Date   
Re: KD8CEC and S-Meter

Evan Hand
 

Just to confirm that you did connect the diode, cap and resistor per the KD8CEC directions to measure the audio output at the high connection of the volume control?

FWIW
73
Evan
AC9TU

Re: KD8CEC and S-Meter

Adrien F4IJA <adrien.grelet@...>
 

If you're not on I2C, you need to comment this line because you want to use A7 to work with it.
--
73's
Adrien F4IJA
https://www.qrz.com/db/F4IJA

KD8CEC and S-Meter

V Zecchinelli
 

Good Morning,

I am having difficulty activating the S Meter.  I have it checked in Memory Manager V1.11 and have tried several different number configurations along with S Meter box checked and nothing shows on S Meter.
Memory Manager = V1.11
KD6CEC = V1.2
UbitX = V5

Am I missing something anywhere?  UbitX.h shows "//Select betwen Analog S-Meter and DSP (I2C) Meter
#define USE_I2CSMETER"

Thanks,
Vince

Re: uBITX rotary enconder

Sascha Bohnet | DL5SMB
 

I also installed one of these famous 100ppr ebay encoders.

The speed of the Nano is a restraint for sure, but in my case it was totally sufficient.

The probem I faced was the programming of the encoder function. It was written for the low-resolution mechanical encoders,
not for the faster optical ones. I just replaced two commands ("millis" to "micros") in the KD8CEC's source code and my encoder worked.

https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/71360

Re: uBITX rotary enconder

John Scherer
 

Hey Jack!  Easier?  Sure, ok.  But its not always about what easy, is it.  If it were, we would just buy all of our ham gear and be done with it.  That being said, whats mentioned above isn't that difficult.  I used and attiny85 that I programmed with the ArduinoIDE.  Works like a champ.  The one thing I would love to add is, when I change the step size in the uBitx, I would like to have the radio change the divisor on the fly.  For 10 Hz step, divide by 2, for the others by 4.  The goal would be for about 2.4 kHz span per one knob revolution when 10 Hz is selected, and about 12 kHz when 100 Hz is selected.

My reasons for going to a higher PPR optical encoder over the mechanical encoder that most use was all about the feel.  Most optical encoders have bearings and makes for very smooth operation.  The encoder in my uBitx is 128ppr and the Nano just isn't up to that task.  It could likely be made to work but I'm no expert with the code or ISR's.  I also have the BITeensio board and I can tell you that with its Teensy 3.6 processor and  a few simple mods to their encoder routines, I was able to read my 1024 ppr encoders (overkill for sure) as fast as I could spin it, without missing a beat.  Point being, we really need a faster processor in the raduino, something like the Teensy 4 would be pretty interesting.  The Teensy 4 could open the door for having some fun with digital audio filters, better spectrum display, etc.

Re: uBITX rotary enconder

Jack, W8TEE
 

Wouldn't it just be easier (and less expensive) to buy an encoder with a lower ppr? Mouser sells good quality Bourns 20ppr encoders for under $2.


Jack, W8TEE

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 11:07:33 PM EDT, John Scherer <jrsphoto@...> wrote:


I've seen that code Guido, but there is more to that code.  For others coming here and seeing the link to the code above.  Please see this link for more info on how to implement it. But basicly, you program that code into a small microprocessor, something like a ATTiny85, though others even use a Nano.  You then connect you high-pulse count encoder to the processor, and it outputs a divide/N signal that you then feed to yourRaduinos encoder inputs:

test2

--
Jack, W8TEE

Re: uBITX rotary enconder

John Scherer
 

I've seen that code Guido, but there is more to that code.  For others coming here and seeing the link to the code above.  Please see this link for more info on how to implement it. But basicly, you program that code into a small microprocessor, something like a ATTiny85, though others even use a Nano.  You then connect you high-pulse count encoder to the processor, and it outputs a divide/N signal that you then feed to yourRaduinos encoder inputs:

test2

Re: uBITX full design

Ashhar Farhan
 

If you are thinking of a bank if band pass filters, then you dont need the complexity and performance hit of the double conversion  ubitx. Go for single conversion like the bitx40 or bitx20. The performance is kuch superior. 


