Date   
Re: Aluminum enclosure

Paul Smith
 

A clever approach suggested by VU3PSZ. Read the piece here on reducing the Raduino height.
http://vu3psz.blogspot.ca/2018/02/ubitx-home-brewed-enclosure.html

Paul ZS2OE

Re: Si5351 Programming Flowchart

Jerry Gaffke
 

That flowchart describes how to code low level si5351 routines,
not how to use those routines.  So probably not of much intereset
to most of the readers of this forum.

Allard's Bitx40 firmware and in Farhan's uBitx firmware currently use the si5351bx routines,
to use them just embed the two functions si5351bx_init() and si5351bx_setfreq() into your sketch.
Call si5351bx_init() once at startup, all three clk's get initialized to the off state.
Call si5351bx_setfreq(clknum, fout) each time you wish to change the frequency of a clock
with clknum a value of 0, 1, or 2, and fout in hz between 500khz and 109mhz.
Use a frequency of 0 hz if you wish to turn one of the clocks back off.
To calibrate, adjust the value of si5351bx_vcoa and then call si5351bx_setfreq() for each of the active clocks.

Resolution is to one hz, since fout in hz is an integer.  (Though we could go to a fractional fixed point representation if necessary.)
The accuracy of the calculations is down around 1ppm, considerably better than the stability of the 25mhz reference oscillator.

There has been one minor bug found since the si5351bx code was made available last summer, this line:
    i2cWrite(183, SI5351BX_XTALPF << 6);
should be changed to this:
    i2cWrite(183, (SI5351BX_XTALPF << 6) | 0x12);
to agree with the recommendations in the SiLabs apnote AN619
This may improve phase noise, though I have not heard any reports of it making any perceivable difference.

The code from Pavel (and the code from Etherkit or G0UPL) will allow you to exceed the 109mhz max frequency
if that is of interest.  There may be differences in phase noise, though again I am not aware of this being perceptible by
anyone in this forum. 

Jerry, KE7ER



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:07 am, JuanCarlos Berberena Gonzalez wrote:
Hi Guys
A weeks ago Josué Marin-CO7RR- sent me this information to share with my group.
I am only try to be a good 'USER" testing some interesting project I can get on the web and afterward share it with my group.
Now Pavel-CO7WT- sent me this link and I think is a good idea to share with all of you.
 
https://nt7s.com/2018/02/si5351-programming-flowchart/

Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

Jerry Gaffke
 

Jury is still out as to how those parts got blown, and I am genuinely curious.
Most commercial radio gear that comes in plastic cases uses some sort of thin metallic film
on the interior to provide shielding, and if this is of concern I do think gluing tinfoil to the inside
surface is a reasonable thing to do.

My apologies if anyone was offended by the reference to a tinfoil hat.
Though as Raj has pointed out, that's not necessarily a bad idea either.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:18 am, Jack Purdum wrote:
No, I was dead serious.
 
Suggesting that someone has to be crazy to use a plastic case for an xcvr is uncalled for. Much of my work is done with an eye to the ham (or potential ham) who has limited income for our hobby. (See my intro to the Forty-9er article, March, 2016, QST.) There are a lot of people who cannot afford a $50 Hammond aluminum case. There are others who don't have the tools to work with aluminum; even a $30 nibbling tool is out of reach. Some who choose a plastic case may do so for economic reasons, but it could also they want it as light as possible and, when working a SOTA location, they're not overly-concerned about stray RFI. It may be they just like the way a plastic case looks. The popularity of 3-D printed cases is an example. Indeed, we all have read about hams who have mounted their BITX in the plastic case it came in. Others have used cigar boxes. I used an acrylic case for the Forty-9er because I wanted the visitors at the next Field Day to see that a viable rig does not have to be complicated.
 
So, no, I don't think it was called for because there are a lot of viable reasons for not using a metal case and to imply that someone who does needs to wear a foil hat is uncalled for.
 

Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

Gordon Gibby
 

​Thanks for your comments!   I have built now one Bix40 (dualbanded to 80 with a switch) inside of an upside-down bread making pan from a thrift store ($1).   


Another on a plastic desk organizer ($1)


I've built I think TWO "external VFOs" based on the Raduino for older Heathkits and both of them went into upside-down metal cookware from a Thrift Store ($1 or less, each) --- the prices on new metal enclosures I agree are out of my interest range.   The people I teach locally won't even buy a Signalink so we built our own sound-card interfaces on our own PCB (thank you for teaching me to use China --- that will cut my costs by 75%) -- and used $5 Adafruit sound dongles.


Cheaper is always apprecaited by retired folk on Social Security and the Thrift Store offers enormous options for smaller gear like this.


gordon




From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:18 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help
 
No, I was dead serious.

Suggesting that someone has to be crazy to use a plastic case for an xcvr is uncalled for. Much of my work is done with an eye to the ham (or potential ham) who has limited income for our hobby. (See my intro to the Forty-9er article, March, 2016, QST.) There are a lot of people who cannot afford a $50 Hammond aluminum case. There are others who don't have the tools to work with aluminum; even a $30 nibbling tool is out of reach. Some who choose a plastic case may do so for economic reasons, but it could also they want it as light as possible and, when working a SOTA location, they're not overly-concerned about stray RFI. It may be they just like the way a plastic case looks. The popularity of 3-D printed cases is an example. Indeed, we all have read about hams who have mounted their BITX in the plastic case it came in. Others have used cigar boxes. I used an acrylic case for the Forty-9er because I wanted the visitors at the next Field Day to see that a viable rig does not have to be complicated.

So, no, I don't think it was called for because there are a lot of viable reasons for not using a metal case and to imply that someone who does needs to wear a foil hat is uncalled for.

Jack, W8TEE


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 07:27 am, Gordon Gibby wrote:


Hi Jack, I hope your response was in jest!




From: Jack Purdum <jjpurdum@...>
To: "BITX20@groups.io" <BITX20@groups.io>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

Fashion a hat with any leftover [aluminum foil] scraps.


Uncalled for...

Jack, W8TEE

Re: Bitx40 - receiver works great, but do not transmit #bitx40help

Ivan Ilyichev
 

I built a RF probe according to this schematics: http://full-chip.net/uploads/posts/2012-12/full_chip_net_shema.gif . Also i was tortured my family with loud HALLO sound and i add simple CW mod - unbalancing diode mixer after T4 with 4k7 resistor to 5 connected to 5 volts of RADUINO.
At 50 ohm dummy load i measure 16.5 volts - as i calculated it means a little more than 5 watts. This is in factory position of RV136. In upper top position of RV136 a measured 17 volts that means 6 watts of power. It is nearly good.
R141 resistance is 10 ohm as needed.
Also i checked Q7 - Q9 transistors. Q7 - Q8 seems to be ok, but Q9 - not. Voltages of Q9 are: collector: 9.03 volts, base: 4.44 volts and emitter 4.51 volts. Seems to be a strange values, i guess i burn it out when connect DDS incorrect way. Tomorrow i try to buy new MMBT3904 transistors and change it.
Thank you all for answers, you helps me a lot.

Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

Gordon Gibby
 

Yeah, that amount of damage speaks of a direct connection to me......I run two WINLINK servers 75-100 watts 365/7/24 around here and I have MULTIPLE other radios and Bitx40's and uBitx's --- ZERO damage to any of my gear in 2 years.   The inverted vee and sloping dipole share the same end-tree; one on ham bnds, one on federalfrquencies not that far....   


ZERO damage.   Now I have assiduously added backtoback diodes, etc (thus my earlier arguments for those!) but beyond that....just don't connect things together!


By the way, one of our local ARES members is a networking IT guy used to plugging a bunch of Ethernet cables into the same switch----and he did the SAME THING with one antenna and an ICom28 and some other 2 meter rig when I was setting him up on Packet as both a node and a client --- and I raced there to save his gear but astonishingly, it survived.   I have no idea why.  ​Just lucky I guess?   But it was NOT 100 w of HF into a high Q circuit with series elements......




