Date   

Re: I'm really stuck! No Xmit Pwr. #ubitx

Latham, Chip
 

Thank you! to everyone who pitched in to HELP.
Chip


RF Situation Resolved.

Latham, Chip
 

Howard (WB2VXW) called this morning and we went thru quite a bit of testing and things were not added up, until I mentioned that I had replaced the heatsink, made sure it was isolated from ground but forgot the FETs needed to be isolated from each other as well.
Thanks Howard, that was a stupid mistake on my part. I own it!
Farhan forgive me for suggesting there might have been a possibility of rushing the board out, getting ready for the release of V4.0
Chip
N5FJK


Re: I'm really stuck! No Xmit Pwr. #ubitx

Latham, Chip
 



Howard Many Thanks,

This Group is an awesome resource.


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Arv Evans
 

Richard

It was not you.  In message 52499 someone hijacked your topic and caused all the flames.
Your original post got lost somewhere in the rants and counter-rants.
Things have died down a bit now so maybe someone can help you with the problem.

Arv
_._


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:36 PM Richard <richard@...> wrote:
Bob Bennett -

Unless I am reading this wrong - I am the original poster and I didn't smear a thing, so are you addressing this to someone else?  If not, it's clear you didn't read the post -  I asked 2 questions regarding my first build, and a bunch of people decided my post would be a nice place to turn into keyboard warriors, that being said.

Can anyone explain to me the method for calibrating a V4, about 58 comments back I listed the difference in the code used in the V4 Firmware, and it is clearly different?

--
Richard
KC7DDW
--
Richard
KC7DDW


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Arv Evans
 

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:30 pm, Richard wrote:
Richard   KC7DDW
It was not your message that started the flame burst.  In message 52499 another member hijacked your
topic and inserted the objectionable comments.  From that point on it seems that your request for help
just got lost in the rants and counter-rants. 

Hopefully now that things have quieted down a bit someone can answer your query and help with the
problem.

Arv  K7HKL
_._


Re: Thoughts on a Ham Bus

Tim Gorman
 

Jerry,

I think you missed the point. After WWII huge numbers of these
connectors were available because they were made for military use and
it was easy for commercial and private interests to obtain them and use
them. The amateur community is going to have a difficult time
generating a standard that sees widespread acceptance with lots of
availability purely because of limited economic impact.

Any future standard is going to have to also be made in huge numbers as
well. Otherwise it will never become a "standard". The only entity
today that can generate that kind of usage of a standard *will* be
military based.

The only other entity that had that kind of power for setting a
standard was the old Bell System. Look at the RJ-8 and RJ-45 standards
or even the N-connector. They were driven by usage in the telephone
systems. But the Bell System no longer exists and is no longer capable
of driving standards.

I'm not sure what RF connectors you are speaking of but if you go to
the Amphenol site even the SMC connector is based on a mil-spec
standard.

The phono connector will work at RF but it has many problems. It is not
a positive mechanical connection and is subject to corrosion affects.

Again, standards become standards because of a lot of use in a lot of
places. You would be better off looking for a standard bus arrangement
by looking at electronic equipment in the military. Those standards see
a lot of usage, they last for a long time, and there are typically
multiple suppliers. I know some of that equipment used plug-in cards
with a backplane.

tim ab0wr



On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:32:48 -0700
"Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io" <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Going from "the PL259 somehow got established as a standard in the
ham world 80 years ago" to "any bus standard that succeeds will
likely have originated in some military gear" is quite a leap.
 Nothing much is mil-spec about the uBitx.

There's better choices than the PL259 and/or the BNC for coax these
days. But they got established, and hams are a conservative lot.
For HF QRP , some would argue that an RCA audio connector is a better
choice (I would).

Somewhat related, several in the forum have reported that the BNC
jack supplied with the kit has been machined with less than ideal
tolerances.  If you aren't seeing any power out to your dummy load,
be sure to check that the center pin of your BNC is reliably making
contact, and perhaps spend a few bucks on a better jack.  Something
like Mouser 530-B1094. 

Jerry, KE7ER

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:40 am, Tim Gorman wrote:


I think you'll find the so239/pl259 combination as well as the bnc
were first standardized by the military and then the commercial
industry picked them up.

Unless you can find a bus standard that has been adopted by the
military first you probably aren't going to find wide acceptance.


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Richard
 

Bob Bennett -

Unless I am reading this wrong - I am the original poster and I didn't smear a thing, so are you addressing this to someone else?  If not, it's clear you didn't read the post -  I asked 2 questions regarding my first build, and a bunch of people decided my post would be a nice place to turn into keyboard warriors, that being said.