On Tue 24 Sep, 2019, 1:29 AM Lawrence Galea, <9h1avlaw@...> wrote:
Thanks all for your feedback
Regards
Lawrence

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
If building a new board for external low pass filters, 
could spend an extra $0.50 on a processor to interpret serial commands from the Raduino.
If wires kept short could use the i2c bus, pin count impact on the Raduino is a minus 3
since this frees up the TXA,TXB,TXC pins.
And perhaps include a tandem match style SWR detector out there, 
communicates back to the Raduino over that same serial bus.

None of the communications out to this LPF board need speed,
this LPF board is a better choice for i2c than the display.

Not that I feel any real need for 10 LPF's.  
The 4 we have on the uBitx adequately cover the WARC bands.
Putting the corner frequencies closer to the top edge of each band
would allow better attenuation of harmonics, but in some jurisdictions at least
the v5 uBitx meets regulatory requirements.
Sufficient in my book for a QRP rig.
Actually, 20/40/80m is sufficient in my book for an $129 SSB transceiver.

There were several reports in this forum of Raduino clones being built
that had more IO pins.  Moving to an Arm blue pill would seem ideal
for a Raduino upgrade.  W3JDR got most of the way there:
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topic/19284407

I'd much prefer something like that for getting extra pins for tasks where
execution time is a consideration, serial access over i2c is awfully slow.

If doing a Raduino clone, address these issues of the current Raduino:
    No reverse polarity protection for the 12v supply
    No protection for the IO pins that go off board, please add 100 or 1000 ohm series resistors.
    Avoid having Raduino oscillators create birdies in the receiver
    Perhaps improve si5351 drive power to 7dBm,  have optional second si5351 to avoid crosstalk?
Might be a good project for some engineering student.
Jonathan, you still out there?

Jerry, KE7ER

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Lawrence Galea wrote:
Farhan.
Did you ever think of making available a raduino with switching for every one of the 10 HF bands so that one could use external BPFs instead of the ones on the board or perhaps a program for those who want to change the original software to do so?
Or is there any programmer on this list who is willing to do it?
Thanks to all
Likely no as its too great a change to the Raduino and the ubitx.

The existing version is at best good for 8 bands if one uses TXA,TXB,TXC as 
a binary band select along with an external decoder chip like 74138 (3-8 decode).

If one is willing a ground up build and a improved raduino-like approach would be doable.
The trick with the Nano is using a I2C display to free up pins and readjusting what pins are
used where.

Allison

Re: WTB 680nF Inductors #parts

 

Hi Curt,

Thank you for the information.  It is good to hear more about fixing the mixer spurs.

My harmonic spurious are also good, using Alison's relay mod on the wiki and the original relays.

73,


Mark.

Re: Hi from Adrien F4IJA

 

Hi Woody,

Thank you for the data!

How were you measuring and calculating the peak power?

73,


Mark

Re: WTB 680nF Inductors #parts

Curt
 

Mark

I am thinking that the impact of substituting 680 nH shielded inductors for the toroids on the 45 MHz can be checked by monitoring a 28 MHz beacon (if you are where you can hear one) or by measuring SSB transmit output on an upper band.  I have some shielded inductors to try, but not yet installed.  Yes I am reading Raj that these are a good thing to reduce leakage that may cause more than one malady, and maybe with Axicom relays in might mitigate these mixer spurious. 

I did not find any improvement using the LC filter that was recommended, without other fixes for mixer spurious.  I sense they may be a small impact, but of course part of the v5 fix. 

I did try a second 45 MHz crystal filter - and this wrecked my low band CW transmit output.  Perhaps installing the shielded inductors may allow the second xtal filter to work, a path I plan to try. 

Meanwhile my harmonic spurious are good, using Gordan's board. 

Curt

Re: USB Problems Continue

Evan Hand
 

I went this route, and does allow you to go back, however transferring to the new Nano, you lose the calibration data that is stored in the eeprom on the Nano.  You will need to recalibrate when starting with a fresh Nano.

FWIW
73
Evan
AC9TU

Re: uBITX full design

Lawrence Galea
 

Thanks all for your feedback
Regards
Lawrence

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
If building a new board for external low pass filters, 
could spend an extra $0.50 on a processor to interpret serial commands from the Raduino.
If wires kept short could use the i2c bus, pin count impact on the Raduino is a minus 3
since this frees up the TXA,TXB,TXC pins.
And perhaps include a tandem match style SWR detector out there, 
communicates back to the Raduino over that same serial bus.

None of the communications out to this LPF board need speed,
this LPF board is a better choice for i2c than the display.

