Date   
Re: HFSignals poor business practices

F6GWE
 

Hi John,

With your expectations mlaybe you have to buy a K1 Elecraft Kit? But remind me how much does it cost?

73
Patrick
F6GWE

Re: Preliminary results -- W8TEE/AC8GY Mag Loop Testing

Alan de G1FXB
 

Hi Alison,

I recall you done antenna R&D.

RE my comments: feeder radiation?? etc,?? and one of the examples I was eluding to:-

Ever have reason to look at the work of Ted Hart?? W5QJR ? EH antennas in either their or your commercial or hobby capacity?

Perhaps 5, never as many as 10 vearment supporters & no one else in the world could get them to work however "tweaky" the MKII / MKIII designs evolved

Had a massive US Mil. grant for their R&D, nothing. Failed to convince the IEEE with all their techno babble papers as to the theory?

However I bet they have nice retirement homes......


Maybe I'm an old fashioned dinosaur?

Way off topic... but "Do they work?"

a quick yes or no will suffice.?? :-)

--- .???? --- --- ---

regards Alan

??

On 01/06/2019 21:28, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
Alan de G1FXB,

Your correct.?? any testing and I've done a lot with small loops you need lots of??
"shield breakers" or choking to remove the COAX shield as a possible secondary
coupling making it an undesired array and often clouding results or minimally
distorting patterns greatly.

If the RF source is small and self contained it can be at or very near the
feed point and make the problem easier.?? Same applies for receivers
as well.

Generally Loops, large or small, are considered self contained antennas not
requiring ground planes or counterpoises.?? However in the real world those
will exist.?? As a result supports or cables and the very existence of the
ground below it do influence the results.

Allison

Re: Availability of Mag Loop and other stuff...

Alan de G1FXB
 

Thanks Jack,

Long answers are good and indicate your willingness for full disclosure.

(Manufactures antenna specifications tend to be BS generators?
Second only to the HiFi industry.??
Remember the kids in the mid 1980's with their "Ghetto Blasters" advertised with 780 Watts of stereo music power, and all from 8X D cell batteries.
In fairness some of the manufactures provided revised figures when used on mains power, nearly a KW.
Man those things must have being efficient, and all through a skinny power cord....)

I couldn't find on the pacciffic66 site what they reference their figures to, on that initial page at least?
hopefully it's something real and not against some theoretical property.
One of which, the proper name escapes me at this time.
(my numbers for instance :-)
6ft of wire whether straight or coiled is a larger percentage nearer a useful wavelength ie: 1/4wave?? at say 28MHz (approx 8ft) than the same 6ft of wire to 14MHz
I interpret this to It's a simple expression of comparison of physical length to wavelength, nothing to do with the antenna efficiency and devoid of losses in the matching networks that are necessary, etc, etc.
Even if it's a real antenna they are referencing it to, it in it's self could be a compromised reference gives great headline numbers.
Check the fine print!

Suggestion:- At least do the theoretical model of what ever you choose to use as the loop reference antenna against a full size centre fed dipole at identical heights, even if not a real world test.
Granted it's monoband & optimally performs mounted half wavelength above the ground but it's a good indicator & reference, and as cheap & simple?? to construct as it gets.
if you don't like what you see in the comparison it's between you and your conscience.
You can cripple it's performance and justifiably conclude an XYZ antenna, is greatly more efficient than?? a halfwave dipole when mounted at 15ft agl for example.... :-)

Saw the reports of doing A/B comparisons, however quick the changeover there is always the element of doubt as to propagation.
the ideal is simultaneous TX to both antennas in the same lot but far enough not to interact is the goal.
In the real world two antennas one each in the same town is good enough. What's a mile over a propagation distance of say 6,000??
everyone has their preferred mode, be it CW, WSPR the latest digimode.???? Reality it doesn't matter?
The requirement is for as many & widespread coverage of receiving stations as possible??
That said, QRP-Labs kits are cheap enough to utilise two, and compare like for like WSPR time slots to each of your and AL's callsigns allocated to each different antenna?


regards Alan

On 01/06/2019 17:27, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
Alan:

The results right now are modeled using the usual Pacific66 app. However, we do plan "real" tests in an attempt to get some useful data. Our reference antenna will likely be an 80-10M EFHW which we both use. Al also has a vertical that we might test against. However, the EFHW is always available; not so with the vertical.

