Date   
Re: Erratic tuning with my new uBitx

Tim Gorman
 

I too run WeeWx on a raspberry pi running raspian linux. Works fine!
I've modified it give me 24 hour rain and to give me yesterday's high
temp.

Congrats!

tim ab0wr

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:20:00 -0700
"w7hd.rh" <w7hd.rh@...> wrote:

I too run Linux.  I use WeeWx for my weather station software, which
is written in Python and works very nicely under Linux Mint 17.3.
See my version at my website <http://w7hd.ddns.net:8080/weewx/>.

If you also wish to run FLDIGI, then my script
<http://w7hd.ddns.net/fldigi/flscript20180331.tar.gz> will help you
out with instructions here
<http://w7hd.ddns.net/fldigi/flscript-20180331-howto.pdf>.  It allows
you to use a menu to compile FLDIGI programs.


Ron W7HD


On 04/23/2018 01:53 AM, Chris Clarke wrote:
Thanks Michael.

Yes, I use Linux for everything I can. I only use XP where there is
no convenient alternative and usually pull out the internet dongle!
Had Windows 7 for a short while until it screwed up, and at that
point I decided to go with Linux (whose main issues are my scanner
and my weather station software, but really I need to sort them
out. I do use XP for Ian's uBITx Memory Manager for the time being,
not having yet had the urge to use WINE ... I guess that's another
milestone I need to reach!

Chris

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jerry Gaffke
 

I've got a Teensy 3.2, it looks very promising.
The 3.6 has floating point, which would make porting SDR libraries much easier.

The RPi's run linux with X-Windows, many popular SDR programs have already been ported.
Though RPi Zero at $5 might not have the horsepower to run X-Windows and all fast enough
without changes to the SDR program, so this sort of thing might better be done on one of the
bigger RPi's.   All the RPi's suck more power than the Teensy's, need to bring your own ADC's. 

Yup, the ATMega328P has a Harvard architecture, as Jack well knows.
Program memory (flash) and data memory (RAM) are in separate address spaces,
programs we write cannot easily read data out of flash.
For this reason, things like string literals are copied from flash to RAM at boot.
So something like lcd.print("Hello World") will use up RAM unless you resort to
the tricks shown here:   http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/PROGMEM
Not needed when programming most machines in C.

Jerry



On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 06:02 am, Jack Purdum wrote:
I realize the power the Pi has and I'm familiar with compiler design and grammars, as my old software company built and marketed its own C compiler for DOS back in '80s...without yacc! Al and I have been through a pretty rigorous µC decision process for our Jackal project, looking at Pi, Mega2560, Due, Mega Zero, and the new Protoneer board to replace the Raduino/Nano board. We settled on the Teensy 3.6. One of our goals is to encourage hacking by those who are already familiar with the µBITX, and that suggested sicking with a processor that could run in the Arduino IDE. The Teensy 3.6 has
  • 180 MHz ARM Cortex-M4 with Floating Point Unit
  • 1M Flash, 256K RAM, 4K EEPROM
  • Microcontroller Chip MK66FX1M0VMD18 (PDF link)
  • USB High Speed (480 Mbit/sec) Port
  • 2 CAN Bus Ports
  • 32 General Purpose DMA Channels
  • 22 PWM Outputs
  • 4 I2C Ports
  • 11 Touch Sensing Inputs
and costs a little less than the Pi. The FPU is important in many SDR's that use FFT algorithms, and the Teensy has a very good FFT library. It also has a terrific audio library that we are using in our filter elements. However, to me, the critical elements were that the 256K of SRAM removes the real bottleneck of the Arduino family and there are a host of relevant libraries for the processor. Atmel needs to get its act together and boost its processor resource base if it wants to stay competitive. (I taught an assembler course on a Z80 back in the '80s and, you're right, the 328 reminds me of it although the memory architecture's a little different.)