Not that I feel any real need for 10 LPF's.  
The 4 we have on the uBitx adequately cover the WARC bands.
Putting the corner frequencies closer to the top edge of each band
would allow better attenuation of harmonics, but in some jurisdictions at least
the v5 uBitx meets regulatory requirements.
Sufficient in my book for a QRP rig.
Actually, 20/40/80m is sufficient in my book for an $129 SSB transceiver.

There were several reports in this forum of Raduino clones being built
that had more IO pins.  Moving to an Arm blue pill would seem ideal
for a Raduino upgrade.  W3JDR got most of the way there:
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topic/19284407

I'd much prefer something like that for getting extra pins for tasks where
execution time is a consideration, serial access over i2c is awfully slow.

If doing a Raduino clone, address these issues of the current Raduino:
    No reverse polarity protection for the 12v supply
    No protection for the IO pins that go off board, please add 100 or 1000 ohm series resistors.
    Avoid having Raduino oscillators create birdies in the receiver
    Perhaps improve si5351 drive power to 7dBm,  have optional second si5351 to avoid crosstalk?
Might be a good project for some engineering student.
Jonathan, you still out there?

Jerry, KE7ER

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Lawrence Galea wrote:
Farhan.
Did you ever think of making available a raduino with switching for every one of the 10 HF bands so that one could use external BPFs instead of the ones on the board or perhaps a program for those who want to change the original software to do so?
Or is there any programmer on this list who is willing to do it?
Thanks to all
Likely no as its too great a change to the Raduino and the ubitx.

The existing version is at best good for 8 bands if one uses TXA,TXB,TXC as 
a binary band select along with an external decoder chip like 74138 (3-8 decode).

If one is willing a ground up build and a improved raduino-like approach would be doable.
The trick with the Nano is using a I2C display to free up pins and readjusting what pins are
used where.

Allison

Re: USB Problems Continue

Werner de Vos
 

It’s not the answer to you’re question but try to keep the original arduino as it is and experiment with another arduino. Ideal for troubleshooting.

Op 23 sep. 2019 om 20:12 heeft JT Croteau <jt.tobit@...> het volgende geschreven:

I typo'd, 30,080 bytes are uploaded.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:00 PM JT Croteau via Groups.Io
<jt.tobit=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

I was having an issue connecting to my NANOs via USB and determined it to be a cable problem. I wonder if I might still have a cable problem?

I can now connect my laptop to the few NANOs I have, XLoader appears to connect as it shows 30,020 bytes uploaded for CEC v1.2, but when I reboot the uBITX, the stock v0.20 firmware comes up.

Could I still have a bad cable? Does 30,020 bytes sound about right for v1.2 CEC? Any other ideas? Does anyone have a link to a cable model that is known to work?

Thanks, I really need to get this working.


<xloader.jpg>

Re: Hi from Adrien F4IJA

Adrien F4IJA <adrien.grelet@...>
 

Now I've my uBitx, I'm making some tests with a lab monitored power supply and you can find here my first results upon power drain consumption : http://www.tobeca.fr/f4ija/doku.php?id=ubitx:measurements

So, about 29.5W during WSPR transmit and 1.92W when idle. Interesting fact during the idle phase is that if I push to the maximum the output volume on the external speaker, there is the same curent drawn.
--
73's
Adrien F4IJA
https://www.qrz.com/db/F4IJA

Sloved: USB Problems Continue

JT Croteau
 

Confirmed I do not have a USB problem.  Moving on.

Re: uBITX full design

Jerry Gaffke
 

If building a new board for external low pass filters, 
could spend an extra $0.50 on a processor to interpret serial commands from the Raduino.
If wires kept short could use the i2c bus, pin count impact on the Raduino is a minus 3
since this frees up the TXA,TXB,TXC pins.
And perhaps include a tandem match style SWR detector out there, 
communicates back to the Raduino over that same serial bus.

None of the communications out to this LPF board need speed,
this LPF board is a better choice for i2c than the display.

Not that I feel any real need for 10 LPF's.  
The 4 we have on the uBitx adequately cover the WARC bands.
Putting the corner frequencies closer to the top edge of each band
would allow better attenuation of harmonics, but in some jurisdictions at least
the v5 uBitx meets regulatory requirements.
Sufficient in my book for a QRP rig.
Actually, 20/40/80m is sufficient in my book for an $129 SSB transceiver.