Can anyone explain to me the method for calibrating a V4, about 58 comments back I listed the difference in the code used in the V4 Firmware, and it is clearly different?

--
Richard
KC7DDW


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Jerry Gaffke
 

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:36 am, Andy V. Borisenko wrote:
I can load firmware. now I have CEC version 1.080. it is more convenient than the factory one. but in uBitx the manipulation for CW is done on the relay. when working on a vertical key, the first sign is shortened due to the switching time of the relay. just tried it. This is not good. I do not know, maybe you can use PTT, but I have not done it yet. it's nearly midnight, tomorrow at work. I'm sleeping :)
 

 When you first press the key, the Raduino senses this and turns on the relays to switch from 
receive to transmit.  The Si5351 is written to with the operating freq in clk2.
The other two Si5351 clocks are shut down.  This should all happen within 5 milliseconds or so,
where a single dot at 40 wpm is 33 milliseconds wide.  So plenty responsive.

I'm not sure what the CEC firmware is doing, but it may be adding a delay to avoid
a loud pop in the received audio when switching from receive to transmit.
If present, perhaps such a delay is no longer needed, if the pop has been sufficiently
reduced with the v4 board, or if Kees' pop fix kit has been applied to the radio.  
 
As I say, this is primarily an SSB radio.
But many are successfully using it for CW.

Jerry

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:36 am, Andy V. Borisenko wrote:
I can load firmware. now I have CEC version 1.080. it is more convenient than the factory one. but in uBitx the manipulation for CW is done on the relay. when working on a vertical key, the first sign is shortened due to the switching time of the relay. just tried it. This is not good. I do not know, maybe you can use PTT, but I have not done it yet. it's nearly midnight, tomorrow at work. I'm sleeping :)


Re: Oscilloscope on sale

Ralph Mowery
 

I have had one like that for about 2 years.  It works fine for  the price.

ku4pt


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:
All:

Some here were looking for a good scope at a reasonable price. The Hantek 200MHz, 2 channel is on sale for $271.20. I have this scope an like it a lot.


Jack, W8TEE
_._,_.


Re: Oscilloscope on sale

Roy Appleton
 

That is a good price! I bought that model on sale from them in April for $299! Love it!

Roy
WA0YMH

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 1:20 PM Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
All:

Some here were looking for a good scope at a reasonable price. The Hantek 200MHz, 2 channel is on sale for $271.20. I have this scope an like it a lot.


Jack, W8TEE


Re: Encoder problem

Howard Fidel
 

TO clarify, it changes only by 50 Hz, or in 50 Hz steps only?
Rotating without pushing the button changes nothing?
Is this a first time build issue, or it was working and failed issue?


On 6/21/2018 2:10 PM, n7nsd@... wrote:
My encoder won’t change frequency except by 50hz. Pressing the encoder cycles from 40m on the bottom line to adding “band select?” on the top and then “press to confirm” and then back to the first screen. Rotating the encoder doesn’t cause any changes. I have added denouncing resistors and caps with no improvement. Is there a way to test the encoder or should I simply replace it?  Any ideas welcome. 
73



Re: Encoder problem

Jack, W8TEE
 

If you're comfortable with coding for the Nano, look in the examples for the encoder library, pick one, compile/upload it to the Nano and see if it works. You may have to reassign the pin numbers from the example. As I recall, Farhan uses A0 and A1 for the clock and data and A2 for the switch. Those would likely have to be changed in the examples.

Jack, W8TEE

On Thursday, June 21, 2018, 2:10:59 PM EDT, n7nsd@... <n7nsd@...> wrote:


My encoder won’t change frequency except by 50hz. Pressing the encoder cycles from 40m on the bottom line to adding “band select?” on the top and then “press to confirm” and then back to the first screen. Rotating the encoder doesn’t cause any changes. I have added denouncing resistors and caps with no improvement. Is there a way to test the encoder or should I simply replace it?  Any ideas welcome. 
73


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Andy V. Borisenko <rw9rn@...>
 

I can load firmware. now I have CEC version 1.080. it is more convenient than the factory one. but in uBitx the manipulation for CW is done on the relay. when working on a vertical key, the first sign is shortened due to the switching time of the relay. just tried it. This is not good. I do not know, maybe you can use PTT, but I have not done it yet. it's nearly midnight, tomorrow at work. I'm sleeping :)
 


Re: Thoughts on a Ham Bus

Jerry Gaffke
 

Going from "the PL259 somehow got established as a standard in the ham world 80 years ago"
to "any bus standard that succeeds will likely have originated in some military gear"
is quite a leap.   Nothing much is mil-spec about the uBitx.