Gordon




From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:00 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help
 
He did say "no antenna connected"
though that is not quite the same as saying "nothing connected to the Bitx40 antenna port".
Perhaps he still had coax from Bitx40 into the tuner.
Then a fault in the tuner or perhaps a switch in the wrong position could have brought on this sort of damage.
That would be considerably less mysterious.

However, if there was no connection to the Bitx40 antenna port, this could still be due to strong near-fields somehow.
The fact that Pat only managed to take out Q13 is no reason to think that things could not get worse with 
different a physical placement and perhaps a poor match through the tuner from his Icom. 

Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:23 am, pat griffin wrote:

I think I am with Chris on this.  Early on, I fired up an Icom 735 a couple of feet away from the Bitx40 and it did indeed take out Q13 but left nary a mark.

 

Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

David Lacey
 

Sorry...but I agree with Jack`s comments. If any transceiver was intended to be fitted to a plastic case.....all major
rig manufacturers would be using them already. It is plain common sense to shield any RF generating device.

HF signals write-up on the rig states:
What is included and what is not
"The boards are sold at a low price to encourage more people to build them. Due to high postage
cost of including heavy items like speakers and metal box, these are not part of the kit. You will have
to supply your own project box, speaker,mic, power supply, antenna etc."
Dave
G4JBE

On 12/02/2018 17:18, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
No, I was dead serious.

Suggesting that someone has to be crazy to use a plastic case for an xcvr is uncalled for. Much of my work is done with an eye to the ham (or potential ham) who has limited income for our hobby. (See my intro to the Forty-9er article, March, 2016, QST.) There are a lot of people who cannot afford a $50 Hammond aluminum case. There are others who don't have the tools to work with aluminum; even a $30 nibbling tool is out of reach. Some who choose a plastic case may do so for economic reasons, but it could also they want it as light as possible and, when working a SOTA location, they're not overly-concerned about stray RFI. It may be they just like the way a plastic case looks. The popularity of 3-D printed cases is an example. Indeed, we all have read about hams who have mounted their BITX in the plastic case it came in. Others have used cigar boxes. I used an acrylic case for the Forty-9er because I wanted the visitors at the next Field Day to see that a viable rig does not have to be complicated.

So, no, I don't think it was called for because there are a lot of viable reasons for not using a metal case and to imply that someone who does needs to wear a foil hat is uncalled for.

Jack, W8TEE




Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

chris gress <Chrisg0wfh@...>
 

I used this copper tape in side my plastic cases for my bitx cheep as chips £1 a box chris

On 12 Feb 2018 18:19, "David Lacey via Groups.Io" <g4jbe=yahoo.co.uk@groups.io> wrote:
Sorry...but I agree with Jack`s comments. If any transceiver was intended to be fitted to a plastic case.....all major
rig manufacturers would be using them already. It is plain common sense to shield any RF generating device.

HF signals write-up on the rig states:
What is included and what is not
"The boards are sold at a low price to encourage more people to build them. Due to high postage
cost of including heavy items like speakers and metal box, these are not part of the kit. You will have
to supply your own project box, speaker,mic, power supply, antenna etc."
Dave
G4JBE

On 12/02/2018 17:18, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
No, I was dead serious.

Suggesting that someone has to be crazy to use a plastic case for an xcvr is uncalled for. Much of my work is done with an eye to the ham (or potential ham) who has limited income for our hobby. (See my intro to the Forty-9er article, March, 2016, QST.) There are a lot of people who cannot afford a $50 Hammond aluminum case. There are others who don't have the tools to work with aluminum; even a $30 nibbling tool is out of reach. Some who choose a plastic case may do so for economic reasons, but it could also they want it as light as possible and, when working a SOTA location, they're not overly-concerned about stray RFI. It may be they just like the way a plastic case looks. The popularity of 3-D printed cases is an example. Indeed, we all have read about hams who have mounted their BITX in the plastic case it came in. Others have used cigar boxes. I used an acrylic case for the Forty-9er because I wanted the visitors at the next Field Day to see that a viable rig does not have to be complicated.