Anyway, we experimented with Pi and other processors for over a month before we committed Jackal to the Teensy. We made the right choice for us. Al and I will be showing Jackal at the FDIM conference...I think it's pretty cool and brings a lot to the table. That's not to say that someone shouldn't give Pi a try as a Raduino replacement. It's just not for us.

Jack, W8TEE
 
 

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Doug W
 

While this has no bearing in the RPI vs Teensy discussion as it applies to both and is a further diversion from the original subject, one thing I am guilty of when throwing around the virtues of a $5 Pi is forgetting to mention to people that are not familiar with it is that it also requires a SD card that typically costs more than the Pi Zero itself.  I bring this up for any one following along that is on a tight budget.  To borrow from Jack's example of someone on a lawn mower budget, you might need to mow one more lawn than you were planning this summer.

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jack, W8TEE
 

Doug:

Good point, as I think the op sys and many other files are stored on the SD card.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 10:52:05 AM EDT, Doug W <dougwilner@...> wrote:


While this has no bearing in the RPI vs Teensy discussion as it applies to both and is a further diversion from the original subject, one thing I am guilty of when throwing around the virtues of a $5 Pi is forgetting to mention to people that are not familiar with it is that it also requires a SD card that typically costs more than the Pi Zero itself.  I bring this up for any one following along that is on a tight budget.  To borrow from Jack's example of someone on a lawn mower budget, you might need to mow one more lawn than you were planning this summer.

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Kevin Luxford
 

Jack,

I am looking forward to the unveiling.
73, Kevin VK3DAP / ZL2DAP

Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Braden Glett <bradenglett@...>
 

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation?
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Gordon Gibby
 

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation?
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jerry Gaffke
 

I doubt there's any non-volatile memory on the RPi other than the SD card,
as that involves more process steps when building a CPU chip.

Here's an 8 Gbyte SD card for $4.99:  https://www.walmart.com/ip/Kingston-8GB-Class-4-microSDHC-Memory-Card/39137510
So for $10 you could get an RPi Zero plus that SD card with about 250,000 times as much flash as we have on the Nano.

Additional reasons the RPi's are so cheap for what they offer:
  Created and built by a non-profit for educational purposes
  The same parts are also used in a few hundred million cheap feature phones

Jerry



On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:11 am, Jack Purdum wrote:
Good point, as I think the op sys and many other files are stored on the SD card.
 

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Buddy Brannan
 

Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation?
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Daniel Conklin
 

A while ago I built a 4SQRP group HiPerMite CW filter in a mint tin to put between my headphones/speaker and my receivers.  There are others out there, but this one is a proven performer and I'm very happy with it.  http://www.4sqrp.com/hipermite.php
Dan, W2DLC

Re: BITX QSO Afternoon/Evening, Sunday, April 22, 3PM & 7PM Local Time, 7277 kHz in North America, 7177 kHz elsewhere.

Dennis Voorhees
 

I listened between 7 and 7:20, and heard some signals, but nothing out of the noise. i called CQ Mico Bit X several times. Thought I heard a response, but Noise level is high here on the Border line, and I could not make out a call. 
Denny AD3O

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Skip Davis via Groups.Io <skipnc9o@...> wrote:
Thanks for trying Dave there was QSB so occasionally I couldn’t hear both of you and when the carrier came on it made it difficult. At least I know my uBITX is getting out. I was using a folded dipole cut for 20mtrs, loaded with the T1 ATU in a inverted V configuration. I still need to finish building the 40mtr version and get it up in the air. 
I’m located in western NC so we should be able to work each other without any problem if propagation holds up.

Skip Davis, NC9O

On Apr 23, 2018, at 08:31, davesters@... wrote:

Hi Skip and all,
Worked AI4OT Charles, WA4THR Vic, N4DR Marc and VE3THR Tom. All between 750 to 840 miles distant from my QTH.
I heard you one time and came back but no response. 
Am using a homemade coil loaded dipole that is resonant on both 40 and 80. Using recycled 75 ohm television grade coax.

