Date   

Re: Newbie, Settling on a new Bitx kit purchase. What would you recommend?

Jerry Gaffke
 

What I said previously was wrong:
>  The kit you pointed to is a much older single band design.

Looks like the EasyBitx is a new kit, announced on July 1 of 2020:
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topic/75231219#80162

Sunil has been active in this group for a long time,and many have been buying
his various offerings.  I didn't realize he had a new transceiver out.
It is single band, has an Si5351 VFO similar to the Raduino from HFSignals.
As Evan mentioned, it may provide better control of mike gain.
With a bandpass filter between exciter and final amp, the transmitter output
could prove to be cleaner than the uBitx.
The SMA cables for the antenna and local oscillator could well resolve some
issues with receiver birdies.
It might be possible to use plug in bandpass and output lowpass filters
so the rig could be easily used on more than one band.
It is simpler than the uBitx, and uses more hackable parts.
There is no mention of CW in the manual, but I suspect this could be
adapted for CW use using the same procedure as Allard used on the Bitx40.

So worth considering, especially if you are keen to have 
the full kit-building experience.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:42 PM, Jerry Gaffke wrote:
Vince,

Most people in this forum have a uBitx, good for all bands from 80 through 10 meters:  
    https://www.hfsignals.com/

The kit you pointed to is a much older single band design.
I'd guess well under 1% of forum members have that kit.
It requires much more assembly than the uBitx.

These are primarily SSB transceivers.
They have their warts, but are cheap and fun to hack.

If you want a CW (morse code) transceiver, I'd suggest the QCX+ from QRP Labs:
    http://qrp-labs.com/
    https://groups.io/g/QRPLabs/messages?expanded=1
    
Jerry, KE7ER


Re: Newbie, Settling on a new Bitx kit purchase. What would you recommend?

vince adams
 

Jerry
Okay, what other accessories/items to order, would you suggest or recommend for this? Thinking in terms of a newbie to CW from this website QRP labs? In other words, should I order some other things/stuff along with my new order from QRP Labs?  Or just this Transceiver alone would be good enough? I will be using an off-center dipole for 80 - 10m that I will order soon or make one myself.
Also, what are the other abilities of this kit (QRP Labs) without reading further on the website? Should I get/order an uBitx or the QRP labs? You mention both. Jerry, I am brand new to CW and transceivers, ok.
-

73, Vince KD7TWW


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Jerry Gaffke via groups.io <jgaffke@...>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:42 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Newbie, Settling on a new Bitx kit purchase. What would you recommend?
 
Vince,

Most people in this forum have a uBitx, good for all bands from 80 through 10 meters:  
    https://www.hfsignals.com/

The kit you pointed to is a much older single band design.
I'd guess well under 1% of forum members have that kit.
It requires much more assembly than the uBitx.

These are primarily SSB transceivers.
They have their warts, but are cheap and fun to hack.

If you want a CW (morse code) transceiver, I'd suggest the QCX+ from QRP Labs:
    http://qrp-labs.com/
    https://groups.io/g/QRPLabs/messages?expanded=1
    
Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:01 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
Would this be a good online store to purchase  https://amateurradiokits.in/store/easy-bitxqrp-tvrbitx20bitx40/
and what would you select/recommend just getting started with a Ubitx kit for a Newbie, such a New "General Lic Ham? I am very familiar with Kits. So not a problem ASSY this kit. But new to a "CW" kit per se. Which kit would you select for me?


Re: Current Bitx kits

Curt
 

Vince

In general, cw kits tend to be more common. QCX plus is an amazing single band cw transceiver. Qrplabs also has other kits.

In the US, qrpguys, qrpkits, 4stateqrp also have kits. Also kc9on and w8diz. Look around before deciding what you will build first.

Bitx and ubitx were offered as preassembled boards, now just ubitx is offered. Unique now to have a simple ssb rig. Many customize their ubitx with fancy displays, processing and other mods.

Amateuradiokits.in supplied enclosures for many of our earlier version ubitx. their bitx seems new.

Do look around at all the kits available. All modes can be a blast, but cw is rather special.

73 curt wb8yyy


Re: Current Bitx kits

Evan Hand
 

Vince,
I am reluctant to give a specific recommendation as I do not know what it is you want to do, and the price point you are willing to pay.  Following are my ASSUMPTIONS about the EasyBITX, as I do not have one.  In general, I can say that the components supplied by AmatuerRadioKits have been of good quality, with no damaged goods. The instructions for the AmatuerRadioKits uBITX cases supplied for the HFSignals boards have been cryptic, to the point where I have had to rewire a couple of times until I could get it to work as I thought it should.  I did review the instructions that have been provided for the EasyBitx, and they do seem clearer.  Again, I have not built one of these kits.