So, no, I don't think it was called for because there are a lot of viable reasons for not using a metal case and to imply that someone who does needs to wear a foil hat is uncalled for.

Jack, W8TEE




Re: Bitx40 - receiver works great, but do not transmit #bitx40help

M Garza <mgarza896@...>
 

Ivan,
If you do not want to go through the trouble of getting SMD transistors, you could always use a regular 2N3904 or 2N2222 transistor.  Either will work.

Great work!

Marco - KG5PRT

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Ivan Ilyichev <ilyichev.ivan@...> wrote:
I built a RF probe according to this schematics: http://full-chip.net/uploads/posts/2012-12/full_chip_net_shema.gif . Also i was tortured my family with loud HALLO sound and i add simple CW mod - unbalancing diode mixer after T4 with 4k7 resistor to 5 connected to 5 volts of RADUINO.
At 50 ohm dummy load i measure 16.5 volts - as i calculated it means a little more than 5 watts. This is in factory position of RV136. In upper top position of RV136 a measured 17 volts that means 6 watts of power. It is nearly good.
R141 resistance is 10 ohm as needed.
Also i checked Q7 - Q9 transistors. Q7 - Q8 seems to be ok, but Q9 - not. Voltages of Q9 are: collector: 9.03 volts, base: 4.44 volts and emitter 4.51 volts. Seems to be a strange values, i guess i burn it out when connect DDS incorrect way. Tomorrow i try to buy new MMBT3904 transistors and change it.
Thank you all for answers, you helps me a lot.


Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

K5ESS
 

Got my uBITX yesterday via DHL (yes on Sunday). Didn’t have to sign.  Just a big yellow envelope left at my doorstep.

Mike

K5ESS

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of Art Howard
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:52 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

Steve

 I should get mine today I noticed that it's in Minneapolis now.

  Do you know if the package has to be signed for ?

Art

 

On 12 Feb 2018 7:59 am, "S. Porter" <srporter@...> wrote:

Art,

Just got off the phone with a DHL rep who said DHL will deliver here, not USPS. Your mileage may vary. The package is on the move again this morning! :-)

73,
Steve

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:08 pm, Art Howard wrote:

I also ordered mine on the 18th and mine is also sitting in Cincinnati for the last day.

 It is indicated that once it hits the USA it is USPS. Was supposed to deliver this last Friday so I figure maybe Tuesday here in Minnesota.

 

Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

Art Howard
 

I called DHL and they said they require all packages to be signed for even if it does come by USPS

On 12 Feb 2018 11:05 am, "at91r40008" <yvon@...> wrote:
If it is coming with USPS from outside the USA you most
probably have to sign for.
That is what the postman tells me each time I get a package
from China.
I rarely get DHL and it varies.
--
73, Yvon NU6I

Re: Si5351 Programming Flowchart

JuanCarlos
 

Thx, good to know.
73's Jc

“If you have a penny and I have a penny and we exchange pennies, you still have one cent and I still have one cent.  But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange ideas, you now have two ideas and I now have two ideas.” 

Mr. Juan Carlos Berberena Gonzalez, BSc.
WJ6C exCO6BG 


2018-02-12 12:48 GMT-05:00 Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...>:

That flowchart describes how to code low level si5351 routines,
not how to use those routines.  So probably not of much intereset
to most of the readers of this forum.

Allard's Bitx40 firmware and in Farhan's uBitx firmware currently use the si5351bx routines,
to use them just embed the two functions si5351bx_init() and si5351bx_setfreq() into your sketch.
Call si5351bx_init() once at startup, all three clk's get initialized to the off state.
Call si5351bx_setfreq(clknum, fout) each time you wish to change the frequency of a clock
with clknum a value of 0, 1, or 2, and fout in hz between 500khz and 109mhz.
Use a frequency of 0 hz if you wish to turn one of the clocks back off.
To calibrate, adjust the value of si5351bx_vcoa and then call si5351bx_setfreq() for each of the active clocks.