Dave 
K0MBT


Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Gordon Gibby
 

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.


A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.


Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    


Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!


Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!


gordon



From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation?
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Jerry Gaffke
 

The uBitx works well enough as a CW rig out of the box if you have clean enough key contacts.

Here's an old post regarding possible enhancements:
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/message/36947

The stock uBitx firmware uses an ADC channel to listen to a straight key and two keyer paddle contacts
all over one wire, distinguishing between the three by a resistor network that gives each a different voltage.
That's been a bit problematic if the key or paddle has any dirt on the contacts, I'd recommend upgrading
the Raduino firmware to something else.  The firmware could use the PTT digital pin when in CW mode
as a straight key input.



On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:04 am, Buddy Brannan wrote:
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 
 
In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 
 
Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 
 
Vy 73, de KB5ELV
 

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Buddy Brannan
 

Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes. 

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I’m interested in trying some kit building myself…it’s one aspect I feel like I’ve missed out on…especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still…being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish. 

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon


 
From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation? 
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM 


Re: show your mic

Lee
 

The microphone is a Model T-32 made by Kellogg Company for military communications.  It was sometimes used with the English T-1154 transmitter in WW2 Lancaster bombers.  Yes, they were used in many places after the war and one popular use was on a PA system in railroad yards.  Since I need 4 wires I am using a Cobra/Midland CB style 4 pin plug and jack with the locking ring.

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Gordon Gibby
 

​man, my hat is off  to you getting ANYTHING done with such impediments!   More power to you!!!!


If there isn't any statc---there's not much propagation either!!!


Gordon




From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:22 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes. 

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I’m interested in trying some kit building myself…it’s one aspect I feel like I’ve missed out on…especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still…being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish. 

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon


 
From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation? 
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM 


Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Jack, W8TEE
 

Buddy:

There are some very interesting filters available in software where you can not only set the "center" frequency, but also the edges where the skirt "knees" are located. When I'm listening to code, I dial 'er down pretty tight as I find listening to the Big Bang during a CW session distracting rather than soothing. It all a matter of choice.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 12:22:30 PM EDT, Buddy Brannan <buddy@...> wrote:


Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes. 

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I’m interested in trying some kit building myself…it’s one aspect I feel like I’ve missed out on…especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still…being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish. 

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon


 
From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation? 
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM 


Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Gary Anderson
 

The uBITX was designed to use the pre-existing Raduino board. My opinion on a fresh start would be to put the Si5351A directly on the uBITX board, so only the I2C digital pins would need to be routed. This would leave a cleaner option to connect various micro-controller boards, depending on the features desired and budget. Separate the RF analog board from the digital / audio processing board.  But we are not limited to what we can do, so no real issue here.

IMO, the Teensy 3.6 is a wise choice for adding DSP and SDR features with the option to stay in the familiar Arduino IDE. It appears that PJRC's business model is willing to cover their code development cost with the sale of the boot loader code pre-flashed in the MKL02/MKL04 chip ($7 US) and very generous IMO. This means there's an option to also place the K66 directly on your own board design and just buy the boot loader IC from PJRC. PJRC is a business, we are mostly just here as a hobby. If we weren't hobbyists or working to enable hobbyists, we would probably not be using Arduino IDE :)

I am an advocate of the Teensy/K66 direction, but last week I ordered a Protoneer Nano-Arm. https://wiki.protoneer.co.nz/NANO-ARM  $10 + $5 shipping to US from NZ.  This board has the same footprint as the Nano, and _should_ be a fairly easy Nano hardware replacement directly on the Radunio board. (might need to change out the 5V reg to 3.3V, etc) This may be an interesting option for those who would like a micro-controller modernization / upgrade without the budget or desire to move up to all the options Teensy /K66 enables.  One one hand, I want all the features.  One the other hand, I wish to stay true to Farhan's original goal of a $100 radio shipped, or take it to the next level of minimizing total system cost. 
 
