Date   
Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Kees T
 

One more item.............

I think it really supports the hobby when hams like Don, ND6T, provide a uBIT-X solution for something requiring a small board (like his AGC fix) and he also provides a schematic, use instructions, and quick layout which can be easily produced by someone with a piece of PC board and an X-Acto knife.  Hats off to you, Don.

For more complex small boards, there are plenty of board vendors out there who provide VERY inexpensive 2 layer boards and one of us can provide those boards (or the whole parts kit) at cost or close to cost. Just takes a little effort and time.

73 Kees K5BCQ

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jack, W8TEE
 

Yep, every one is different and, man, are you gonna hate the Jackal board:
Inline image


Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 9:32:56 PM EDT, Kees T <windy10605@...> wrote:


Jack,

I agree that there are many people standing on Farhan's shoulders and he has certainly created/generated a huge interest in his uBIT-X design point..... key parameters being that the cost is being held low for a simple design to allow more people to try modifications if they want to ......AND he's allowing others to start small businesses and learn skills. I think the latter, in itself, is great. 

Message counts of ~2000 per month definitely indicate a huge interest.

My point was that there are many steps in the progression from the uBIT-X that arrived in the mailbox, TO one that has slight modifications, TO more comprehensive AGC hardware, audio amps, etc, TO SWR indications, 4 line displays, more keyer features,
TO DSP and other SW defined modes, RPi, Teensy 3.5/3.6, large touch screens, etc ......you get the idea. Many options. The point is that you can take the path and get off at any step. I personally want to go as far as I feel makes sense to me (staying with the Nano or an Arduino based derivative and basically "Keeping It Simple") with a result that I think I can reach, and a Transceiver I will/can use. Some of the guys that want to Hack-to-the- Max ....more power to them but the number of followers will drop off pretty quickly and I for one will become a (maybe) drooler, not a follower.   

73 Kees K5BCQ

Re: Bitx20A bandspread

Charles D. Smith
 

I’m using the 78L08 and mv109. I may revert back to the capacitor and fine tuning pot. The real problem I had was stability, which I have now.
72/73 de Chas ai4ot

On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:54 PM, John Backo <jabac@...> wrote:

In varactor tuning, your goal is to maximize the capacitance
variance from one end to the other.

Therefore, the real questions are two: what varactor is
being used, and what is the voltage range it is operating
under.
Note that most datasheets show varactor variance at
best linearity and maximum variance at a particular
voltage range, usually the lower end. So the first thing
is to determine the voltage range. Next, figure out a resistance
range that will exploit that. Usually, the voltage range is about
8v, and the full resistance range is about 10-15k.

It is a relatively simple matter to use 2 pots in series, one of
a higher value to set the frequency position, and one of a lower
range to fine tune. The only real advantage of a 10-turn pot is
to get better gross resolution, but a 10k and 1k regular linear
pot in series will accomplish about the same thing.

As to adding capacitance, that is what the varactor is doing.
It may be that more capacitance is needed to change the
base frequency of the VFO. Usually experimentation is
required, though a rough estimate can be made by figuring
out the total LC ratios. Where to add that capacitance
is another question: probably it will require some in the
main tank and some in the DC isolation of the varactor circuit.

For instance, I modified the VFO for the BITX20 v.3 as follows,
following the example of the BITX20A:

Q5 is a 2N3904; the two main VFO caps are 470 pF polystyrene.
The L4 coil is a T68-6 with 40t, measuring about 9 uH free-standing.
One of the secrets to a stable VFO was paralleling that coil with a
180 pF s.m capacitor. Main tuning is with a 365 pF variable cap,
in series with 2 parallel 220 pF caps, and then into the VFO circuit
of 5-45 pF range-finding cap in parallel with a 220 pF s.m. cap.
The basic tuning range is about 2.895 - 3.295 MHz. The original
test tuning range without the variable cap and a 220 pF in its place
was 2.95640 MHz to 2.965445 MHz (varying the 5-45 pF cap).

