Date   
Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Gary Anderson
 

The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.  But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. https://wiki.protoneer.co.nz/NANO-ARM  $10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.  This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.  One one hand, I want all the features.  One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost. 
 
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX

Poor Reception

Jeff Davis
 

Poor reception... My receiver was one of the first to ship. I have made no modifications to it. The vfo seems to be about 2800 Hz off. My Drake 2B receives a signals
with one foot of wire attached to the antenna . At the same time, I have 35 feet of wire attached to the uBitx, and listening to the same signal, it is difficult to hear
on the uBitx. I swapped it out with another uBitx transceiver, and it was not much better. I swapped the nano board and no difference on either except the receive frequency was different.
The 2800 Hz was not enough to put it out of the band-pass filter... I should not think a software upgrade would make any difference... or would it.

Jeff ve3coj

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Buddy Brannan
 

All true. 

As for impairments…blindness is, paradoxically, no big deal and also not for wimps :-) And ham radio has been great in a lot of respects, including in travel to other states and other countries. It kept my sanity when in Ukraine for five weeks adopting my daughter in 2004, when we were literally locked in because the adoption guy had no idea what else to do with us. The KX1 was a great travel companion back then, though obviously not a lot of great contacts with just a wire tossed out a 6th story apartment and another counterpoise lying across the floor. Still helped with not climbing the walls. 

Getting hf station back on the air, after not being very active for theist couple years, so maybe will see you on the bands sometime. Am about 90% cw, usually with a straight key or bug. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​man, my hat is off  to you getting ANYTHING done with such impediments!   More power to you!!!!

If there isn't any statc---there's not much propagation either!!!

Gordon



From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:22 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes. 

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I’m interested in trying some kit building myself…it’s one aspect I feel like I’ve missed out on…especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still…being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish. 

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon


  
From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation? 
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM 



Re: #ubitx SSM2167 mic compressor speaker feedback issue - resolved #ubitx

John (vk2eta)
 

Hello Alan, yes I have added a little 4 pin molex connector for D7 (T/R), the two I2C bus lines and +5V for my 2nd Arduino.

All the best,

73, John

Re: show your mic

Arv Evans
 

Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.  It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.  who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output. 

Arv  K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.  It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.  Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.  Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.


Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Robert Weiman
 

The one big difference in this application between the Raspberry Pi and a micro-controller like the Teensy and the Arduinos is how much overhead the OS imposes.  Linux is a full blown consumer OS and is not a real-time OS.  It can impose non-deterministic delays on how long it takes to respond to an interrupt / toggle an I/O pin / etc.  On most of the hobby micro-controllers, there is significantly less overhead imposed by minimal, almost not really an OS, provided by the Arduino build environment.  Personally, I will add a PI to my uBitx build, but it won't be replacing the micro-controller in the Raduino - more augmenting the system by providing higher level software and interfaces (Digital modes, etc).  


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:50 PM Gary Anderson <gary.ag5tx@...> wrote:
The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.  But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. https://wiki.protoneer.co.nz/NANO-ARM  $10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.  This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.  One one hand, I want all the features.  One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost. 
 
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX

Re: show your mic

MVS Sarma
 

Simple . It works with a DC bias and resistance variation of carbon granules packed in a mic  convey the speech content.
 Only diffiernce is that the bandwidth would be much less as against electret or dynamic mics.
regards
sarma
 vu3zmv

Regards
MVS Sarma
 

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.  It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.  who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output. 

Arv  K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.  It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.  Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.  Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.



Re: show your mic

MVS Sarma
 

In continuation, i suppose that except salvaged ones , we may not be able to get carbon mics now a days.