There were several reports in this forum of Raduino clones being built
that had more IO pins.  Moving to an Arm blue pill would seem ideal
for a Raduino upgrade.  W3JDR got most of the way there:
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topic/19284407

I'd much prefer something like that for getting extra pins for tasks where
execution time is a consideration, serial access over i2c is awfully slow.

If doing a Raduino clone, address these issues of the current Raduino:
    No reverse polarity protection for the 12v supply
    No protection for the IO pins that go off board, please add 100 or 1000 ohm series resistors.
    Avoid having Raduino oscillators create birdies in the receiver
    Perhaps improve si5351 drive power to 7dBm,  have optional second si5351 to avoid crosstalk?
Might be a good project for some engineering student.
Jonathan, you still out there?

Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:34 AM, Lawrence Galea wrote:
Farhan.
Did you ever think of making available a raduino with switching for every one of the 10 HF bands so that one could use external BPFs instead of the ones on the board or perhaps a program for those who want to change the original software to do so?
Or is there any programmer on this list who is willing to do it?
Thanks to all
Likely no as its too great a change to the Raduino and the ubitx.

The existing version is at best good for 8 bands if one uses TXA,TXB,TXC as 
a binary band select along with an external decoder chip like 74138 (3-8 decode).

If one is willing a ground up build and a improved raduino-like approach would be doable.
The trick with the Nano is using a I2C display to free up pins and readjusting what pins are
used where.

Allison

Re: USB Problems Continue

JT Croteau
 

I typo'd, 30,080 bytes are uploaded.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:00 PM JT Croteau via Groups.Io
<jt.tobit=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

I was having an issue connecting to my NANOs via USB and determined it to be a cable problem. I wonder if I might still have a cable problem?

I can now connect my laptop to the few NANOs I have, XLoader appears to connect as it shows 30,020 bytes uploaded for CEC v1.2, but when I reboot the uBITX, the stock v0.20 firmware comes up.

Could I still have a bad cable? Does 30,020 bytes sound about right for v1.2 CEC? Any other ideas? Does anyone have a link to a cable model that is known to work?

Thanks, I really need to get this working.

USB Problems Continue

JT Croteau
 

I was having an issue connecting to my NANOs via USB and determined it to be a cable problem.  I wonder if I might still have a cable problem?

I can now connect my laptop to the few NANOs I have, XLoader appears to connect as it shows 30,020 bytes uploaded for CEC v1.2, but when I reboot the uBITX, the stock v0.20 firmware comes up.

Could I still have a bad cable?  Does 30,020 bytes sound about right for v1.2 CEC?  Any other ideas?  Does anyone have a link to a cable model that is known to work?

Thanks, I really need to get this working.

Re: Collection of knowledge about CEC firmware? #firmware

Herman Scheper
 

Mark,

 

Is your softWare written for the 5”Nextion Enhanced version…?

 

i HOPE SO.

 

Herman PA0BAB

 

Van: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> Namens Herman Scheper
Verzonden: maandag 23 september 2019 19:01
Aan: BITX20@groups.io
Onderwerp: Re: [BITX20] Collection of knowledge about CEC firmware? #firmware

 

You all have  a lot of points!!!

 

Now I learned about Mark’s 5” Nextion version…first thing I did was downloading it….Testing next week because my Raduino is ‘passed away’ a few days ago.

Farhan sent me a new one !

My fault!!

 

Hope It will be better than the version I use now…

 

 

73

Herman

PA0BAB

 

Van: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> Namens Mark Hatch
Verzonden: maandag 23 september 2019 18:41
Aan: BITX20@groups.io
Onderwerp: Re: [BITX20] Collection of knowledge about CEC firmware? #firmware

 

Jeff does have a point. And as Don pointed out, it is a wild-wild-west situation with info actually in four places:

  1. KD8CEC website
  2. ubitx.net
  3. This group
  4. Ubitx groups (there are 2) on facebook...

Yes, google is your friend, *if* people believe that KD8CEC has become the default for GUI user interface, then even Google has a hard time sorting things out.

For example, the 5" Nextion file on KD8CEC's site is just the 2.8" screen, and doesn't fill the screen. The 5" screen on ubitx.net is also a resized version. The best (because I wrote it ;-) ) sits on the groups.io file section. But there is at least one more 5" screen that I am aware of that was crafted but I have lost the pointer...

Although only Ian can answer, it is my impression, from the lack of activity on the KD8CEC software, that he has moved on to other projects. We owe him a debt to get us this point. But we are now on our own....

73
Mark
AJ6CU