Resolution is to one hz, since fout in hz is an integer.  (Though we could go to a fractional fixed point representation if necessary.)
The accuracy of the calculations is down around 1ppm, considerably better than the stability of the 25mhz reference oscillator.

There has been one minor bug found since the si5351bx code was made available last summer, this line:
    i2cWrite(183, SI5351BX_XTALPF << 6);
should be changed to this:
    i2cWrite(183, (SI5351BX_XTALPF << 6) | 0x12);
to agree with the recommendations in the SiLabs apnote AN619
This may improve phase noise, though I have not heard any reports of it making any perceivable difference.

The code from Pavel (and the code from Etherkit or G0UPL) will allow you to exceed the 109mhz max frequency
if that is of interest.  There may be differences in phase noise, though again I am not aware of this being perceptible by
anyone in this forum. 

Jerry, KE7ER



On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:07 am, JuanCarlos Berberena Gonzalez wrote:
Hi Guys
A weeks ago Josué Marin-CO7RR- sent me this information to share with my group.
I am only try to be a good 'USER" testing some interesting project I can get on the web and afterward share it with my group.
Now Pavel-CO7WT- sent me this link and I think is a good idea to share with all of you.
 
https://nt7s.com/2018/02/si5351-programming-flowchart/


Re: Blown by nearby transceiver #bitx40help

Arv Evans
 

Jerry KE7ER

While tinfoil (even the tinfoil hat) can lessen exposure to static charges, how
much effect does it have on electro-magnetic energy.  Seems that a thick steel
chassis (or hat)  might be better for limiting both ES and EM signal levels.

Arv  K7HKL
_._

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote:
Jury is still out as to how those parts got blown, and I am genuinely curious.
Most commercial radio gear that comes in plastic cases uses some sort of thin metallic film
on the interior to provide shielding, and if this is of concern I do think gluing tinfoil to the inside
surface is a reasonable thing to do.

My apologies if anyone was offended by the reference to a tinfoil hat.
Though as Raj has pointed out, that's not necessarily a bad idea either.

Jerry, KE7ER

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 09:18 am, Jack Purdum wrote:
No, I was dead serious.
 
Suggesting that someone has to be crazy to use a plastic case for an xcvr is uncalled for. Much of my work is done with an eye to the ham (or potential ham) who has limited income for our hobby. (See my intro to the Forty-9er article, March, 2016, QST.) There are a lot of people who cannot afford a $50 Hammond aluminum case. There are others who don't have the tools to work with aluminum; even a $30 nibbling tool is out of reach. Some who choose a plastic case may do so for economic reasons, but it could also they want it as light as possible and, when working a SOTA location, they're not overly-concerned about stray RFI. It may be they just like the way a plastic case looks. The popularity of 3-D printed cases is an example. Indeed, we all have read about hams who have mounted their BITX in the plastic case it came in. Others have used cigar boxes. I used an acrylic case for the Forty-9er because I wanted the visitors at the next Field Day to see that a viable rig does not have to be complicated.
 
So, no, I don't think it was called for because there are a lot of viable reasons for not using a metal case and to imply that someone who does needs to wear a foil hat is uncalled for.
 


Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

Gary Shriver
 

When did you order?

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of K5ESS
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:33 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

Got my uBITX yesterday via DHL (yes on Sunday). Didn’t have to sign.  Just a big yellow envelope left at my doorstep.

Mike

K5ESS

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of Art Howard
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:52 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

Steve

 I should get mine today I noticed that it's in Minneapolis now.

  Do you know if the package has to be signed for ?

