Date   
Re: My uBitx V3 picks up local broadcast throughout the band #v3 #ubitx-help #ubitx

CR
 

First thing to try is to bypass each terminal of the 5-volt regulator on the Arduino board to ground with two 100nF.  (The regulator will oscillate and induce the broadcast images.)

Second, you may have to build a bandpass filter for the band of interest. Or use a T-network antenna tuner that is both a LP and HP filter.

Re: v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

Curt
 

Raj, Iz, Jonas, Ashar

thank you for reply, nice to hear from you all.  I wouldn't be asking if I had a spectrum analyzer to make the measurement! 

I do have the relay board from Gordon installed, my harmonics are fine - CW is fully compliant and I am okay on SSB through 17 meters.  This was confirmed using a club member's analyzer. 

Next I tried installing, every which way possible, a second 45 MHz xtal filter stage.  It greatly reduced the CW output on 40m to under 2 watts - so I decided this wasn't good.  (I trust not every v4 does exactly this, but I know of at least one other nearby that does). 

Next I tried an LC filter similar to v5 has, it did not squash the 40m as much, but did nothing to improve the spurious on 10 and 12 meters - strong spurs hugging the carrier on each side. 

I obtained some shielded SMT inductors from coilcraft, with a Q around 70 at 45 MHz.  More square than the one's Raj used (with little notches in corners) - was difficult to install.  10m beacon sensitivity is similar to what I had.  Okay I can try the 45 MHz filter again - if it does not wreck 40m CW (with the better shielded inductors at 45 MHz on the existing filter) I can trust it will do something against these spurs (and can confirm the loss isn't huge).  I have one doubt on these inductors, that the shielding was intended against a much lower frequency than 45 MHz - so hard to infer what they are doing - except they are a much smaller antenna presence than the T37-6 (?) inductors. 

73 Merry Christmas and other blessings,

Curt WB8YYY

Re: seasons greetings

Edward Reynolds
 

Same to the group 
Cheers
Ed N7SNT Oregon, USA 


On Dec 21, 2019, at 6:01 AM, Dave Dixon <wylyeguy2@...> wrote:


SEASONS GREETINGS TO YOU ALL.Dave G0AYD.

Re: Need help with reloading original uBitX v4 software

Jim WB2LHP in MI
 

Thanks Jack!

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 8:34 AM Jack, W8TEE via Groups.Io <jjpurdum=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Jim:

See attached...I think that's what you need. The libraries are specified as part of the #include preprocessor directives and a quick glance showed nothing outside the standard IDE libraries.

Jack, W8TEE

On Saturday, December 21, 2019, 12:40:03 AM EST, Jim WB2LHP in MI <jmarco1955@...> wrote:


Greetings to all. I need help reloading the original uBitX v4 software using the Arduino IDE. I'm getting many errors too numerous to list when I verify the sketch. Can someone tell me what libraries I need to load and if there is anything else I should be looking at? Thanks in advance. Jim WB2LHP

--
Jack, W8TEE

seasons greetings

Dave Dixon
 

SEASONS GREETINGS TO YOU ALL.Dave G0AYD.

Re: How to get rid of Local FM broadcast stations #ubitx

VU3ONX
 

Hi Gavin,
Is this issue resolved ?
I also have similar problem. Not sure what is the resolution. ( I have talked about it in a different post)
I am from Bangalore / India and I have a uBitx v3 running v0.20 software.
Kindly suggest a resolution. I am also working on all the suggestions provided above.
Thanks in advance.
73
Vu3onx

Re: Need help with reloading original uBitX v4 software

Jack, W8TEE
 

Jim:

See attached...I think that's what you need. The libraries are specified as part of the #include preprocessor directives and a quick glance showed nothing outside the standard IDE libraries.