- I am confused by the CW comment.  The EasyBitx does not have CW capability, as far as I can tell.  The HFSignals uBITX does, though it is a compromise with only SSB filtering width (2.7kHZ vs 400Hz). 
- The EasyBITX is a monoband SSB transceiver, the uBITX covers all us ham bands from 3 to 30 MHz as supplied.
- I have not yet seen any performance information on the EasyBITX, as far as the receiver goes.  The uBITX has very good sensitivity, with some measuring 0.1uV.  The uBITX SSB filter is made up of 8 crystals instead of the 4 in the EasyBITX.  This is supposed to provide a flatter response with steeper skirts.
- The major weakness of the uBITX has been the mic audio.  I see that the EasyBITX has gone to an op-amp to help with this shortcoming.  I do like that change.  I got around it for my uBITX builds by adding an amplified mic that solved the low power/volume issues.  That could add $25 to $30 to the cost.
- Depending on the band, the uBITX can put out 15 watts, though it does have issues on the higher bands (10 meters) where I have measured 3 to 4 watts. On 40 meters I am getting 7 to 8 watts depending on the mode and which version board I am testing (CW is lower than SSB constant tone).
- The EasyBITX is a through-hole kit you will need to solder together.  The uBITX is now an assemble kit, no soldering required if you purchase the complete kit.
- There is no track history on issues for the EasyBITX.  It is still too new.  I have not seen any reports on this reflector.  There may be a different group for it.
- The EasyBITX is about 1/2 the cost of the complete uBiTX kit.  $95 vs $209

For me, the uBITX would be a better just starting rig for a Technician class for sure, as it has CW to allow access to the Tech code bands, 10meter phone, and then can grow with the general ticket.  I think it is the better choice for a general too, though that will depend on the desired learning.  There is no soldering on the uBITX.

For a true QRP CW only kit, you cannot go wrong with a QCX+, and if you want portable operation, there is the new QCX Mini coming out.  Both do require coil winding and soldering like the EasyBITX.

Again, I cannot stress enough that these are my opinions, based on what I have experiences with assembling 3 uBITX, a QCX+, a Hermes HL2 SDR, and other kits like linear, antenna SWR meters, tone generators, and others I cannot think of right now.

Good luck with your search.
73
Evan
AC9TU


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Mike Woods
 

Joel

I am not quite silent key... But I have had health issues.  I had a health scare at the beginning of 2019, that led to a delay in posting updates, but things returned to normal with time out, stress reduction and exercise and dietary changes.  Unfortunately the problems then  returned in 2020.  I  had two vertebrae collapse in my lower back in March and April and was  diagnosed in March with terminal cancer (Multiple Myeloma) with some high risk factors.  I am nearing the end of Chemo treatment (and facing heavy fatigue and brain muddle at this point in the cycle).  Next month I will have a bone marrow transplant that will really knock me back for a few weeks, but all of this treatment will be worth it, if it puts me into remission for a while!  Early signs are positive.

So the site is frozen as at the beginning of January this year.  I have prioritised input into Wellington Branch 50 NZART (www.zl2wb.com) where I am chair, and into maintaining our RemoteDX project (remotedx.nz), but I have stepped down as Chair.

I think others comments about the v6  stifling development are correct. It is now a fully self-contained unit with case and graphical display and the issues have largely been addressed (except it still doesn't have an AGC and Ashhar doesn't see this as a problem), and this has opened the kit up to a wider group of amateurs who would not have previously considered the build.   The questions on the forum seem to be more in the "basic questions" category as a result.  This is less of a need for the website for the majority of buiders.

What concerns me is that ubitx.net does have some issues with accuracy and it needs to have v6 material added into the advice sections (menu items at the top). The other longer-standing issue, is that there really isn't a consolidated repository and guide for the Nextion add-on.  In fact this is a real frustration for many amateurs looking to switch out to the NExtion display.  If somebody had the time to work on either tidying up work, or consolidating Nextion downloads and guidance I am sure that the wider uBITx community would benefit immensely!

