of possible portable performance, I tried a 43 foot-long wire, driven with a 9:1 balun, and being fed with about 15 ft. of coax, and no radials. the feedpoint is about 12ft above ground, and the and point is about 15 feet above ground. I did some A/B testing with my IC-718 (running through an antenna tuner) and was surprised to find that some stations came in better with the long-wire, and some came in better with the 40m OCF dipole. I am assuming that this is because of the different "lobes" of the two antennas' radiation patterns. I wish I had a simple way to run the 43ft wire vertically, but so far, nothing easily presents itself. However, it looks as if the 43ft wire/balun combo might make a compact portable antenna. It is interesting the amount of discussion about 4:1 vs. 9:1, counterpoise vs. no counterpoise (the coax shield becomes the "counterpoise") etc., but I am interested in a compact, easily deployed antenna that works acceptably for occasional portable operation.




Re: Antenna selection

College Professor Simon Thompson <nwccenglishprofessor@...>
 

The KX3 Yahoo forum always has interesting conversations about how to get the most for the least in terms on antennas. It is very hard to beat a resonant dipole for efficiency and portability and simplicity.

On Apr 12, 2017, at 08:52, davetelling . <davetelling@...> wrote:

To get some idea of possible portable performance, I tried a 43 foot-long wire, driven with a 9:1 balun, and being fed with about 15 ft. of coax, and no radials. the feedpoint is about 12ft above ground, and the and point is about 15 feet above ground. I did some A/B testing with my IC-718 (running through an antenna tuner) and was surprised to find that some stations came in better with the long-wire, and some came in better with the 40m OCF dipole. I am assuming that this is because of the different "lobes" of the two antennas' radiation patterns. I wish I had a simple way to run the 43ft wire vertically, but so far, nothing easily presents itself. However, it looks as if the 43ft wire/balun combo might make a compact portable antenna. It is interesting the amount of discussion about 4:1 vs. 9:1, counterpoise vs. no counterpoise (the coax shield becomes the "counterpoise") etc., but I am interested in a compact, easily deployed antenna that works acceptably for occasional portable operation.



Re: Antenna selection

davetelling .
 

To get some idea of possible portable performance, I tried a 43 foot-long wire, driven with a 9:1 balun, and being fed with about 15 ft. of coax, and no radials. the feedpoint is about 12ft above ground, and the and point is about 15 feet above ground. I did some A/B testing with my IC-718 (running through an antenna tuner) and was surprised to find that some stations came in better with the long-wire, and some came in better with the 40m OCF dipole. I am assuming that this is because of the different "lobes" of the two antennas' radiation patterns. I wish I had a simple way to run the 43ft wire vertically, but so far, nothing easily presents itself. However, it looks as if the 43ft wire/balun combo might make a compact portable antenna. It is interesting the amount of discussion about 4:1 vs. 9:1, counterpoise vs. no counterpoise (the coax shield becomes the "counterpoise") etc., but I am interested in a compact, easily deployed antenna that works acceptably for occasional portable operation.



Re: raduino v1.05 released: kill the 7199 birdie

Ben Kuhn
 

On Apr 12, 2017 10:48 AM, <amer1337@...> wrote:

Sorry to interrupt with no useful info, but where are you getting the firmware updates from? I have a bitx40 as shipped and im starting to look into mods, figured new firmware would be a good place to start. I can see if i get the same results with the new firmware as you as well.


thank you.


Re: raduino v1.05 released: kill the 7199 birdie

amer1337@...
 

Sorry to interrupt with no useful info, but where are you getting the firmware updates from? I have a bitx40 as shipped and im starting to look into mods, figured new firmware would be a good place to start. I can see if i get the same results with the new firmware as you as well.


thank you.


Re: tuning clicks (continued)

Craig Johnson, AA0ZZ
 

Thanks, Allard, for the pointer to the discussion on GitHub regarding what's really going on.  It's exactly what I was wondering about.

Looking at the Si5351 spec sheet, I don't see the specification as to how far you can shift the frequency without a PLLA_RESET.  The RESET is obviously needed but not on small frequency changes. On the Si570 it is known that the frequency can change plus/minus 0.35% before a re-synch is needed.

Similarly, I don't see a "freeze" parameter for the Si5351.  This is used to prevent spraying garbage around while changing parameters via I2C.  The Si570 freeze/unfreeze prevents this from happening. 

73,

-Craig, AA0ZZ


Re: shipping options, raduino, source code and website updates

Ashhar Farhan
 

i use the words like comrades and people instead of then sexist 'ladies and gentlemen' which are feudal too. gentleman were men who lived of their rents without toiling. 

ladies was a term used for those who were laden with work or with children.

enough of political sensitivity, now bring me a nice opening into europe this evening!