There's better choices than the PL259 and/or the BNC for coax these days.
But they got established, and hams are a conservative lot.
For HF QRP , some would argue that an RCA audio connector is a better choice (I would).

Somewhat related, several in the forum have reported that the BNC jack supplied with the kit
has been machined with less than ideal tolerances.  If you aren't seeing any power out to
your dummy load, be sure to check that the center pin of your BNC is reliably making contact,
and perhaps spend a few bucks on a better jack.  Something like Mouser 530-B1094. 

Jerry, KE7ER


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:40 am, Tim Gorman wrote:
I think you'll find the so239/pl259 combination as well as the bnc were
first standardized by the military and then the commercial industry
picked them up.

Unless you can find a bus standard that has been adopted by the
military first you probably aren't going to find wide acceptance.


Re: Blown (socketed) TDA2822?

allen west
 

Dyslexia is one of my issues, or is it just old age?  Thanks for the correction, Jerry.

Al


On Jun 21, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote:

The WX branded TDA2822 simply does not meet spec.  
We have no idea what spec it meets, as WX does not have a datasheet for it.
In addition to an apparent absolute max supply voltage of around 6 or 8v,
it quite likely suffers in the audio quality department.

The NJM2073D (not NJM2037D) is a compliant TDA2822, built by a respected manufacturer.
Easily available, in stock at Mouser (513-NJM2073D) and Digikey (NJM2073D-ND),
both distributors have thousands in stock.
Good choice.

Those wishing greater speaker volume on a v4 board could do well to dead bug a NJM2073D
to the back of the uBitx board, replacing everything between the volume control and the speaker
as per the v3 schematic.  Or do the same with an ebay LM386 audio amp module
(a fully assembled board) as per the Bitx40 schematic, cost of about $1.  Plus shipping.

Jerry



On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:47 am, allen west wrote:
I received my uBitx in February but did not put it together until early May.  As soon as I plugged in a mono headphone I blew out the TDA2822.  It did have the WX on it.  I removed the chip and installed a socket and replaced it with a pin compatible NJM2037D.  It has worked fine since and even sounds better than the 2822.  I am very satisfied with this NJM2037D amplifier chip.
 


Oscilloscope on sale

Jack, W8TEE
 

All:

Some here were looking for a good scope at a reasonable price. The Hantek 200MHz, 2 channel is on sale for $271.20. I have this scope an like it a lot.


Jack, W8TEE


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Jerry Gaffke
 

You definitely want to update the stock firmware for good CW operation.
Or at least drive the stock firmware with an external keyer of your choice.

Might be interesting to see what opinions are here about what firmware is best for CW.
It's a simple process to load new firmware into the Raduino using the Arduino IDE.

The uBitx is primarily an SSB rig, lack of QSK will make it less than ideal for CW.
I believe Farhan mostly uses a straight key when on CW, the logic within the
original stock keyer firmware was less than ideal.  Perhaps that firmware has been 
improved on the recent v4 boards being shipped.

Jerry


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:53 am, Andy V. Borisenko wrote:
SSB not intresting for me. but CW must be perfect!


Encoder problem

Norm. N7NSD
 

My encoder won’t change frequency except by 50hz. Pressing the encoder cycles from 40m on the bottom line to adding “band select?” on the top and then “press to confirm” and then back to the first screen. Rotating the encoder doesn’t cause any changes. I have added denouncing resistors and caps with no improvement. Is there a way to test the encoder or should I simply replace it?  Any ideas welcome. 
73


Re: uBITX Version 4 first attempt #ubitx-help #ubitx

Andy V. Borisenko <rw9rn@...>
 

thank you Jerry.
I am a stutterer. SSB not intresting for me. but CW must be perfect!
Farhan has an engineering error in the audio amplifier. I do not speak English well enough to explain this in detail. I will say simply: do not use the built-in amplifier in this form. It's easier and cheaper to signal bypass, to an external audio amplifier. this can be done by sending a signal from the yellow (signal) through the condenser 47-100 microfarad and green (ground), to an external audio amplifier.
73! peace to all and cognac!


Re: Thoughts on a Ham Bus

ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...>
 

There are so many busses already that both mil and commercial that it comes
down to, take your pick.  Its worse than connectors.

The problem that standardized busses try to solve is interoperability.  The problem
they bring very often is the bus has overhead due to signaling voltages and in 
no shortage of cases protocols with their overhead on how things need to (must)
talk to each other.  Then there is the bus specification that covers all possible
cases and error cases.

To that there are more than enough all available to use and generally free enough
that we do not have to lay out money other than the effort and material needed to
conform to that bus specification.

My two cents... seriously?

Allison