73 Mike

On 21/09/20 5:07 am, Joel Caulkins/N6ALT wrote:
Evan,

Thanks for the reply, I was more concerned that Mike ZL1AXG is okay, I was hoping that I didn't miss something while working on other projects, like he became SK or something. I agree with you about most things being addressed on all the Bitx's. I have built and modified 2, Bitx 20's, 3, Bitx 40's, 1, Bitx 60, 1 Bitx 17, (I made a contact in Antarctica at Mirny station with this one),1 uBitx ver 3, 1 uBitx ver 4, and 1 uBitx ver 6 which I use everyday, so I guess I've had a good run but I still like to see what others are doing with their Bitx's. I just miss going there everyday to see whats happening. I am glad the resources are still there for others to use if they are new to the Bitx line of radios. I will keep checking once in a while to see if there is anything new on http://ubitx.net/ .

Joel
N6ALT


--
Mike Woods
mhwoods@...


Re: Newbie, Settling on a new Bitx kit purchase. What would you recommend?

Jerry Gaffke
 

Vince,

Most people in this forum have a uBitx, good for all bands from 80 through 10 meters:  
    https://www.hfsignals.com/

The kit you pointed to is a much older single band design.
I'd guess well under 1% of forum members have that kit.
It requires much more assembly than the uBitx.

These are primarily SSB transceivers.
They have their warts, but are cheap and fun to hack.

If you want a CW (morse code) transceiver, I'd suggest the QCX+ from QRP Labs:
    http://qrp-labs.com/
    https://groups.io/g/QRPLabs/messages?expanded=1
    
Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 01:01 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
Would this be a good online store to purchase  https://amateurradiokits.in/store/easy-bitxqrp-tvrbitx20bitx40/
and what would you select/recommend just getting started with a Ubitx kit for a Newbie, such a New "General Lic Ham? I am very familiar with Kits. So not a problem ASSY this kit. But new to a "CW" kit per se. Which kit would you select for me?


Newbie, Settling on a new Bitx kit purchase. What would you recommend?

vince adams
 

Group
Would this be a good online store to purchase  https://amateurradiokits.in/store/easy-bitxqrp-tvrbitx20bitx40/
and what would you select/recommend just getting started with a Ubitx kit for a Newbie, such a New "General Lic Ham? I am very familiar with Kits. So not a problem ASSY this kit. But new to a "CW" kit per se. Which kit would you select for me?


Current Bitx kits

vince adams
 

Group
Would this be a good online store to purchase  https://amateurradiokits.in/store/easy-bitxqrp-tvrbitx20bitx40/
and what would you select/recommend just getting start with a Ubitx kit for a Newbie, such a New "General Lic Ham? I am very familiar with Kits. So not a problem ASSY this kit. But new to a "CW" kit per se. Which kit would you select for me?
Easy Bitx Kit Mono Bander SSB Qrp TCVR Kit
amateurradiokits.in


-

73, Vince KD7TWW


Re: Ardunio nano D7

BevTed Stanier
 

Thanks Allard

Fixed my p-p v output problem. Another  self caused problem.

Now I can move on to learning about software for TX_DELAY. Wish me luck as my learning curve gets steeper. Hi

 

73 Ted

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Allard PE1NWL
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 12:52 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Ardunio nano D7

 

Hi again Ted,

so it seems you're getting back on track, good!

As for the RX-TX burst:
The firmware has a built-in TX-delay to prevent the spurious burst - the default delay is 65 ms but you may want to experiment with slightly higher values.
In that case you can edit line 80 and recompile and upload again:

#define TX_DELAY 65 // delay (ms) to prevent spurious burst that is emitted when switching from RX to TX

73 Allard PE1NWL

 


uBITx v6 volume rotary on/off volume switch bad #v6

TD
 

I started assembling my uBITx v6 kit but the main board would not align with the holes at the front of the case.  What I found was the on/off switch /volume control was crooked on the board so I unsoldered it and examining the switch.  It had been manufactured crooked as in the pins were skewed.  I have sent an email to hfsignals but in the meantime I would like to purchase a replacement here in the USA.  Does anyone have any idea where I can find an exact replacement?

Thanks,
TD


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

The first SSB radio I had that used an audio filter to accommodate CW was a Ten Tec Argonaut 509. It also used audio derived AGC similar to the audio AGC kits used in the uBitX. That approach is less than ideal because it allows signals anywhere in the SSB passband to affect the received signal. However, It was still effective and performed well at Field Day with QRO rigs nearby. Don't completely dismiss the simpler approaches just because a different method might offer advantages.