Jack, W8TEE

On Saturday, December 21, 2019, 12:40:03 AM EST, Jim WB2LHP in MI <jmarco1955@...> wrote:


Greetings to all. I need help reloading the original uBitX v4 software using the Arduino IDE. I'm getting many errors too numerous to list when I verify the sketch. Can someone tell me what libraries I need to load and if there is anything else I should be looking at? Thanks in advance. Jim WB2LHP

--
Jack, W8TEE

My uBitx V3 picks up local broadcast throughout the band #v3 #ubitx-help #ubitx

VU3ONX
 

Hi Friends,
I am a new Ham from Bangalore India. I had purchased a uBitx in Jan 2018 from HF Signals.  But I had not assembled it. I recently assembled the uBitx and observed it has TDA 2822 problem. I got that changed with a LM386 by making my own adapter board.

Now coming to the problem I am facing..
From starting I am facing a problem. What ever frequency I tune in, I hear local AM broadcast. I feel there are some conversations in the background but the local AM reception is overshadowing everything.
The audio is also not very clear.
Did any one face the same issue?

When I boot up my uBitx I observe it shows v 0.20.

I have basic knowledge in electronics. Could any one please help me how to troubleshoot this ? I am so interested to start my conversation in HF but this is putting my interest down :(
Please help. Thanks in advance.
73.
vu3onx 

Re: v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

Ashhar Farhan
 

The key is to do the math. Here is how it works, consider transmitting at 14 mhz.
To generate 14 mhz, we mix the 45mz if with 59 mhz local oscillator.
Now, we see a spur at 31 mhz. As we tune up and transmit again, the spur moves DOWN! This points to that the local oscillator is being subtracted from a fix signal. If you do the math (59 + 31 = 90mhz), you known that the spur is because of a 90 mhz signal showing up.
Now, disconnect the mixer from the 45 mhz if amp and you will notice that the if has a second harmonic at 90 mhz (it will always do). To strip it off, you need to place an LPF. 
So, first, the maths shows what happened, second, we test the 45 mhz if and confirm the presence of 2nd harmonic at 90 mhz and finally measuring after the mod results in expectedly lower spurs.
-f

On Sat 21 Dec, 2019, 2:15 PM iz oos, <and2oosiz2@...> wrote:

To address the spurious the Farhan LC filter make more sense. I noticed (on an SDR receiver) the spurs were actually reduced. I know you have tried that and seemed to make no difference. I would insist on that route changing the LC configuration. The issue is the 90Mhz harmonics that generate the spur, if I remember it right. In any case for 10 and 12m I use also an external high pass filter that cleans everything in those bands.


Il 21/dic/2019 09:11, "Jonas Sanamon" <sanamon@...> ha scritto:
Hi Curt,

I've done that mod on my v3, and I cannot see any difference in the spuriouses/harmonics on any band on the spectrum analyzer. I haven't replaced the relays yet so I don't know if that makes a difference, but in my experience changing the 2 inductors to the SMD version alone is a waste of time.

Best Regards,
Jonas - SM4VEY

Den fre 20 dec. 2019 kl 23:57 skrev Curt via Groups.Io <wb8yyy=yahoo.com@groups.io>:
I am curious if anyone is getting compliant SSB spurious on the upper bands by only replacing these inductors with small shielded SMT ones as I just have?  It may be a while before I get to measure my unit with a spectrum analyzer, but I am so tempted to stop here for now while things are working (I have Gordon's relay board installed to address harmonics).  

A logical next step is to add either a xtal or LC filter at 45 MHz in the transmit path.  But I may defer this until I get some data.


Re: v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

iz oos
 

To address the spurious the Farhan LC filter make more sense. I noticed (on an SDR receiver) the spurs were actually reduced. I know you have tried that and seemed to make no difference. I would insist on that route changing the LC configuration. The issue is the 90Mhz harmonics that generate the spur, if I remember it right. In any case for 10 and 12m I use also an external high pass filter that cleans everything in those bands.