We read in a paper that someone added a ground plane and said it "made a difference", whatever the hell that means. Anyway, because of that, we want to try it and see if it does have an impact. We have already noticed that the shape of the feed loop makes a difference, as does its position in the vertical plane. The effect is small, but real.

Al and I have talked about this a lot, and our feeling is to publish the results of the "Double-Double" as a construction article. (I want to call it the "Luggable Double-Double" but Al's not happy with that.) There are controllers out there (Loftur Jonasson) so my feeling is that will be kept for the book only. Also, it will be somewhat unique in that we hope to add a TFT display that shows the SWR in realtime as a plot. We have arranged to have all of the projects' PCB's available at a reasonable price.

Al and I are writing the book in a strange way. We are going to finish it before signing with a publisher. The reason is because I know the time pressures that editors put on authors with respect to deadlines and we want to get this right rather than to market fast. Our TOC has 18 chapters, of which the first 4 are really setting up the software for the Arduino, Teensy, STM32, and ESP32 ??C's and giving the beginning reader enough C instruction to read our code (and shoot themselves in the foot a few times?) We see 12 projects in the book, some of which (e.g., the ML) are two chapters--construction and software. Some are "end products" (e.g., the ML, a different antenna tuner, CW messenger, CW decoder, CW Tutor) while others are test equipment (e.g., programmable power supply, AC voltmeter, signal generator). The last chapter is on using what you've built to troubleshoot a receiver. We think it will be a very unusual, but useful, book. Our goal is to have it done by the fall. We currently have 9 chapters done.

Long answer to a short question...


Jack, W8TEE


On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 12:01:46 PM EDT, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io <g1fxb@...> wrote:


Hi Jack,

Sounds like you are on to something special with 90% and even the 40% are impressive figures.
(Noted that they are modelled?? efficiencies at this point in time, here's hoping with can you can achieve something approaching in practical tests.)
To what reference antenna (also at the same modelled height to compare like for like) ?

Interested in your comment the trials of a counterpoise,
Previous papers indicate loop type antennas were considered a free space antenna requiring no ground plane / radials
I guess it's the feed / matching & counterpoise is where the magic happens?

As it's using an auto tuner is the write-up destined for your new book is there an ETA, or another perhaps magazine article release?

(One gotcha about some of the previous, (not your) small "miracle" antenna's.
Check it's actual the antenna doing the radiating and not the feed line, or counterpoise even the mounting pole has being known to be "accidentality" hot with RF.
(However disguised, generally any antenna employing a braid breaker / balun in the coax away from what they make you believe is the feed point or suggested feeder or support lengths perhaps warrants a second look.))


regards Alan

On 31/05/2019 18:45, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
We are also trying to assess other factors, too, such as a counterpoise and its affect on performance. We may find that these "other factors" play no significant role in the antenna's performance. Still, learning that something doesn't matter is as helpful as learning what does matter.

Jack, W8TEE

Re: Preliminary results -- W8TEE/AC8GY Mag Loop Testing

ajparent1/kb1gmx
 

Alan de G1FXB,

Your correct.  any testing and I've done a lot with small loops you need lots of 
"shield breakers" or choking to remove the COAX shield as a possible secondary
coupling making it an undesired array and often clouding results or minimally
distorting patterns greatly.

If the RF source is small and self contained it can be at or very near the
feed point and make the problem easier.  Same applies for receivers
as well.

Generally Loops, large or small, are considered self contained antennas not
requiring ground planes or counterpoises.  However in the real world those
will exist.  As a result supports or cables and the very existence of the
ground below it do influence the results.

Allison

Re: HFSignals poor business practices

Scott McDonald
 

Hi John.
 
I expect you'll be happier with it once you have it put together and working, mine's been running fine for quite some time.
 
If you send me your mailing address off line, I'll be happy to dig out an old mic housing with a PPT switch you can put the electret element in - the element isn't much different from most once it's in a housing.
 