Art

 

On 12 Feb 2018 7:59 am, "S. Porter" <srporter@...> wrote:

Art,

Just got off the phone with a DHL rep who said DHL will deliver here, not USPS. Your mileage may vary. The package is on the move again this morning! :-)

73,
Steve

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:08 pm, Art Howard wrote:

I also ordered mine on the 18th and mine is also sitting in Cincinnati for the last day.

 It is indicated that once it hits the USA it is USPS. Was supposed to deliver this last Friday so I figure maybe Tuesday here in Minnesota.

 

Re: RadI2Cino - I2C replacement for the uBITX Raduino #ubitx

Jim Sheldon
 

Ordering for the option 2 boards is temporarily closed - out of boards to make them with.  The response was far more than expected.  There may be 4 or 5 bare boards (option 1) left but those are rapidly disappearing as well. 

Anticipate more boards in about 15 days but until then the order window is closed.

I'll announce when they are again available in this thread here.

Jim Sheldon, W0EB

Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

S. Porter <srporter@...>
 

Art,

Package just arrived via DHL courier.

I did have to sign for it.

73,
Steve

Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

Art Howard
 

It's here...🤣
Ordered on December 18th.


On 12 Feb 2018 8:51 am, "Art Howard" <k0kuk.vhf@...> wrote:
Steve
 I should get mine today I noticed that it's in Minneapolis now.
  Do you know if the package has to be signed for ?
Art

On 12 Feb 2018 7:59 am, "S. Porter" <srporter@...> wrote:
Art,

Just got off the phone with a DHL rep who said DHL will deliver here, not USPS. Your mileage may vary. The package is on the move again this morning! :-)

73,
Steve

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:08 pm, Art Howard wrote:
I also ordered mine on the 18th and mine is also sitting in Cincinnati for the last day.
 It is indicated that once it hits the USA it is USPS. Was supposed to deliver this last Friday so I figure maybe Tuesday here in Minnesota.
 

Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

Art Howard
 

Got mine today. ordered December 18th. Arrived at my place via Courier Service 


On 26 Jan 2018 2:37 am, "dj0hf" <dj0hf@...> wrote:
Ordered on the 16th December - Nothing yet.

73
Ian
DJ0HF/G3ULO




Re: Second batch of uBITX shipping? #ubitx

K5ESS
 

Ordered on 18 Dec.  Shipped 7 Feb.  Received 11 Feb.

Mike

K5ESS

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of Gary Shriver
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:58 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

When did you order?

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of K5ESS
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:33 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

Got my uBITX yesterday via DHL (yes on Sunday). Didn’t have to sign.  Just a big yellow envelope left at my doorstep.

Mike

K5ESS

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of Art Howard
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:52 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Second batch of uBITX shipping?

 

Steve

 I should get mine today I noticed that it's in Minneapolis now.

  Do you know if the package has to be signed for ?

Art

 

On 12 Feb 2018 7:59 am, "S. Porter" <srporter@...> wrote:

Art,

Just got off the phone with a DHL rep who said DHL will deliver here, not USPS. Your mileage may vary. The package is on the move again this morning! :-)

73,
Steve

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:08 pm, Art Howard wrote:

I also ordered mine on the 18th and mine is also sitting in Cincinnati for the last day.

 It is indicated that once it hits the USA it is USPS. Was supposed to deliver this last Friday so I figure maybe Tuesday here in Minnesota.

 

uBITx For Sale

Glenn AE0Q <ae0q@...>
 

I just today received my uBITx (ordered on 19 Dec) but things have changed and I don't have time for the project.

I've collected some things I was going to use to build it, all is for sale.

uBITx  unopened except for photos   $109

Adafruit 10k Log pot (with 1/4" dia shaft) and 2 black knobs (blue stripe)  $5.00

SOTABeams CW DSP Audio Filter  $42

Beautiful aluminum enclosure (2.4" x 6.22" x 7.2" inside dimensions)  $20
See the ebay link for assembled photos of the box.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/122879292126

Photos of all attached.

Would like to sell all together but not necessary.

Glenn AE0Q