Il 21/dic/2019 09:11, "Jonas Sanamon" <sanamon@...> ha scritto:
Hi Curt,

I've done that mod on my v3, and I cannot see any difference in the spuriouses/harmonics on any band on the spectrum analyzer. I haven't replaced the relays yet so I don't know if that makes a difference, but in my experience changing the 2 inductors to the SMD version alone is a waste of time.

Best Regards,
Jonas - SM4VEY

Den fre 20 dec. 2019 kl 23:57 skrev Curt via Groups.Io <wb8yyy=yahoo.com@groups.io>:
I am curious if anyone is getting compliant SSB spurious on the upper bands by only replacing these inductors with small shielded SMT ones as I just have?  It may be a while before I get to measure my unit with a spectrum analyzer, but I am so tempted to stop here for now while things are working (I have Gordon's relay board installed to address harmonics).  

A logical next step is to add either a xtal or LC filter at 45 MHz in the transmit path.  But I may defer this until I get some data.


Re: v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

Jonas Sanamon
 

Hi Curt,

I've done that mod on my v3, and I cannot see any difference in the spuriouses/harmonics on any band on the spectrum analyzer. I haven't replaced the relays yet so I don't know if that makes a difference, but in my experience changing the 2 inductors to the SMD version alone is a waste of time.

Best Regards,
Jonas - SM4VEY

Den fre 20 dec. 2019 kl 23:57 skrev Curt via Groups.Io <wb8yyy=yahoo.com@groups.io>:

I am curious if anyone is getting compliant SSB spurious on the upper bands by only replacing these inductors with small shielded SMT ones as I just have?  It may be a while before I get to measure my unit with a spectrum analyzer, but I am so tempted to stop here for now while things are working (I have Gordon's relay board installed to address harmonics).  

A logical next step is to add either a xtal or LC filter at 45 MHz in the transmit path.  But I may defer this until I get some data.


Re: v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

 

Curt, Change the relays first..

Raj

At 21/12/2019, you wrote:
I am curious if anyone is getting compliant SSB spurious on the upper bands by only replacing these inductors with small shielded SMT ones as I just have? It may be a while before I get to measure my unit with a spectrum analyzer, but I am so tempted to stop here for now while things are working (I have Gordon's relay board installed to address harmonics).

A logical next step is to add either a xtal or LC filter at 45 MHz in the transmit path. But I may defer this until I get some data.

73 Curt

Re: For Sale new uBITX kit with additional uBITX board plus display

Jim Sorenson
 

I sold the kit, board and parts. 
Thanks for all who responded. 
I sent private messages to each respondent. 

Many thanks, 

Jim 
W3BH

v3 v4 L5 L7 Mod

Curt
 

I am curious if anyone is getting compliant SSB spurious on the upper bands by only replacing these inductors with small shielded SMT ones as I just have?  It may be a while before I get to measure my unit with a spectrum analyzer, but I am so tempted to stop here for now while things are working (I have Gordon's relay board installed to address harmonics).  

A logical next step is to add either a xtal or LC filter at 45 MHz in the transmit path.  But I may defer this until I get some data.

73 Curt

Re: Audio Buzzing

Anthony Gomes
 

N7XG, Try to increase the brightness of Nextion display to 100% and check. I hope that helps.

Anthony
VU3JVX

Re: ubitx v6, refactored code

Anthony Gomes
 

Vic WA4THR,

After I am happy with the tuning for the radio with the BFO value and other setting, I do use Memory manager to create hex file backup only. However, I never had much luck tuning the BFO and offset value for the Raduino crystal using Memory manager. I see you have mentioned about "typical" values, do you have any explanation or reason behind these values.

I never understood the mystery "Master" calibration number also and how it is calculated. I am sure there must be some calculation to derive at these "Typical" values. Hope someone on this forum can explain or else it is like magic :)

Anthony
VU3JVX

Re: ubitx v6, refactored code

Anthony Gomes
 

Oh ok I see the website was design to work it that way. Hmm...