The most reliable means to accommodate AM, FM, SSB, and CW bandwidths is with an xtal filter for each mode operating at the same IF frequency. It just isn't that difficult. In the case of the uBitX we were planning to build a second filter for CW and best to build it for the IF already in use. Diode steering can select the filter and that can be controlled from the software if desired.

If a second filter is to be on a different IF frequency we can use both at the same time with a variable frequency conversion oscillator that shifts the signal from the first filter and passes it to the second filter so that only a sliver of spectrum (CW bandwidth) emerges from the second filter (a windowing effect). That is a more reliable form of passband tuning. Using just a little bit of shift has the effect of narrowing the SSB pasband a bit too so it is not just a CW modification. We were going to build a second crystal filter anyway, weren't we? In any case, the audio filters will improve the performance of the radio even with more IF filtering. The radio gets more complicated and the expense increases along with size. We could go from something that fits a shirt pocket to something the size of a Volkswagen beetle! Choose the tools you really want and leave the rest for somebody else:)

I have been using my V3 with an audio filter and it works well. The audio filter is tuned to the same audio frequency as the sidetone and CW offset.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 11:42 PM, Jerry Gaffke via groups.io wrote:
Here's an couple posts regarding various ways to add a narrow band filter for CW.
https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/71043
https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/71134
Most of us would be happy with an add-on audio filter between the rig and the headphones.
That's by far the simplest solution.
Making the crystal IF filter narrow band would keep a strong nearby signal a few hundred hz away
from causing distortion in the demodulator and audio amps.
Simply adding a CW crystal filter in parallel with the SSB filter as
originally suggested by Farhan and implemented by PA1FOX seems ideal.
The two crystal filters are at tuned to much different frequencies, select one or the other
by reprogramming the BFO and local oscillator frequencies.
Lots of talk in the forum about using the Elecraft scheme to adjust the existing SSB filter
for a narrower CW bandwidth on the fly, I'm not aware of anybody who as done this
with good results.
Simply having two plug in crystal filters would be fine, would allow easy experimentation
with other filters.
Jerry, KE7ER


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Jerry Gaffke
 

Here's an couple posts regarding various ways to add a narrow band filter for CW.
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/71043
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/71134

Most of us would be happy with an add-on audio filter between the rig and the headphones.
That's by far the simplest solution.

Making the crystal IF filter narrow band would keep a strong nearby signal a few hundred hz away
from causing distortion in the demodulator and audio amps.

Simply adding a CW crystal filter in parallel with the SSB filter as
originally suggested by Farhan and implemented by PA1FOX seems ideal.
The two crystal filters are at tuned to much different frequencies, select one or the other
by reprogramming the BFO and local oscillator frequencies.

Lots of talk in the forum about using the Elecraft scheme to adjust the existing SSB filter
for a narrower CW bandwidth on the fly, I'm not aware of anybody who as done this
with good results.

Simply having two plug in crystal filters would be fine, would allow easy experimentation
with other filters.

Jerry, KE7ER


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Bill Cromwell
 

High five!

I posted about the separate filter just before I read your post. It seems to me it would be more reliable.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 10:22 PM, Shirley Dulcey KE1L wrote:
Since the crystal filters that most hams use now are built out of inexpensive commodity crystals, it's probably simpler to build a second CW-optimized filter and switch the entire thing out.
Elecraft did use a variable bandwidth varactor-tuned filter in the K2, so it can be done; their circuit uses six 1SV149 varactors in a five crystal filter. The 1SV149 is now obsolete and not available from distributors; you can get them from Asian sources on eBay if you want to play the component lottery.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:13 PM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@gmail.com <mailto:arvid.evans@gmail.com>> wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are
also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout
scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes. This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to
optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it
is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a
good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and
impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter
could be manual or tied to band switching in software.
Arv. K7HKL
_-_
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@kd7tww.us
<mailto:vince@kd7tww.us>> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a
CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>
<BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>> on behalf of
Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <http://groups.io>;
<mark=buttery.org@groups.io <mailto:buttery.org@groups.io>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>
<BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/
<http://ubitx.net/>; site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital
modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the
uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of
full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice
of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are
interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell
<wrcromwell@gmail.com <mailto:wrcromwell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is
not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power.
AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at
all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF
stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make
the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only
further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory
S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on
transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud
thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth
is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those
things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing
power is not needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few
will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the
house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after
page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches
and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low
power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born
for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with
additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones,
wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me
that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF
chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is
often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use
and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the
micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use
the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to
transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33
platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an
example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP &
portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass
of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste
time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not
like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to
view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission,
without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more),
just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as
if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the
prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into
the "starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my
opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver
arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with
free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close
competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall
display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason
for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported
with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Arv,

uBitX uses the xtal filter for transmit and receive in the SSB mode but only in receive for cw operation. It isn't really trivial but not impossible to modify the SSB filter so it can switched to a second, narrower configuration. Also possible to just build a second xtal filter with a narrower bandwidth. I have used radios that switch filters automatically and one that is manually selected. I prefer the manual selection - even if the selector was a menu item with a microcontroller operated radio.