For fine tuning, I added a 78L08 regulator running to a 10-turn pot
with a 1K resistor to ground. That ran through a 200K resistor to
a MV2109 (to ground) and then to a 100 pF npo cap leading back
to the main oscillator. This gave a full range of about +/- 25 KHz for the fine
tuning.

So, in essence, the varicap mod added fine tuning. The main VFO
remained the principal tuning for the rig. It works well and is quite
stable.

The IF is 11.092 MHz, not the 10 MHz of the original BITX.

All of this information comes from my original pages of builder's
notes form Leonard's manual. I can publish the pages if you want,
but they are a bit hard to read if you didn't make them up originally.
The rig tunes from about 6.95 to 7.34 MHz.

Hope this helps.

john
AD5YE


Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Dennis Zabawa
 

I have gone off the deep end with by uBITX.  My current configuration, basically a rats nest on the bench is:
  • Main CPU (Teensy 3.5) handles the SI5351 control (I2C), the 20x4 LCD Display (I2c), input from the front panel controller (I2C), control of an AF DSP (I2C), control of a CW Keyer (I2C), monitoring of an SWR bridge, control of an RF Digital Attenuator (SPI)
  • Front Panel Controller (Pro-Mini) interfaces with a rotary encoder w/switch and seventeen push buttons
  • AF DSP (Teensy 3.5) implementing Low Pass, High Pass, Band Pass, Notch Filter and pass-through
  • CW Keyer (Pro-Mini)
  • Kits and Parts dot Com, SWR Bridge for tuning and power monitoring
  • RF Digital Attenuator from SV1AFN used to adjust drive power to PA for tuning and adjusting power by band to keep the power output more consistent
This is my front panel design:

Re: Bitx20A bandspread

kc0wox Leeper
 

I've modified many 20a's using the directions on my web page. http://golddredgervideo.com/kc0wox/bitx20amods/varactormod.htm The key is the varactor. I would guess that the one you have doesn't give a 400 pfd variation in capacitance.with an 8n 0r 9 volt variation. What is the varactor diode that you are using? I have used the NTE618 and it has a capacitance range of 20pfd at 8 volts and 420pfd at 1.2 volts. Also acceptable is a MVAM108 or MVAM109 Let me know what you are using. Send me your email address to kc0wox@... and I'll get back to you by email.
Leonard
kc0wox

Re: Bitx20A bandspread

Charles D. Smith
 

MV109 ... email is ai4ot@... 
Thanks Leonard! Your videos helped me to understand so much when I first started with the bitx radios. 
I’ve got a 6:1 reduction drive on the cap so I do have a fairly smooth tuning range of about 400khz, plus the fine tuning always puts me right on frequency easily. I don’t “need” varactor tuning or a 10 turn pot. (It’s nice on the cw rigs but not “necessary” with ssb signals being further apart usually.)
72/73 de Chas ai4ot



On Apr 23, 2018, at 10:38 PM, kc0wox Leeper <kc0wox@...> wrote:

I've modified many 20a's using the directions on my web page. http://golddredgervideo.com/kc0wox/bitx20amods/varactormod.htm The key is the varactor. I would guess that the one you have doesn't give a 400 pfd variation in capacitance.with an 8n 0r 9 volt variation. What is the varactor diode that you are using? I have used the NTE618 and it has a capacitance range of 20pfd at 8 volts and 420pfd at 1.2 volts. Also acceptable is a MVAM108 or MVAM109 Let me know what you are using. Send me your email address to kc0wox@... and I'll get back to you by email.
Leonard
kc0wox

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

W7PEA
 

This is great Bob, what is the original file format you're working in? Can you also share that in the files section and|or also make a PNG version available?

If the original version is in a format others can edit, it would be a nice jumping off point to show mods as well. 

I was going to suggest dating and versioning, but you already did that... what a pro!

Once there's a PNG version I can incorporate it into the assembly instructions.

Nice job!