Re: ubitx v6, refactored code

Anthony Gomes
 

Farhan sir, I am not sure why visiting the following site https://www.hfsignals.com/index.php/bfo-tuning-aid is trying to access the microphone of my PC.



Anthony
VU3JVX

Re: [QRPLabs] Software extensions

Jack, W8TEE
 

Absolutely!

I have the protocols used for Icom, Kenwood, and Yaesu which probably should give us a good starting point. We need to ask ourselves: Do we want to really create a unique command protocol, or do we want to take an existing protocol and make the "rig end" fit the radios we're interested in? In other words, write it in such a way that it can be used by the existing software base (e.g., Ham Radio Deluxe, Fldigi, etc.). I wrote a simple CAT program for the X1M xcvr years ago, but never went anywhere with it. The X1M used the same protocol that was used for the Icon 718, which could then be used with Ham Radio Deluxe. I was writing a PC program in VIsual Studio using C# so the user could avoid spending $100 on the PC-end software. Personally, I think it makes sense to work with at least a subset of one of an existing protocol, as that would give us software that we can use as a test bed. Personally, I don't use CAT right now, so I don't know what the "most popular" protocol is, but it can't be that hard to find out. That would simplify the "out" end of the link. My ultimate goal is to do away with the PC and have the output controlled by a TFT display and perhaps a 5" or 7" color display. (I don't want to have to take a tablet with me if I want to operate from a canoe.)

The "in" end would depend on the code that is to sit on the microcontroller. That code needs to be as skinny as possible and still do the work. Truth be told, that microcontroller will likely have other work to do, so we need this code to co-exist with the other code in the program. That suggests a library approach to the problem. While this won't be a requirement, I will be doing my work within the confines of the Arduino IDE since it uses C-C++,  is free, but supports multiple processors. Personally, I don't see a member of the Arduino family being up to the task. That leaves the STM32F, ESP32, and Teensy families from which to choose. My Projects book uses all three, but I'm losing interest in the ESP32, mainly because its boards and pin layouts are all over the map. (Some boards have 30 pins, others have 36 or 38 pins which makes it hard on the reader to buy the "right" one.) That's sad, because the ESP32 has great resource depth. The STM32F series are cheap, yet are markedly more powerful than the Arduinos. Hans chose the STM32F4 series for the QSX. The Teensy is an h-bomb for the task, but costs $20 for the T4. Rock...hard place...

I think the first task is to determine what software can work with which protocols. You guys doing CAT work already can help here. The next thing we need to do is determine the "must have" commands and get those working first. Once those work, extensions are easy. Then I would see the group working on an Application Programming Interface (API) that is generic enough to use with different controllers. That way, even if the code is not Open Source, someone like Hans might take our API and compile it into their code. We could then use those API hooks to control their xcvr.

Finally, I would suggest moving this thread either to a new group or the softwarecontrollerhamradio group, as someone has already suggested. (BTW, I own that group and started it several years ago, so moving this discussion to that group is fine with me.) There's no reason to clog Hans' group. If you want to participate in this discussion further and are not a member of that group, I hope you'll join it.

Let's close the thread here and consider it moved to the softwarecontrollerhamradio group.

Jack, W8TEE

On Friday, December 20, 2019, 6:06:03 AM EST, jmh6@... <jmh6@...> wrote:



Hi Jack,

    I would consider code size and simplicity for any protocol we consider.

    Lots of fun :).