- f

On 12 Apr 2017 4:08 a.m., "Simon Thompson" <simonthompson67@...> wrote:
I believe that is correct.
On Apr 11, 2017, at 3:35 PM, VK3HN <prt459@...> wrote:

Re 'comrades', if people would think of this as a social collective rather than a product company most of the angst would disappear.




Re: Antenna selection

KC3EJC-Shawn <KC3EJC@...>
 

Which loop are you using Allard?


Calibration tip

Bob Benedict, KD8CGH
 

I had a tough time calibrating my BITX40V3 when speaking into a mike connected to a commercial transceiver transmitting into a dummy load and listening on the BITX. I finally hit on a method that worked for me. I have an audio function generator program on my android phone (great free app from keuwlsoft). I placed an earphone plugged into the BITX over one ear. I placed the phone next to the mike, set it to 700 Hz and keyed the mike. I could then calibrate by matching the tones from the phone and the BITX, which was much easier for me than judging how my own voice should sound.

As an old CW guy, zero beating is familiar and easy.


Re: Antenna selection

College Professor Simon Thompson <nwccenglishprofessor@...>
 

If I recall correctly, it is 4:1, but I put it up a few years ago, and I am not certain. I can investigate more, if you like.

On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Frank Dinger ,GM0CSZ <gm0csz@...> wrote:

quote =======
I am using a full wave 160 meter loop, fed by balanced line into a balun, then coax into the antenna match, and into the radio.
unquote =====

Simon , What type /impedance ratio balun do you use for your full wave 
160 m loop ?

Frank  , GM0CSZ   / KN6WH     in IO87AT



On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Simon Thompson <simonthompson67@...> wrote:
I am using a full wave 160 meter loop, fed by balanced line into a balun, then coax into the antenna match, and into the radio.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:10 AM Frank Dinger ,GM0CSZ <gm0csz@...> wrote:
Vertical antennas are good for low angle radiation and hence DX,but pick-up noise when in  built-up areas . So vertical antennas are great for rural country side areas. 
Although  having a  gain lower than  a dipole ,a magnetic loop antenna is right for built-up areas since it favours magnetic field radiation ,not electric field radiation ,the latter being the main source of local noise such as from switch mode PSUs ,etc

Frank , GM0CSZ / KN6WH       in IO87AT


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:06 PM, davetelling . <davetelling@...> wrote:

What kind of antenna are you all using? I have an off-center fed (OCF) 40m dipole, with the feed point up about 25 ft, and the ends slightly lower. I was finally able to make contact with a net yesterday, but only one station could hear me, and it was about 500 miles south of me. I am thinking that the low height of my antenna is resulting in a fairly high radiation angle. Have others had better success with verticals, or some other antenna configuration?















Re: Antenna selection

kd2akc
 

Using an inverted L with coupler at base and hodgpodge radial field have worked the 1k km a watt threshold on 40 at 6w out with the bitx. Not busting pileups but can pick off the peple calling cq pretty easy.


Re: The Users User Manual

John Smith
 

I am curious to know how often a homebrew rig, or kit is likely to be operating with a problem signal, vs. a commercial retail product. If that kind of thing is discernible at all.

And what are some of the top reasons for notifications you would like to share with this group?

Someone reading this might be doing something on the list, and would have never known about it otherwise. Consider it an opportunity for awareness. 


Re: Antenna selection

bill
 

I have two antennas, an end-fed modeled on the W3EDP (87'long, including the feedline and worked against an 17' counterpoise) and a 132' doublet, fed with 45' of 450 ohm window line. The doublet is bent into a U and is 68' long along the top.  One antenna is east-west, the other north-south oriented. I use a Johnson matchbox, a linked coupled tuner. Both work well for 80m to 20m and okay to 6m.  Neither is more than 35' above ground, so they aren't good DX SSB antennas. but I've worked stations in Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica and Russia with JT65 or PSK31 and 5W on both. 

Farhan, I really like your balanced tuner design. It does beg for an Arduino and some relays, doesn't it? Now I have one on my ever growing must-build list, right after the ubitx! And the article you refer to in your post is one of my favorite on balanced tuners.  73 de bill


Re: The Users User Manual

Dr Fred Hambrecht
 

That puts you way ahead of many of the new crop of amateurs here in the US.

I have been an OO for many years and we have two types of cards we send out. One is what we call a good guy card where we recognize operators that are examples to follow and the second is a notice of a problem. I personally send about 10 “good guy” cards to 1 notification of a problem.

Many of the new folks do not understand the program, in spite of my writing “Amateurs helping Amateurs “at the bottom of each notifications. Some of the responses to notifications are hilarious.

One of my favorites: : “How can you say my splatter is being caused by over driving my linear, it says it is linear right on the front of my amplifier”

 

v/r

Fred W4JLE

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of William R Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:14 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] The Users User Manual

 

Thanks Fred. I now understand your system. We do not have anything similar in Australia.