I just acquired a spectrum analyzer and I will be working toward that very thing this winter:) That little machine will make it much easier than just a sweeper or wobbulator.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 8:13 PM, Arv Evans wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.
Arv. K7HKL
_-_
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@kd7tww.us <mailto:vince@kd7tww.us>> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW
transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io> <BITX20@groups.io
<mailto:BITX20@groups.io>> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via
groups.io <http://groups.io>; <mark=buttery.org@groups.io
<mailto:buttery.org@groups.io>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io> <BITX20@groups.io
<mailto:BITX20@groups.io>>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/
<http://ubitx.net/>; site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital
modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the
uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full
break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of
dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are
interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com
<mailto:wrcromwell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not
the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all
using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF
stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the
weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further
buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory
S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit
*is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is
needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is
not needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few
will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house
lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page
of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and
meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power
radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for
QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with
additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones,
wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that
are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain
and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often
required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and
not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro
used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the
IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an
example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable
uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time
for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view
the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission,
without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more),
just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if
they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the
prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
"starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my
opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena
for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free
software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close
competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display
on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for
me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with
detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Shirley Dulcey KE1L
 

Since the crystal filters that most hams use now are built out of inexpensive commodity crystals, it's probably simpler to build a second CW-optimized filter and switch the entire thing out.

Elecraft did use a variable bandwidth varactor-tuned filter in the K2, so it can be done; their circuit uses six 1SV149 varactors in a five crystal filter. The 1SV149 is now obsolete and not available from distributors; you can get them from Asian sources on eBay if you want to play the component lottery.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:13 PM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.

Arv. K7HKL
_-_


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@...> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-

73, Vince KD7TWW

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Vince,

They are called state and national forests :) No lions or tigers here but plenty of bears, wolves, coyotes...

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 7:17 PM, vince adams wrote:
Hi Bill. I'm barking but who is listening? There are jungles where you are??
Thank you,-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Bill Cromwell via groups.io <wrcromwell=gmail.com@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 5:10 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
Hi Vince,
Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is
possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the
box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands
it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw
is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field
operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and
power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power,
covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes
require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and
more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so
much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.
The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My
PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets
on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such
radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for
casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of
those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be
40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime
operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what
you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.
To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some
old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2
watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using
appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I
want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who
carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably
couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more.
But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving
up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com <mailto:wrcromwell@gmail.com>> wrote:
     Hi Loris,
     For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
     choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
     S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
     attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
     the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
     signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
     those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
     give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
     A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
     very
     useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
     boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
     Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
     requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
     needed.
     Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
     try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
     dim
     with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
     items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
     and
     lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
     For
     size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
     outperforms it.
     73,
     Bill  KU8H
     bark less - wag more
     On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
      > Hi Evan,
      > Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
      > portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
      > connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
     it be
      > better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
      > More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
     missing
      > some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
      > - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
     not on
      > the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
      > - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
      > rather than increasing the power);
      > - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
      > "base station" uses for which it was not born.
      > If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
     I would
      > advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
      > hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
      > Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
      > In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
     ? the
      > current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
     useless
      > "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
     information
      > that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
     those who
      > use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
      > By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
     software, I
      > have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
      > level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
     the need
      > to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
     used
      > to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
     were
      > main-frames!
      >
      > 73 de IW4AJR Loris
      >
      >
      > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
      >
      >     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
     email I
      >     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
     "starter"
      >     rig area:
      > https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
      >
      >     This is not in Groups.io
      >
      >     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
      >     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
     new ham.
      >     Pros:
      >     - It has all of the SDR functionality
      >     - It can be bought as a complete kit
      >     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
      >     addition
      >     Cons:
      >     - 5 watts out
      >     - requires a PC
      >
      >     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
     between
      >     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
      >
      >     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
     both the
      >     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
     siding
      >     with the HL2.
      >
      >     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
      >     analysis.
      >     Use as you see fit.
      >     73
      >     Evan
      >     AC9TU
      >
      >


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Arv Evans
 

The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.