Re: KD8CEC 1.072 download

K9HZ <bill@...>
 

Im not sure you understand this completely, so ill put this more clearly. When the main sketch has the same name from version to version and you upload it to the Arduino IDE, it over-writes the previous version because it has the SAME NAME.  Of you were to include the version number in the program name, they would not over-write. 


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 23, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

William

I use git for version control, but it seems to be difficult to trace history when the file name changes.
Instead, I will create a separate file to keep track of which files have changed each time I deploy.
All filenames are now cleaned up.
Since Version 1.070, there was work such as splitting and merging files to support various hardware.

I will publish Version 1.073 (Beta) within a day.
Thank you for testing the firmware.

Ian KD8CEC

2018-04-24 9:31 GMT+09:00 K9HZ <bill@...>:
Ian... would you PLEASE consider writing the version number in the file name of the code?  That way different versions can be saved easily in the Arduino ISD. 


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 22, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

Rod, All

I am always thanking Rod.
And I'm sorry to interrupt Rod's work with too many changes in functionality.

1.072 will be tested and will be released as 1.073 Beta.
Several minor ones have been added.
Please wait for a day or two to download the code or firmware. 

Perhaps 1.07x will continue to be a Beta version.
Frequent formal firmware release seems to be inconvenient for some people, so I try to release it after various tests.

I think Version 1.061 is a stable version. I know there is some nice firmware based on Version 1.061 and I will install it on my Spare uBITX.
Version 1.061 and later versions are also based on Version 1.061.
The Portable version and the various language versions are all excellent Firmware and I share code with them.

Please wait for a day or two , I'll release version 1.073 beta after testing in various environments (including Linux).

Thank you

Ian KD8CEC

2018-04-22 7:25 GMT+09:00 Rod Davis <km6sn@...>:

Hi All,

Ron, W7HD, points out that downloading the KD8CEC 1.072 can be a problem

because version 1.072 does not appear in the list.


It is necessary to click on the Branch button, then use your mouse wheel to

scroll down until the version1.072 is revealed.


Best to All,

Rod KM6SN



See below for an excerpt:

Download the CECFW source code from github

https://github.com/phdlee/ubitx

For this example we will be using version 1.072.


<Image4>

Click the “Branch” button to select version 1.072, then click “Clone or download” and click “Download ZIP”. Unzip the downloaded file and make a note of the folder location, or move the unzipped directory into your arduino sketch folder.




--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)



--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

K9HZ <bill@...>
 

Now that the cat is out of the bag...


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 23, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

Yep, every one is different and, man, are you gonna hate the Jackal board:
<NewDisplayCenterFrequency001.JPG>


Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 9:32:56 PM EDT, Kees T <windy10605@...> wrote:


Jack,

I agree that there are many people standing on Farhan's shoulders and he has certainly created/generated a huge interest in his uBIT-X design point..... key parameters being that the cost is being held low for a simple design to allow more people to try modifications if they want to ......AND he's allowing others to start small businesses and learn skills. I think the latter, in itself, is great. 

Message counts of ~2000 per month definitely indicate a huge interest.

My point was that there are many steps in the progression from the uBIT-X that arrived in the mailbox, TO one that has slight modifications, TO more comprehensive AGC hardware, audio amps, etc, TO SWR indications, 4 line displays, more keyer features,
TO DSP and other SW defined modes, RPi, Teensy 3.5/3.6, large touch screens, etc ......you get the idea. Many options. The point is that you can take the path and get off at any step. I personally want to go as far as I feel makes sense to me (staying with the Nano or an Arduino based derivative and basically "Keeping It Simple") with a result that I think I can reach, and a Transceiver I will/can use. Some of the guys that want to Hack-to-the- Max ....more power to them but the number of followers will drop off pretty quickly and I for one will become a (maybe) drooler, not a follower.   

73 Kees K5BCQ
<NewDisplayCenterFrequency001.JPG>

Re: Transmitter Mods

Skip Davis
 

Thanks Howard for letting us know, I’ve made signal measurements at various points in the RF amplifier chain and on all the bands so that I can compare results of the mods.