Regards
MVS Sarma
 

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Mvs Sarma <mvssarma@...> wrote:
Simple . It works with a DC bias and resistance variation of carbon granules packed in a mic  convey the speech content.
 Only diffiernce is that the bandwidth would be much less as against electret or dynamic mics.
regards
sarma
 vu3zmv

Regards
MVS Sarma
 

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
Lee

It will be interesting to see, and hear, how that T-32 carbon button microphone
works with the BITX.  It may need some attenuation because carbon microphones
usually output a fairly high level signal.  who knows...we could be seeing a new
trend of using carbon microphones for their inherent frequency limiting and high
output. 

Arv  K7HKL
_._


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Lee <mr.olson@...> wrote:
The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.  It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.  Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.  Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.




Re: show your mic

Lee
 

Arv, I'm not using the carbon button,  "The original carbon element was bad so I put in a electret mic and MAX9812 module board"  See the picture of the button holder.

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Chris Clarke G3SQU
 

Brady

The uBITx is never going to be a serious CW contest rig, but I imagine you are not expecting that.

I only operate CW, never more than 20W. Having installed the KD8KEC v1.061 firmware to deal with keying issues, and when combined with a good audio filter, I am very happy operating CW with the uBITx. I am straight key only so it would be good to hear from some paddle-key operators. I use a W3NQN passive LC audio CW filter built from a kit many years ago and sadly not available at present, but there are now many analogue and digital filter options out there to try. I am about to try the SOTAbeams Laserbeam digital audio filter, which comes with great reviews.

When I first assembled my uBITx I reported to my local club that it wasn't a viable CW rig. However, I now enjoy CW operating with my upgraded uBITx, especially as I've been able to customise the software. Last weekend I spent some time working CW in the YU and MM DX contests on the 40m and 20m bands (with my NorCal Doublet antenna). Whilst 47 contacts from on-off operating over the 2 days doesn't break any records, I had an enjoyable time hunting them down when I did go on the air. Significantly, I don't think I'd have done any better with my TenTec 579 (a nice very analog CW rig) running QRP and I much prefer operating the uBITx rather than my YouKits EK-1B or IC-703 QRP rigs because of the customisation I've been able to achieve.

The great strength of the uBITx is that provides a really good basis for experimentation and development, as well as operation, at a bargain price and I'm finding it is a real education when allied to all the support you can get from this Group. It is a true ham's rig and is fine for CW, with an audio filter, once the stock firmware has been upgraded. I am also very happy that I've had an introduction to programming the Arduino, something I'd been thinking about for years but had never taken the step.

Hope this helps.

73 Chris
G3SQU

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

KB2HSH
 

I have been using my uBITX exclusively on CW for the last couple weeks. After getting used to the idiosyncrasies of the radio, and using KD8CEC v 1.061, it's actually quite a CAPABLE CW rig. Whether its making SKCC group contacts, working Special Event stations (got the Titanic SE in one call), or general rag-chewing, the uBITX is a great radio.

KB2HSH
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

w4rjp
 

Lee:  Thanks for the microphone suggestion. Snagged it from a web site as a raster image.  Converted it to match the wire-up diagram.

If you find anything else in error, please advise.

73, Bob W4RJP

Re: Upgrade the software to Allard's version #radiuno #bitx40help #nano

SaMa photo SaMa photo
 

Thanks Raj
it's the first thing I did! I checked all the connections!
By turning the VFO, the QRM increases on some frequencies but no QSO is heard. But stopping on one of these frequencies, if you remove the antenna the QRM should go to zero but instead it does not change anything! it's as if the antenna is not connected! I checked the antenna line up to the first transistor, passing through the relays and the frequency coils and everything is OK! See the attached diagram! I checked the one marked in yellow!
Thank you
Sergio

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

William Cullison
 

A socket for the nano would help a lot.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Gary Anderson <gary.ag5tx@...> wrote:
The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.  But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. https://wiki.protoneer.co.nz/NANO-ARM  $10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.  This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.  One one hand, I want all the features.  One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost. 
 