And I'll be happy to toss in a better tuning pot from the junk box as well if it will help you get more enthused about the project.  Yeah, the supplied pots aren't exactly robust, but they work well enough.
 
There are detailed directions on the site where you ordered the BITX40.  As for printed directions, it's not an Indian or poor business practice issue that they aren't provided, virtually all the kit providers these days provide their instructions on-line.
 
You'll find lots of folks here that have had fun tackling the same kit and that are willing to help you get going.
 
73 Scott ka9p
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cardoso <ve9pct@...>
To: BITX20 <BITX20@groups.io>
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 2:26 pm
Subject: [BITX20] HFSignals poor business practices

I have been wishing to order a Bitx40 for a while now. Meanwhile, I have been reading the posters of this group from time to time. I kept reading about the problems people were having with the radios but, I think, I had to experience it myself.
Maybe I am just a sucker for punishment. But I did not expect the experience to be this bad.
The order was delivered on time. So far so good. The packaging was well done and strong as if it was expected to go through hell and come out unscathed.
The surprises came after - The quality of the components can't be any worse - very cheap and poor quality pots, a tiny push button for PTT (are you kidding me?), a lousy mic and a 0.1 uF capacitor that I still have no idea where it will go.
There were no instructions of any sort. Not even a link to a website where they could be found. One half-page of an 8X11 sheet of paper with a list of the contents (probably to save on expenses), and an invoice, was all that came with the parts. No even a mention on the version of the board and/or  software. What version is it being sold now, anyway?
The whole thing is crappy. Is this the way they do business in India or is it just a company that doesn't know how to do it?
This post will probably have some replies telling me that I should have known better. Maybe. For hackers they say?

Re: Availability of Mag Loop and other stuff...

ajparent1/kb1gmx
 

Jack,

the biggest issue is the 80-10 EFHW has a terrible pattern, broadside at 80m and by 20M
its a 4 lobe pattern with 10m its practically endfire.

That creates issues and questions for comparison as the EFHW is then rarely aimed at
the receiving station and hence you do not have a known comparison.

Generally when testing loops a loop of known performance are used but testing at HF is
never easy as the near field is at least 5 to 10 wavelengths or more and ground quality
dependent.  You want that distance to be able to see the total field.   The easiest rig
for that kind of testing is two fiberglass boats on calm salt water (an almost near
perfect ground plane).  Of course that does not include RF sources and calibrated
receivers and accurate GPS.

Allison

Re: HFSignals poor business practices

Jonas Sanamon
 

Hi John,

I think that much of Your experience is linked to expectations. It looks like You perhaps had too high expectations. 
In my mind the Bitx radios rate real high on value for money, but one should probably not expect to get icom quality for $130.

On the other hand I think that "on a shoestring" HF rig is a thrill in itself, and probably the reason a lot of us do this.
So I am grateful to HF signals for making these radios available to most of the world at an affordable price.

Best Regards,
Jonas - SM4VEY



Den lör 1 juni 2019 kl 21:26 skrev John Cardoso <ve9pct@...>:

I have been wishing to order a Bitx40 for a while now. Meanwhile, I have been reading the posters of this group from time to time. I kept reading about the problems people were having with the radios but, I think, I had to experience it myself.
Maybe I am just a sucker for punishment. But I did not expect the experience to be this bad.
The order was delivered on time. So far so good. The packaging was well done and strong as if it was expected to go through hell and come out unscathed.
The surprises came after - The quality of the components can't be any worse - very cheap and poor quality pots, a tiny push button for PTT (are you kidding me?), a lousy mic and a 0.1 uF capacitor that I still have no idea where it will go.
There were no instructions of any sort. Not even a link to a website where they could be found. One half-page of an 8X11 sheet of paper with a list of the contents (probably to save on expenses), and an invoice, was all that came with the parts. No even a mention on the version of the board and/or  software. What version is it being sold now, anyway?
The whole thing is crappy. Is this the way they do business in India or is it just a company that doesn't know how to do it?
This post will probably have some replies telling me that I should have known better. Maybe. For hackers they say?