Arv. K7HKL
_-_


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@...> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-

73, Vince KD7TWW

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






Re: Ardunio nano D7

BevTed Stanier
 

Hi Allard,

 

Yes that is about what I calculated but I only read approx.. 6 v p-p on an oscilloscope with a 1x probe.

Something is fishy, as I read a current draw of approx. 1 amp on LSB and a loud HEEELOW, on the PA supply feed.  Thanks. Will get back soon.

Hope you had a good weekend.

 

73 Ted

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Allard PE1NWL
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 3:34 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Ardunio nano D7

 

Hi Ted,
I've never actually measured the peak-to-peak voltage of my BitX40, but this is how I would calculate it:

I believe the output power of a BitX40 is about 7 Watts. The output impedance is 50 Ohms.
With a 50 Ohms load, the output RMS voltage would be: SQRT(7W x 50 Ohms) = SQRT(350)  = 18.7 Veff

However this is RMS Voltage (Effective voltage), the peak voltage is about 1.414 times higher:
peak voltage is SQRT(2) x 18.7 Veff= 26.5 Volts.

Note that this is the peak voltage as measured from the baseline (0 V).
So the peak-to-peak voltage is twice this value: 2 x 26.5 = 53 Vpp.

73 Allard PE1NWL

 


Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

vince adams
 

Hi Bill. I'm barking but who is listening? There are jungles where you are??
Thank you,-

73, Vince KD7TWW


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Bill Cromwell via groups.io <wrcromwell@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 5:10 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
Hi Vince,

Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is
possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the
box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands
it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw
is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field
operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and
power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power,
covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes
require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and
more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so
much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.

The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My
PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets
on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such
radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for
casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of
those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be
40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime
operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what
you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.

To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some
old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2
watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using
appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I
want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who
carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably
couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more.
But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving
up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.

73,

Bill  KU8H


bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
> Group
> So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW
> transceiver?
> -
>
> 73, Vince KD7TWW
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey
> KE1L via groups.io <mark@...>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
> *To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
> *Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is
> amazing!
> The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes,
> since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a
> great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that
> it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
>
> Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
> underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested
> in other modes.
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...
> <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Loris,
>
>     For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
>     choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
>     S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
>     attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
>     the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
>     signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
>     those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
>     give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
>
>     A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
>     very
>     useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
>     boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
>     Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
>     requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
>     needed.
>
>     Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
>     try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
>     dim
>     with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
>     items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
>     and
>     lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
>     For
>     size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
>     outperforms it.
>
>     73,
>
>     Bill  KU8H
>
>     bark less - wag more
>
>     On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
>      > Hi Evan,
>      > Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
>      > portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
>      > connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
>     it be
>      > better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
>      > More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
>     missing
>      > some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
>      > - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
>     not on
>      > the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
>      > - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
>      > rather than increasing the power);
>      > - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
>      > "base station" uses for which it was not born.
>      > If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
>     I would
>      > advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
>      > hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
>      > Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
>      > In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
>     ? the
>      > current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
>     useless
>      > "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
>     information
>      > that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
>     those who
>      > use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
>      > By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
>     software, I
>      > have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
>      > level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
>     the need
>      > to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
>     used
>      > to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
>     were
>      > main-frames!
>      >
>      > 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>      >
>      >
>      > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>      >
>      >     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
>     email I
>      >     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
>     "starter"
>      >     rig area:
>      > https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>      >
>      >     This is not in Groups.io
>      >
>      >     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>      >     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
>     new ham.
>      >     Pros:
>      >     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>      >     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>      >     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>      >     addition
>      >     Cons:
>      >     - 5 watts out
>      >     - requires a PC
>      >
>      >     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
>     between
>      >     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>      >
>      >     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
>     both the
>      >     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
>     siding
>      >     with the HL2.
>      >
>      >     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>      >     analysis.
>      >     Use as you see fit.
>      >     73
>      >     Evan
>      >     AC9TU
>      >
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>






Re: #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help

Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Vince,

Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power, covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.

The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be 40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.

To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2 watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more. But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.

73,

Bill KU8H


bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com <mailto:wrcromwell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
"starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>

3481 - 3500 of 84687