On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:

> We may have to start a separate group for this topic.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 2:26:51 PM EST, Jim Manley <jim.manley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jack, et al,
> I would love to contribute to this effort and will start perusing the links provided to get up to (some?) speed during the holiday break, while trapped at my in-laws for
> nearly two weeks in the place with the coldest average temperatures in at least the lower 48.  There isn't even skiable snow, although drifts can get to around 24 feet that
> allow skiing from upper-story windows ... assuming you're in a multi-story building!
>
> 73_Animated_GIF.gif
> Jim  KJ7JHE
> Lame Deer High School Amateur Radio Club  KJ7JKU
>  
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:46 AM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
>      Jack
>
> This might be interesting.  It is open-source and readily available.
>
> https://www.systutorials.com/docs/linux/man/1-grig/
>
> https://hamlib.github.io/
>
> This has been around in UNIX and Linux systems for many years.  It is easy
> to use and is customizable for various rigs by simply linking to the appropriate
> Hamlib library.   Resistance to it may be because there is no glory in using
> already available methods. 
>
> Arv  K7HKL
> _._
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:17 AM jjpurdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
> OK. We'll keep looking around...
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:45:49 AM EST, <jmh6@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jack,
>
>     The only docs I have are a very old product manual that does not have
> the whole thing. Gotta get into some 6502 and 8052 code and then do some
> writing.
>
>     Most stuff will be re-discovered once an open CAT protocol is being
> used.
>
>     Works well. It is still being used by a dual 3.25 inch floppy IBM PC
> Clone for automated product testing. PC code was written in Power Basic.
>
>     Very old stuff!! lol!!
>
>     Lots of fun :).
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:
>
> > I'll start collecting stuff as I can. If you have docs on your NIWire, I'd
> > like to see it. If anyone else has related docs, please send them to me.
> >
> > Jack, W8TEE
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 6:29:55 PM EST, jmh6@...
> > <jmh6@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jack and All,
> >
> >     I think a new simpler open CAT type interface is all that will really
> > work? Right now there is a very confusing mess of different protocols all
> > of which seem radio-centric rather than CAT centric.
> >
> >     Since you are into writing documents, how about doing a first crack at
> > an 'open' CAT centric standard that we can all comment on?
> >
> >     Our products used a 'simple' protocol we called NIWire that worked
> > pretty well, had a small software footprint and seemed to work reliably. I
> > doubt that it would be suitable as a 'standard', but it was simple both as
> > to signals on the wire and code complexity.
> >
> >     Lots of fun :).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, jjpurdum via Groups.Io wrote:
> >
> > > Arv:
> > >
> > > I agree. I know there are products out there being sold that use Open
> > Source software, including my own. Still, I made that decision when I made
> > it Open Source. My theory
> > > is that, if someone stands on my shoulders and makes something I started
> > better for everyone, we all win. However, I do get a little miffed when
> > someone takes something
> > > that is not Open Source and either sells it (M0NKA's SDR transceiver) or
> > gives it away (my books on torent sites).
> > >
> > > I do think the CAT interface does offer a way to extend the software
> > without making all of it Open Source. It appears that we are slowly
> > standardizing the CAT protocol. I
> > > would like to see the community pull together and formalize a CAT
> > interface. It would require support from The Big Three and that could
> > dissolve into a pissing contest. If
> > > that happens, I say screw 'em and we as users form our own CAT standard
> > interface. (If this is all Greek to you, check out
> > http://www.plicht.de/ekki/civ/civ-p41.html for a
> > > simple way to specify a series of CAT commands.)
> > >
> > > For CAT to work, processors need to be on the "radio end" and the "user
> > end" of the CAT connection. For Hans QSX, the radio end will be a processor
> > in the STM32F4 family.
> > > On the user end, it could be whatever the user wants. Me? I plan on having
> > a touch screen waterfall display that doesn't rely on a PC. It will be a
> > self-contained SDR a la
> > > M0NKA or the G-90. For others, write a PC program in your favorite
> > language that can read ASCII data from a port and do whatever you want with
> > the data you get via CAT.
> > >
> > > All of this could be super cool stuff. I know Al and I are going to dig