Skip Davis, NC9O 

On Apr 23, 2018, at 17:50, Howard Fidel <sonic1@...> wrote:

So far I received 10 requests for parts as of now. I have mailed out today 7, the remaining 3 will be in the mail tomorrow. I expect the results to vary, because it if transistor dependent. Please let us know how it works for you.
Also, thanks for sending me the QRP sticker. Some sent me money, which is a nice thought, but completely unnecessary. I have these 2 reels of parts, with 1000s of parts on each left over from an old business. The parts are 20 years old, so they have no resale value. I'm just happy they are being put to good use.
I am working on some other changes, AGC and S meter. The AGC works well, but the S meter, not so well, so I need to work more on that. I will post the work when I finish. After that I will work on the 70 watt amp, which I mentioned before, and probably a preamp.

Howard



On 4/20/2018 7:14 PM, Chris Clarke wrote:
Howard

I don't normally do SMD but this sounds like a good idea ... I'll need to order some for this side of the pond, but which physical SMD sizes are these components?

73 Chris
G3SQU


Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Gary Anderson
 

No way should anyone hate anything.  It may be an eye opener to some what can be done with a modern micro-controller.  I am glad Jack gave honorable mention to the Protoneer.  Before I ordered it last week, I came up with zero hits for Protoneer here. Thought I might be a little crazy since very sharp minds are active and voicing their opinions.  I hate to see great  software work by Ian and others be limited to choices based on the flash memory space of the Arduino Nano, which is also consumed by the boot loader.  The idea is this may help those that want a lower end "modern" 32 bit digital solution with a reasonable amount of SRAM for their uBITX with a small $ additional investment.  Even the Pi fans might find a need for a little more horsepower in the micro-controller.  Then again, I could be blown away by a pure Pi controller implementation.

I don't think any of us want to someone else to become a drooler, well at least I hope not.  From what I see here, it is enabling.  Sharing knowledge.  Albeit overwhelming at times.
The dust will eventually settle from the excitement stampede unleashed by Farhan, and the path you choose will become clear.  Hopefully everyone will choose to ride along, and the world wide amateur community benefit from your participation.

Re: KD8CEC 1.072 download

K5ESS
 

Maybe I’m missing something here but I just put each downloaded version in its own folder and have no problem with overwriting files.

Mike

K5ESS

 

From: BITX20@groups.io [mailto:BITX20@groups.io] On Behalf Of K9HZ
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:45 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] KD8CEC 1.072 download

 

Im not sure you understand this completely, so ill put this more clearly. When the main sketch has the same name from version to version and you upload it to the Arduino IDE, it over-writes the previous version because it has the SAME NAME.  Of you were to include the version number in the program name, they would not over-write. 

 

Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com

 

email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 23, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

William

 

I use git for version control, but it seems to be difficult to trace history when the file name changes.

Instead, I will create a separate file to keep track of which files have changed each time I deploy.

All filenames are now cleaned up.

Since Version 1.070, there was work such as splitting and merging files to support various hardware.

 

I will publish Version 1.073 (Beta) within a day.

Thank you for testing the firmware.

 

Ian KD8CEC

 

2018-04-24 9:31 GMT+09:00 K9HZ <bill@...>:

Ian... would you PLEASE consider writing the version number in the file name of the code?  That way different versions can be saved easily in the Arduino ISD. 

 

Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com

 

email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 22, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

Rod, All

 

I am always thanking Rod.

And I'm sorry to interrupt Rod's work with too many changes in functionality.

 

1.072 will be tested and will be released as 1.073 Beta.

Several minor ones have been added.

Please wait for a day or two to download the code or firmware. 

 

Perhaps 1.07x will continue to be a Beta version.
Frequent formal firmware release seems to be inconvenient for some people, so I try to release it after various tests.

 

I think Version 1.061 is a stable version. I know there is some nice firmware based on Version 1.061 and I will install it on my Spare uBITX.

Version 1.061 and later versions are also based on Version 1.061.