Re: HFSignals poor business practices

Skip Davis
 

John, no doubt you we’ll get many responses on your post please don’t be too discouraged. If you go to HFSignals.com then under the BITX40 heading select wireup that will give you instructions on how to wire up the board to the controls and jacks to get you to the point of powering up and operation. There are a few other resources that are linked on the group.io that will help you also. If you have more questions post them to the group and we all will try to guide you in the right direction so you can enjoy your BITX40. 
HFSignal is not a larger company with a large staff of people it is a few hams that have made their ideas for a hf rig available in kit form for others to enjoy. There are hundreds if not thousands of us who are enjoying tinkering/modifying these rigs that have them working right out of the box. If your expectations were that you would open the box and plug it in then I’m sorry it isn’t that kind of rig. But if you were looking for one you could make your own through customizing with enclosures and added features then you came to the right place.
Please enjoy and ask questions many of us will be pleased to answer them and guide you in the right direction.

73,
Skip Davis, NC9O 

On Jun 1, 2019, at 15:26, John Cardoso <ve9pct@...> wrote:

I have been wishing to order a Bitx40 for a while now. Meanwhile, I have been reading the posters of this group from time to time. I kept reading about the problems people were having with the radios but, I think, I had to experience it myself.
Maybe I am just a sucker for punishment. But I did not expect the experience to be this bad.
The order was delivered on time. So far so good. The packaging was well done and strong as if it was expected to go through hell and come out unscathed.
The surprises came after - The quality of the components can't be any worse - very cheap and poor quality pots, a tiny push button for PTT (are you kidding me?), a lousy mic and a 0.1 uF capacitor that I still have no idea where it will go.
There were no instructions of any sort. Not even a link to a website where they could be found. One half-page of an 8X11 sheet of paper with a list of the contents (probably to save on expenses), and an invoice, was all that came with the parts. No even a mention on the version of the board and/or  software. What version is it being sold now, anyway?
The whole thing is crappy. Is this the way they do business in India or is it just a company that doesn't know how to do it?
This post will probably have some replies telling me that I should have known better. Maybe. For hackers they say?

Re: HFSignals poor business practices

Ian Reeve
 

As a owner of two units I was saddened to read of your experience.The capacitor goes directly across the electret element and I can only agree with your observations on the pot switch and volume pot. I changed the pot for a standard sized one but bear in mind the supplied knob should fit the shaft on the pot supplied. I guess you would have version 4 but it will be marked along one edge of the pcb.Having found this group you can still down the posts and umpteen you tube videos but mine came with a multitude A4 sized assembly and test procedures.Ian M0IDR


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of John Cardoso <ve9pct@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:26:46 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: [BITX20] HFSignals poor business practices
 
I have been wishing to order a Bitx40 for a while now. Meanwhile, I have been reading the posters of this group from time to time. I kept reading about the problems people were having with the radios but, I think, I had to experience it myself.
Maybe I am just a sucker for punishment. But I did not expect the experience to be this bad.
The order was delivered on time. So far so good. The packaging was well done and strong as if it was expected to go through hell and come out unscathed.
The surprises came after - The quality of the components can't be any worse - very cheap and poor quality pots, a tiny push button for PTT (are you kidding me?), a lousy mic and a 0.1 uF capacitor that I still have no idea where it will go.
There were no instructions of any sort. Not even a link to a website where they could be found. One half-page of an 8X11 sheet of paper with a list of the contents (probably to save on expenses), and an invoice, was all that came with the parts. No even a mention on the version of the board and/or  software. What version is it being sold now, anyway?
The whole thing is crappy. Is this the way they do business in India or is it just a company that doesn't know how to do it?
This post will probably have some replies telling me that I should have known better. Maybe. For hackers they say?