Regards,
Gary
AG5TX

Poor Reception

Jeff Davis <ve3coj@...>
 

Poor reception... My receiver was one of the first to ship. I have made no modifications to it. The vfo seems to be about 2800 Hz off. My Drake 2B receives a signals
with one foot of wire attached to the antenna . At the same time, I have 35 feet of wire attached to the uBitx, and listening to the same signal, it is difficult to hear
on the uBitx. I swapped it out with another uBitx transceiver, and it was not much better. I swapped the nano board and no difference on either except the receive frequency was different.
The 2800 Hz was not enough to put it out of the band-pass filter... I should not think a software upgrade would make any difference... or would it.

Jeff ve3coj

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

Buddy Brannan
 

All true. 

As for impairments…blindness is, paradoxically, no big deal and also not for wimps :-) And ham radio has been great in a lot of respects, including in travel to other states and other countries. It kept my sanity when in Ukraine for five weeks adopting my daughter in 2004, when we were literally locked in because the adoption guy had no idea what else to do with us. The KX1 was a great travel companion back then, though obviously not a lot of great contacts with just a wire tossed out a 6th story apartment and another counterpoise lying across the floor. Still helped with not climbing the walls. 

Getting hf station back on the air, after not being very active for theist couple years, so maybe will see you on the bands sometime. Am about 90% cw, usually with a straight key or bug. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​man, my hat is off  to you getting ANYTHING done with such impediments!   More power to you!!!!

If there isn't any statc---there's not much propagation either!!!

Gordon



From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:22 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Hey Gordon,

Agreed about the super duper narrow filters. With all of the ways to crank down the bandwidth and peak the audio and reduce the noise and what not that are on my KX3, I rarely use much of that myself and, unless the bands are very crowded, open the receiver up some besides. Strange as it may sound, I find the background atmospheric noise soothing. Well, except maybe not so much the 80m static crashes. 

Now, after 30 years of being a ham, I’m interested in trying some kit building myself…it’s one aspect I feel like I’ve missed out on…especially now that I have a willing assistant :-) Still…being blind, these tiny parts make me a little nervous, and surface mount stuff is just right out. Anyway, think my YL and I can tackle a UBitx sometime soonish. 

Vy 73


On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

​I actually sorta like a wider bandwidth, unless I have a really interfering signal.

A couple decades ago I remember actually building a LC audio filter --- toroids & capacitors and maybe even a vacuum tube!!!   to run a headset.   I may even still have the thing.

Nowadays it is ducksoup to put something like that together with all the integrated circuits and I think I seem them advertized all over.    

Narrower than 500 hz makes my head hurt!

Cheers -- to each his own!!!!!

gordon


  
From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Buddy Brannan <buddy@...>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:04 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw
 
Ehhh! Listening to cw with a 2.someKHz filter is good for you! It will hone your cw listening skills and let you learn to pick the right signal out :-) 

In all seriousness, Gordon’s suggestion of an audio filter is a good one. While it’s not really the same as a filter in the receiver, they’re pretty good…or can be…and certainly can be very effective. I reckon that a DSP-based filter would be a bit beyond the capability of the Arduino. Also probably not exactly cost effective as compared to the rest of the radio. 

Do remember this is a really low-cost radio, and you probably won’t get Icom performance, or probably not even Xiegu performance, out of it, though I’m sure what you will get will be pretty decent…especially given how popular the rig seems to be. 

Vy 73, de KB5ELV

On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Gordon Gibby <ggibby@...> wrote:

Just add an audio filter to achieve whatever bandwidth you prefer would be my suggestion




On Apr 23, 2018, at 11:50, Braden Glett <bradenglett@...> wrote:

I've heard that the ubitx doesn't work very well for CW due to being too wide in the receiving end. How are some of you correcting this? Particularly, how can someone who can handle a soldering iron but is not an electronics whiz, adapt the ubitx for practical CW operation? 
Thanks and 73
Brady KD8ZM