The Portable version and the various language versions are all excellent Firmware and I share code with them.

 

Please wait for a day or two , I'll release version 1.073 beta after testing in various environments (including Linux).

 

Thank you

 

Ian KD8CEC

 

2018-04-22 7:25 GMT+09:00 Rod Davis <km6sn@...>:

Hi All,

Ron, W7HD, points out that downloading the KD8CEC 1.072 can be a problem

because version 1.072 does not appear in the list.

 

It is necessary to click on the Branch button, then use your mouse wheel to

scroll down until the version1.072 is revealed.

 

Best to All,

Rod KM6SN

 

 

See below for an excerpt:

Download the CECFW source code from github

https://github.com/phdlee/ubitx

For this example we will be using version 1.072.

 

<Image4>

Click the “Branch” button to select version 1.072, then click “Clone or download” and click “Download ZIP”. Unzip the downloaded file and make a note of the folder location, or move the unzipped directory into your arduino sketch folder.

 

 


--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)

 


--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jerry Gaffke
 

The uBitx has a 12mhz BFO.
We have trouble on the uBitx with either the 12mhz USB port oscillator or
the third harmonic of the 16mhz processor oscillator wreaking havoc with
the receiver.  Could be dealt with through shielding and bypass caps and beads.
Alternately build a Raduino from scratch with an oddball processor clock
and no USB port. 

Can use 3.3v UART lines to an FTDI cable or similar when doing
firmware downloads from the Arduino IDE.  All the USB chip on the Nano does
is convert from USB to UART signalling.   

The STM32F103 in the 64 pin flat pack would be a good choice.
There are pin compatible parts throughout the ARM processor range, 
including one with floating point hardware.  
The STM32F103 is used in the Blue Pill.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:42 pm, Gary Anderson wrote:
No way should anyone hate anything.  It may be an eye opener to some what can be done with a modern micro-controller.  I am glad Jack gave honorable mention to the Protoneer.  Before I ordered it last week, I came up with zero hits for Protoneer here. Thought I might be a little crazy since very sharp minds are active and voicing their opinions.  I hate to see great  software work by Ian and others be limited to choices based on the flash memory space of the Arduino Nano, which is also consumed by the boot loader.  The idea is this may help those that want a lower end "modern" 32 bit digital solution with a reasonable amount of SRAM for their uBITX with a small $ additional investment.  Even the Pi fans might find a need for a little more horsepower in the micro-controller.  Then again, I could be blown away by a pure Pi controller implementation.

I don't think any of us want to someone else to become a drooler, well at least I hope not.  From what I see here, it is enabling.  Sharing knowledge.  Albeit overwhelming at times.
The dust will eventually settle from the excitement stampede unleashed by Farhan, and the path you choose will become clear.  Hopefully everyone will choose to ride along, and the world wide amateur community benefit from your participation.

Re: Upgrade the software to Allard's version #radiuno #bitx40help #nano

SaMa photo SaMa photo
 

Many thanks Marco
downloaded!
I will do the appropriate checks,
Thanks again
Sergio IU2KOI

Re: UBITX Assemly Wiki Page #ubitx

MVS Sarma
 

Bob, Overall wiring and  a Nice presentation.
all the best
regfards
sarma
vu3zmv
 

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

David Wilcox
 

Hey Guys,

Got my bag packed for FDIM, car ready to travel, my ticket bought for FDIM and Xenia (The first time I saw Xenia was after the tornado of 1970 or there abouts.  It sure looks better today.)   Now if I can fake the calendar out so we can meet soon and learn about this new stuff.  Thanks for all you do for us.  

Dave K8WPE



On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

Jerry:

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


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 12:24:48 AM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote:



The ATMega328P on the Nano runs at 16 MHz, has 0.002 MBytes of RAM, is an 8 bit machine.

The RPi Zero runs at a 1000 MHz, has 512 MBytes of RAM, is a full a 32 bit machine,
runs linux if you wish.  Not only will it run the C and C++ code we have on the Arduino
(if you port the Arduino libraries), but it has its own compiler for it.
And a compiler compiler to build the compiler with for that matter (yacc). 