HFSignals poor business practices

John Cardoso
 

I have been wishing to order a Bitx40 for a while now. Meanwhile, I have been reading the posters of this group from time to time. I kept reading about the problems people were having with the radios but, I think, I had to experience it myself.
Maybe I am just a sucker for punishment. But I did not expect the experience to be this bad.
The order was delivered on time. So far so good. The packaging was well done and strong as if it was expected to go through hell and come out unscathed.
The surprises came after - The quality of the components can't be any worse - very cheap and poor quality pots, a tiny push button for PTT (are you kidding me?), a lousy mic and a 0.1 uF capacitor that I still have no idea where it will go.
There were no instructions of any sort. Not even a link to a website where they could be found. One half-page of an 8X11 sheet of paper with a list of the contents (probably to save on expenses), and an invoice, was all that came with the parts. No even a mention on the version of the board and/or  software. What version is it being sold now, anyway?
The whole thing is crappy. Is this the way they do business in India or is it just a company that doesn't know how to do it?
This post will probably have some replies telling me that I should have known better. Maybe. For hackers they say?

Re: The Selcet button, playing crazy set itself independently if press PTT on additional Mic Zetagi M99.

Martin Potter <ve3oat@...>
 

Hi, Sascha,

I would definitely explore the grounding and shielding aspects of the problem. Make sure that all ground connections share a common ground, not one ground plane for some connections and a separate ground plane somewhere else for other ground connections. In my installation I made sure to use small coax for the RF output of the rig, right from P2 on the board to the front panel connector (no rear panel on mine so everything is on the front). Have had no problem so far. Also, as you suggested, put some by-pass capacitors on the signal leads at the mic connectors. I used 0.01 uF disc ceramics. And "lead dress" is important. If you haven't already, make sure all leads are short, bundled with a ground wire, and routed away from the RF section and as directly as possible to where they are needed to go.

Many difficult-to-solve problems can be avoided by using this sort of "preventative medicine".

Good luck with your project!
Very 73,
... Martin VE3OAT

Re: ubitx 2.0 - Mic cannot get to TX

Sajid Rahum
 

Ok. Vs the mono plug - i used the stereo 3 pin.
                
                  A     B    C
                ------|---|------------\
                       |   |                \
                ------|---|------------/


From the 2 pin electret: 
   - one goes to ground  A (one that has 3 traces on base of electret.
   - second PTT goes to C

I connected a wire to B.  Now when I close B to PTT TX is getting engaged and i am able to monitor the output.

Now turning to the Baofeng; I cut the lead.  Now  when i trace the board; there are 3 markers on the board.

     M      M-     PTT
 
I assume now, i connect to following.

    M      M-     PTT
      A     B             C

Thoughts?

On 2m it is fairly low output but 40 on whistle i am going to 10w.


PTT------------> Outer

Availability of Mag Loop and other stuff...

Jack, W8TEE
 

Alan:

The results right now are modeled using the usual Pacific66 app. However, we do plan "real" tests in an attempt to get some useful data. Our reference antenna will likely be an 80-10M EFHW which we both use. Al also has a vertical that we might test against. However, the EFHW is always available; not so with the vertical.

We read in a paper that someone added a ground plane and said it "made a difference", whatever the hell that means. Anyway, because of that, we want to try it and see if it does have an impact. We have already noticed that the shape of the feed loop makes a difference, as does its position in the vertical plane. The effect is small, but real.

Al and I have talked about this a lot, and our feeling is to publish the results of the "Double-Double" as a construction article. (I want to call it the "Luggable Double-Double" but Al's not happy with that.) There are controllers out there (Loftur Jonasson) so my feeling is that will be kept for the book only. Also, it will be somewhat unique in that we hope to add a TFT display that shows the SWR in realtime as a plot. We have arranged to have all of the projects' PCB's available at a reasonable price.

Al and I are writing the book in a strange way. We are going to finish it before signing with a publisher. The reason is because I know the time pressures that editors put on authors with respect to deadlines and we want to get this right rather than to market fast. Our TOC has 18 chapters, of which the first 4 are really setting up the software for the Arduino, Teensy, STM32, and ESP32 µC's and giving the beginning reader enough C instruction to read our code (and shoot themselves in the foot a few times?) We see 12 projects in the book, some of which (e.g., the ML) are two chapters--construction and software. Some are "end products" (e.g., the ML, a different antenna tuner, CW messenger, CW decoder, CW Tutor) while others are test equipment (e.g., programmable power supply, AC voltmeter, signal generator). The last chapter is on using what you've built to troubleshoot a receiver. We think it will be a very unusual, but useful, book. Our goal is to have it done by the fall. We currently have 9 chapters done.