> > into it when the dust settle a bit.
> > >
> > > Jack, W8TEE
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 3:45:59 PM EST, Arv Evans
> > <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > Well-said.  You made it very clear what the pro's and con's are regarding
> > giving away
> > > intellectual property versus securing said property.   Micro-controller
> > based systems are
> > > particularly problematic because some of the micro-controller chips can be
> > read back
> > > and copied at the bit or byte level.  The AVR is one of the
> > micro-controller chips that
> > > does have fuse bits that can be used to help protect the device from being
> > copied. 
> > >
> > > We are seeing some of this problem over on the BITX discussion group,
> > where individuals
> > > have made their own junk-box variations of the hardware, modified the
> > open-source software,
> > > and now seem to expect that Farhan will troubleshoot their mistakes. 
> > >
> > > Micro-processor ICs that do not have built-in copy protection have to rely
> > on "mouse-
> > > traps" that use hidden code to erase or mutilate the code if it is
> > tampered with. 
> > >
> > > Since recent trends seem to indicate that even homebrew rigs need to
> > support some form
> > > of CAT control, maybe that is where the user customization needs to
> > reside.  If there
> > > is an adequate set of basic functions, then maybe user code in the CAT
> > software could
> > > allow those who want something else could add that feature or function?
> > >
> > > Arv
> > > _._
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:58 AM jjpurdum via Groups.Io
> > <jjpurdum=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
> > > Everything I've written since I retired is Open Source and, for me at
> > least, doing so is a true dilemma. That is: Two choices, both bad. I'll bet
> > Hans has waded
> > > through the same decision-making process.
> > >
> > > If you make your code Open Source, you lose control of it and it does end
> > up being stolen, sometimes for profit. Even worse, some people will attempt
> > to modify your
> > > code and, when it doesn't work, they actually have the audacity to ask you
> > to fix it...for free! Not good...not fair.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if you don't make it Open Source, some people think
> > you're a Grinch because they can't make your code do exactly whatever it is
> > they want it to
> > > do.  They, too, want you to add such-and-such a feature, but fail to
> > realize there are not a lot of deaf, blind, people who only speak Latin.
> > (The Grinch Factor, to
> > > me, is a myth. It's my code...you don't like it, write your own.)
> > >
> > > So, what's the answer? First of all, given what Hans has managed to stuff
> > into a Nano, there can't be more than a few bytes left. So, my guess is that
> > putting
> > > something in means taking something else out. For most of us, that means
> > "Leave it alone." However...
> > >
> > > The QSX is going to be another beast altogether, since it will be using
> > the STM32F4 series of microcontroller. Hans has some headroom there because
> > of the memory
> > > resource depth and a faster clock. Yet, from Hans' perspective, how does
> > he address the dilemma of lost control versus the Grinch factor? I think the
> > best solution is
> > > an API--Application Programmer Interface. An API provides entry points to
> > methods that allow you to extend the functionality of the program in much
> > the same way that
> > > libraries allow you to extend the Arduino core. The downside is that it
> > takes a lot more effort on Hans part to provide an API for us.
> > >
> > > So...what's the correct answer from everyones' standpoint? I don't have a
> > clue.
> > >
> > > Jack, W8TEE
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 9:23:11 AM EST, R. Tyson via Groups.Io
> > <tysons2=btinternet.com@groups.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > As pointed out in another post I doubt there is sufficient memory left.
> > The radio has a remarkable set of facilities and Hans has done a brilliant
> > job on it.
> > >
> > > Someone suggested that the software should be open source... that would
> > enable others to produce cloned versions of Hans' work - in effect he does
> > the work and
> > > someone else steals it and profits from it.
> > >
> > > Tuning up and own the band is good exercise - I remember when we had to
> > get out of our chair and walk across the room to change T.V. channels and
> > there were only 2 or
> > > 3 of them.
> > >
> > > The facilities available from these little radios is amazing but there is
> > not the infinite capacity to keep adding stuff from "wish lists".
> > >
> > > Reg              G4NFR
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>



--
Jack, W8TEE

Re: Flrig and uBitX not connecting

Jay - WS4JM
 

I loaded the latest yesterday, no joy. I thought it would be an easy way to do rig control with a Raspberry Pi. On to something else.

73 de WS4JM
Jay