>  I'd consider why the Zero sells for $5.

It sells for $5 because it is of the current decade.
Whereas the ATMega382P is roughly in league with the Z80
I was working with back in the 1970's.
 
That said, the Nano is a fine choice for the basic uBitx.
Not all that much it has to do.

The RPi Nano would be good if you wish to implement standalone SDR, 
with a full waterfall display out to an HDMI monitor.
Or could be used as the Arduino IDE host when programming your Nano.
The top end Rasberry Pi 3 B+ does everything I'd want in a home computer for $35.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 06:17 pm, Jack Purdum wrote:
I'd consider why the Zero sells for $5. I think the biggest issue is that the Pi is a different animal than the Arduino family. First, it does not have a home in the Arduino IDE, where most of the µBITX work is being done. Second, it doesn't have the depth of add-ons that the Arduinos do. Those that do exist seem to be more expensive. Third, most of the work on Pi is either done in scripting languages or Python, neither of which is popular on the Arduino.

If you need more horsepower, consider the Protoneer (eBay 282786290858). It has 256K of flash, 32K of SRAM (HUGE benefit), and is clocked 3x faster than the Nano at a cost of $15. It looks very promising.

Jack, W8TEE
 
 

Re: Practical CW Operation? #ubitxcw

David Wilcox
 

A great CW filter is the CALF sold by John, KC9ON, at 
https://kc9on.com/.  You can use his stock set up or experiment with different variables if you are an audio nerd and the cost is very reasonable.  I have 3 or 4 different filters but his is my GoTo filter most of the time.

Dave K8WPE

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

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 


uBITX top level PCB - status?

Jeroen Bastemeijer
 

Dear all,

A (very) short intro: My name is Jeroen, I'm a HAM since 1996, I like to build my own stuff. Getting on the air just occasionally.

Now my question: What is the status of the AE7EU top-board? I saw some posts on the list in January, after that it seems very silent around the top-board. Is there any progress? News?

For what it is worth: a bare PCB would suffice for me, soldering SMD is no problem.

Best 73s Jeroen, PE1 RGE

Re: Teensy 3.5/3.6 upgrade for uBITX

Jack, W8TEE
 

Not completely, as they still don't know what it can do. However, I did want to stir up some interest beforehand. Also, I don't want to take a total hit from people who ordered add-on boards (filters, keyers, AGC, etc.) point at me saying: "You should have told us!" For some reason, that prospect really bothers me. This way, at least I can say I tried to tell them that something is on the horizon.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 11:50:36 PM EDT, K9HZ <bill@...> wrote:


Now that the cat is out of the bag...


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 23, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Jack Purdum via Groups.Io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:

Yep, every one is different and, man, are you gonna hate the Jackal board:
<NewDisplayCenterFrequency001.JPG>


Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 9:32:56 PM EDT, Kees T <windy10605@...> wrote:


Jack,

I agree that there are many people standing on Farhan's shoulders and he has certainly created/generated a huge interest in his uBIT-X design point..... key parameters being that the cost is being held low for a simple design to allow more people to try modifications if they want to ......AND he's allowing others to start small businesses and learn skills. I think the latter, in itself, is great. 

Message counts of ~2000 per month definitely indicate a huge interest.

My point was that there are many steps in the progression from the uBIT-X that arrived in the mailbox, TO one that has slight modifications, TO more comprehensive AGC hardware, audio amps, etc, TO SWR indications, 4 line displays, more keyer features,
TO DSP and other SW defined modes, RPi, Teensy 3.5/3.6, large touch screens, etc ......you get the idea. Many options. The point is that you can take the path and get off at any step. I personally want to go as far as I feel makes sense to me (staying with the Nano or an Arduino based derivative and basically "Keeping It Simple") with a result that I think I can reach, and a Transceiver I will/can use. Some of the guys that want to Hack-to-the- Max ....more power to them but the number of followers will drop off pretty quickly and I for one will become a (maybe) drooler, not a follower.   