Long answer to a short question...


Jack, W8TEE


On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 12:01:46 PM EDT, Alan de G1FXB via Groups.Io <g1fxb@...> wrote:


Hi Jack,

Sounds like you are on to something special with 90% and even the 40% are impressive figures.
(Noted that they are modelled?? efficiencies at this point in time, here's hoping with can you can achieve something approaching in practical tests.)
To what reference antenna (also at the same modelled height to compare like for like) ?

Interested in your comment the trials of a counterpoise,
Previous papers indicate loop type antennas were considered a free space antenna requiring no ground plane / radials
I guess it's the feed / matching & counterpoise is where the magic happens?

As it's using an auto tuner is the write-up destined for your new book is there an ETA, or another perhaps magazine article release?

(One gotcha about some of the previous, (not your) small "miracle" antenna's.
Check it's actual the antenna doing the radiating and not the feed line, or counterpoise even the mounting pole has being known to be "accidentality" hot with RF.
(However disguised, generally any antenna employing a braid breaker / balun in the coax away from what they make you believe is the feed point or suggested feeder or support lengths perhaps warrants a second look.))


regards Alan

On 31/05/2019 18:45, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
We are also trying to assess other factors, too, such as a counterpoise and its affect on performance. We may find that these "other factors" play no significant role in the antenna's performance. Still, learning that something doesn't matter is as helpful as learning what does matter.

Jack, W8TEE

Re: Preliminary results -- W8TEE/AC8GY Mag Loop Testing

Alan de G1FXB
 

Hi Jack,

Sounds like you are on to something special with 90% and even the 40% are impressive figures.
(Noted that they are modelled?? efficiencies at this point in time, here's hoping with can you can achieve something approaching in practical tests.)
To what reference antenna (also at the same modelled height to compare like for like) ?

Interested in your comment the trials of a counterpoise,
Previous papers indicate loop type antennas were considered a free space antenna requiring no ground plane / radials
I guess it's the feed / matching & counterpoise is where the magic happens?

As it's using an auto tuner is the write-up destined for your new book is there an ETA, or another perhaps magazine article release?

(One gotcha about some of the previous, (not your) small "miracle" antenna's.
Check it's actual the antenna doing the radiating and not the feed line, or counterpoise even the mounting pole has being known to be "accidentality" hot with RF.
(However disguised, generally any antenna employing a braid breaker / balun in the coax away from what they make you believe is the feed point or suggested feeder or support lengths perhaps warrants a second look.))


regards Alan

On 31/05/2019 18:45, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io wrote:
We are also trying to assess other factors, too, such as a counterpoise and its affect on performance. We may find that these "other factors" play no significant role in the antenna's performance. Still, learning that something doesn't matter is as helpful as learning what does matter.

Jack, W8TEE

Re: RX of uBITx V3 fried - which components to change? #ubitx

Sascha Bohnet | DL5SMB
 

I just looked at the manual of the MFJ 259B.
The output of it is also declared to be 0.02W.

If the UBITX ist robust enough to cope with that
maybe it is really the AGC.

Or the parts I changed in mine (Q90 and Q10-Q12 are BFR106 in my radio) brake more easily than the 3904s.

And yes, I think I will label my coax in future and will to use every cable only  in a distincive function.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Re: Raduino for Sale

Bill Lamm
 

Still available? 

Bill
KD9MDL@...

Re: Preliminary results -- W8TEE/AC8GY Mag Loop Testing

Nigel
 

Jack, as noted in previous exchange of notes, your sense of humour generated a HUGE smile for me! Thanks for the quip and good luck with your endeavours.

73 Nigel - ZS6RN ex G8DEV 

Re: RX of uBITx V3 fried - which components to change? #ubitx

Joe Puma
 

That stinks. I hooked my MFJ analyzer up to the uBitx to calibrate my AGC and it didn’t fry it. I must have less of a signal output. 

Joe
Kd2nfc 



On Jun 1, 2019, at 5:15 AM, iz oos <and2oosiz2@...> wrote:

To avoid this sort of mistake and save the RX I use a coax switch, in the worst scenario I would fry the PA finals of the ubitx.