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX


Re: Upgrade the software to Allard's version #radiuno #bitx40help #nano

M Garza <mgarza896@...>
 

Sergio,
Please look at this message (https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/21621).  Randy K7AGE measured all of the transistor voltages and attached them as a PDF.  Please measure the voltages on your board and compare to the document.  If you find something that is very different, that is probably your issue.

Hope this helps.

Marco - KG5PRT

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM, SaMa photo SaMa photo <infosamaphoto@...> wrote:
Thanks Raj
it's the first thing I did! I checked all the connections!
By turning the VFO, the QRM increases on some frequencies but no QSO is heard. But stopping on one of these frequencies, if you remove the antenna the QRM should go to zero but instead it does not change anything! it's as if the antenna is not connected! I checked the antenna line up to the first transistor, passing through the relays and the frequency coils and everything is OK! See the attached diagram! I checked the one marked in yellow!
Thank you
Sergio


Re: show your mic

Dexter N Muir
 

Carbon mics need a bit more bias current. Most can be revived by physical shock, breaking up clumps of granules packed by gravity in storage/disuse.

Challenge: the carbon mic that got me into electronics and eventually Ham Radio, some 60-odd years ago!
Take a (sorta fist-size to shoe-box) cardboard box lid.
Take 2 razor blades (single-sided are best)with wires attached.
Poke those blades up through the box-lid beside each other, (just) not touching. A twist of the insulated wires might help steady them.
Take a section of pencil-lead and balance that across the blade edges.
Connect up - you've got a mic!

73
Dex, ZL2DEX

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

Jonathan
 

Bob,

Nice diagram!   I had a question about your "N/C" notation on the switches.  In some cases the line between the pins marked with N/C is solid and dashed in others.  What is the intent of the notation?

Thanks

-Jonathan  KF6RTA

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

Jonathan
 

Sorry, should have said "sockets" instead of "switches".

-Jonathan

Re: Transmitter Mods

Howard Fidel
 

So far I received 10 requests for parts as of now. I have mailed out today 7, the remaining 3 will be in the mail tomorrow. I expect the results to vary, because it if transistor dependent. Please let us know how it works for you.
Also, thanks for sending me the QRP sticker. Some sent me money, which is a nice thought, but completely unnecessary. I have these 2 reels of parts, with 1000s of parts on each left over from an old business. The parts are 20 years old, so they have no resale value. I'm just happy they are being put to good use.
I am working on some other changes, AGC and S meter. The AGC works well, but the S meter, not so well, so I need to work more on that. I will post the work when I finish. After that I will work on the 70 watt amp, which I mentioned before, and probably a preamp.

Howard



On 4/20/2018 7:14 PM, Chris Clarke wrote:
Howard

I don't normally do SMD but this sounds like a good idea ... I'll need to order some for this side of the pond, but which physical SMD sizes are these components?

73 Chris
G3SQU


Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jerry Gaffke
 

I'd bet worst case latency on a not seriously loaded RPi is less than the
milliseconds it takes us to load a new clock frequency into the si5351 via 100khz i2c.

A google for "Rasberry Pi RT" shows there are real time variants of the kernel.
I've got no idea how real time. 

There are some going without linux, programming the bare metal.

But I like the idea of still using a simple microntroller for basic rig control.
Being something of a pessimist, I'd prefer not to depend on something
as complex as the RPi, too many billions of things that could go wrong.

Jerry


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:01 am, Robert Weiman wrote:
The one big difference in this application between the Raspberry Pi and a micro-controller like the Teensy and the Arduinos is how much overhead the OS imposes.  Linux is a full blown consumer OS and is not a real-time OS.  It can impose non-deterministic delays on how long it takes to respond to an interrupt / toggle an I/O pin / etc.  On most of the hobby micro-controllers, there is significantly less overhead imposed by minimal, almost not really an OS, provided by the Arduino build environment.  Personally, I will add a PI to my uBitx build, but it won't be replacing the micro-controller in the Raduino - more augmenting the system by providing higher level software and interfaces (Digital modes, etc).