73 Kees K5BCQ
<NewDisplayCenterFrequency001.JPG>

Re: KD8CEC 1.072 download

Jack, W8TEE
 

It would also make it easier to identify the version just by a glance at the directory that hold the code files. Because the INO file must have the same name as the directory its in for the IDE to compile the file, instead of all versions sitting in a directory name ubitx_20, it makes sense to have:

C://ubitx_20V1072/ubitx_20V1072.ino
                  ubitx_factory_alignment.cpp
                  //...and so on...
                            
This way the "old" versions are preserved when the new one is released.

I would still like to see only the source file containing the setup() and loop() functions be given the INO secondary file name and all the others given CPP secondary file names. Currently, using all INO file names causes the compiler to get sloppy on parameter type checking and that can be a nasty bug to isolate, especially when no symbolic debugger is available. True, the change will identify a host of warnings, but should uncover no bugs, since the code compiles correctly as is. I did that for Farhan's original code and while it took some time, it's really grunt work and not difficult to change.

Jack, W8TEE


On Monday, April 23, 2018, 11:45:03 PM EDT, K9HZ <bill@...> wrote:


Im not sure you understand this completely, so ill put this more clearly. When the main sketch has the same name from version to version and you upload it to the Arduino IDE, it over-writes the previous version because it has the SAME NAME.  Of you were to include the version number in the program name, they would not over-write. 


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 23, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

William

I use git for version control, but it seems to be difficult to trace history when the file name changes.
Instead, I will create a separate file to keep track of which files have changed each time I deploy.
All filenames are now cleaned up.
Since Version 1.070, there was work such as splitting and merging files to support various hardware.

I will publish Version 1.073 (Beta) within a day.
Thank you for testing the firmware.

Ian KD8CEC

2018-04-24 9:31 GMT+09:00 K9HZ <bill@...>:
Ian... would you PLEASE consider writing the version number in the file name of the code?  That way different versions can be saved easily in the Arduino ISD. 


Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ

 

Owner - Operator

Big Signal Ranch – K9ZC

Staunton, Illinois

 

Owner – Operator

Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ

Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I.

Rent it: www.VillaGrandPiton.com


email:  bill@...

 


On Apr 22, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Ian Lee <kd8cec@...> wrote:

Rod, All

I am always thanking Rod.
And I'm sorry to interrupt Rod's work with too many changes in functionality.

1.072 will be tested and will be released as 1.073 Beta.
Several minor ones have been added.
Please wait for a day or two to download the code or firmware. 

Perhaps 1.07x will continue to be a Beta version.
Frequent formal firmware release seems to be inconvenient for some people, so I try to release it after various tests.

I think Version 1.061 is a stable version. I know there is some nice firmware based on Version 1.061 and I will install it on my Spare uBITX.
Version 1.061 and later versions are also based on Version 1.061.
The Portable version and the various language versions are all excellent Firmware and I share code with them.

Please wait for a day or two , I'll release version 1.073 beta after testing in various environments (including Linux).

Thank you

Ian KD8CEC

2018-04-22 7:25 GMT+09:00 Rod Davis <km6sn@...>:

Hi All,

Ron, W7HD, points out that downloading the KD8CEC 1.072 can be a problem

because version 1.072 does not appear in the list.


It is necessary to click on the Branch button, then use your mouse wheel to

scroll down until the version1.072 is revealed.


Best to All,

Rod KM6SN



See below for an excerpt:

Download the CECFW source code from github

https://github.com/phdlee/ubit x

For this example we will be using version 1.072.


<Image4>

Click the “Branch” button to select version 1.072, then click “Clone or download” and click “Download ZIP”. Unzip the downloaded file and make a note of the folder location, or move the unzipped directory into your arduino sketch folder.




--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)



--
Best 73
KD8CEC / Ph.D ian lee
kd8cec@...
www.hamskey.com (my blog)