Il 31/mag/2019 13:23, "Sascha Bohnet | DL5SMB via Groups.Io" <saschabohnet=googlemail.com@groups.io> ha scritto:
Sometimes I think I am the dumbest ham ever.

Last night I accidently confused coax cables and connected my antenna analyzer to the uBITX instead of the antenna.

The result was that I successfully killed the rig. The analyser is sending out a signal of 13dbm/0.02W (according to the manual of the Rigexpert AA35 Zoom) which seemed to have fried the RX input.

I do no receive signals any more (not even strong broadcast stations), the only thing I can still hear are the mixing products of the nanos oscillator.

Still 10 days on vacation - and that happens within the third night. So stupid.

Any tips where I should look when I get back home?

My first guess would be the AGC by N6DT which I had installed .

This should be easy to check by just shorting the Input and Output of it again. If there is a signal again  it's most probably one of the mosfets there.

If this is not the cause I think I should check the transistors Q10-Q12, maybe Q30-Q32 (if the TX is also dead, did not check this yet as I do not have another receiver here) and maybe Q70 (but unlikely).

Is this correct? Any suggestions? Or am I wrong and it is most likely something else?

This is so annoying. First time I was really making QSOs with this rig and also the first time I used the 20m band. Man, this was so much fun :-/

Re: The Selcet button, playing crazy set itself independently if press PTT on additional Mic Zetagi M99.

Evan Hand
 

Since it seems to be intermittent, I would first rule out RF getting back into the rig by transmitting into a dummy load rather than the antenna.  The dummy load will not radiate as much RF to mic/ptt input.  I had a similar issue  with an off center feed dipole (OCFD) connected to my v4 uBitx.  Corrected with clip on RF ferrite suppressors on the outside of the coax.  That along with proper grounding solved my issues.

FWIW
73
Evan
AC9TU

Re: The Selcet button, playing crazy set itself independently if press PTT on additional Mic Zetagi M99.

Sascha Bohnet | DL5SMB
 

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 06:43 PM, sdr freak wrote:
I recently added an extra microphone, because i have a problem with to less power output and to less mic input power. So i add an Zetagi M99 Mic an it was better than before just can speak an transmit without to eat the mic, because ubitx mic capsuale which was delivered it was not good every time i eat the mic for 5w output power and with zetagi m99 it was able with normal speak to transmit 5w but not even more 5 watts. Thats maximum output on 40m and 20m, on 80m too.

Now the Problem:

Yesterday the ubitx with the m99 mic was on 40m and 80m with longwire Antennna. I have press on the microphone PTT, it is sent every time. Even when let go the PTT the Ubitx Display say Transmit and NOW the crazy thing is on Display was written "Display Lock Symbol" or then "press Button for.." and next Time on Display was written "Select Band.." , many time i try to put out the Mic cable and put it in back for a new time, and try to transmit again but everytime this sh*t (sorry) It look like everytime when press PTT the ubitx make the Menu Button play with atself and i had have this problem few little times in the past, but only 5times in half year but every time i set the ubitx on/off/on power and take out and back in the cable from Mic (i have with the original ubitx mic cap too, few times in last half year for only a moment on each time) or cable from CW ( on cw i had little bit other problem when this was going on, tbe  the cw hangs on transmit longer than put it or hangs long as i only could stop when put out the cable)

But these are mostly few moments an few times and was take control not longer than i put cableout a d new in oder power up new..

But now it does have an real bug with this and i need your opinion?

Is this an issue of Raduino or Board contacts or is it maybe an grounding issue?

Thanks for help.

 I can confirm the issue, though I have not figured out yet, what the cause of the problem is.

I have also two CB microphones in use, one unamplified and one with a preamp.

The problem occurs from time to time, and I think it happens more often with the amplified microphone (though I use the gain really modestly).

I think I will install some caps at the mic jack, but this has not been a priority yet.

In my case I could imagine this might be related to using two mic jacks in parallel  ( I have Sunils case and therefore the wiring is a bit adventurous with the original 3.5mm jack and the 4-pin radio mic jack)

Sascha