Bill, VK7MX


 

On 11/04/2017 7:57 PM, Dr Fred Hambrecht wrote:

The appointments come through the state director and the test and final appointment through the ARRL.

 

v/r

Fred W4JLE

 


Re: The Users User Manual

William R Maxwell
 

Thanks Fred. I now understand your system. We do not have anything similar in Australia.

Bill, VK7MX



On 11/04/2017 7:57 PM, Dr Fred Hambrecht wrote:

The appointments come through the state director and the test and final appointment through the ARRL.

 

v/r

Fred W4JLE

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of William R Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 5:06 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] The Users User Manual

 

ah, but who appoints them, Fred?

 

On 11/04/2017 11:33 AM, Dr Fred Hambrecht wrote:

OO Cards are issued by appointed amateurs that have taken a test and are there to help other Amateurs. Better to get an OO card which is advisory than a pink slip from the FCC.

 

v/r

Fred W4JLE

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of William R Maxwell
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:43 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] The Users User Manual

 

Who issues Official Observer cards, John? The FCC?

Bill, VK7MX - at UTC+10, one day ahead of your time at the moment.

 

On 11/04/2017 10:30 AM, John Smith via Groups.Io wrote:

Very, duly noted.

Things like this do look very attractive to the inexperienced, and thrifty, kit builder. The funniest thing is the card is dated the day before I discovered WebSDR, and had my first CW QSO ever. Who first alerted me to my funky signal. I just can't win for losing.

And this RF amps for QRP is a popular topic. So if anyone has done something like this or who has bought a better one for boosting QRP kits please share your experience here.

I have seen one here from Ashar Farhan. Stuff like this would also be attractive to a CW kit builder. Hint, hint.-  http://hfsignals.blogspot.com/p/25-watt-linear-for-40-and-20.html

This next one is 50 watts push, pull IRF510 amplifier. And wants 5-10 watts of drive. And has a current sense circuit like we previously discussed with burning up finals after replacing them and using fuses or more advanced shut off circuits in case of avalanche.-

http://www.g0kla.com/scpa/SimpleCheapPA.php

Personally, a kit is more my speed. The hardest was a Chinese QRP antenna tuner kit sold on Ebay. The translated instructions were awful.

 

 



Re: Function Button

Steve Greer
 

Got me thinking you said you don't check for tx for ssb so i commented it out to check cw and check tx and boom it works.  Thanks for the brain bump.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Andrew Whaley <azwhaley@...> wrote:

In Farhan's sketch there is a 'soft' TX_RX control but there's no line for it on the connector so it's not implemented in hardware. Consequently the Raduino has no clue when the transceiver is receiving or transmitting. It is switched over purely by the relays which are directly switched by the PTT button - the Radiuno is not involved in this. 

To implement this, you'll need to add new lines from P3 on Raduino to drive a transistor to close the PTT switch. You'll then need a 'soft' PTT switch into one of the digital lines and logic in the sketch to read the PTT state and activate TX_RX accordingly. I have this partially implemented in my sketch for CW, i.e. when you key the TX_RX line closes the PTT relay. I don't have a soft PTT though for SSB, it's still the 'hard' PTT in the mic directly closing the relay.

Feel free to take a look at my sketch :- https://github.com/azw409/BitX40-RaduinoExtra



Re: shipping options, raduino, source code and website updates

Simon Thompson <simonthompson67@...>
 

I believe that is correct.

On Apr 11, 2017, at 3:35 PM, VK3HN <prt459@...> wrote:

Re 'comrades', if people would think of this as a social collective rather than a product company most of the angst would disappear.




Re: shipping options, raduino, source code and website updates

VK3HN
 

Re 'comrades', if people would think of this as a social collective rather than a product company most of the angst would disappear.



Re: Function Button

Andrew Whaley <azwhaley@...>
 

In Farhan's sketch there is a 'soft' TX_RX control but there's no line for it on the connector so it's not implemented in hardware. Consequently the Raduino has no clue when the transceiver is receiving or transmitting. It is switched over purely by the relays which are directly switched by the PTT button - the Radiuno is not involved in this. 

To implement this, you'll need to add new lines from P3 on Raduino to drive a transistor to close the PTT switch. You'll then need a 'soft' PTT switch into one of the digital lines and logic in the sketch to read the PTT state and activate TX_RX accordingly. I have this partially implemented in my sketch for CW, i.e. when you key the TX_RX line closes the PTT relay. I don't have a soft PTT though for SSB, it's still the 'hard' PTT in the mic directly closing the relay.

Feel free to take a look at my sketch :- https://github.com/azw409/BitX40-RaduinoExtra


Birdie

Michael Davis <maddmd818@...>
 

I changed the wiring from the raduino to the board to RG174. Still birdies.


Mike WA1MAD Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App