Date   
Re: S meter wiring

Bill Carpenter <nz0tham@...>
 

I have built a couple of H-Per-Mite filters and used them with several rigs.  I use one as an outboard filter with my uBITX.  They are excellent filters nice sharp 200 Hz width and no ringing at all.  I highly recommend it.

73, Bill NZ0T

Re: S meter wiring

hirosmb <hirosmb@...>
 

Thanks for your review, Bill.

Did you modify your uBitx such as adding the AGC or a preset pod btw diodes?

// hiro, JJ1FXF



2018/07/22 20:46、Bill Carpenter <nz0tham@...>のメール:

I have built a couple of H-Per-Mite filters and used them with several rigs.  I use one as an outboard filter with my uBITX.  They are excellent filters nice sharp 200 Hz width and no ringing at all.  I highly recommend it.

73, Bill NZ0T

Re: S meter wiring

Bill Carpenter <nz0tham@...>
 

I have installed both of Kees kits - the click board and the AGC board.  Both work very well.

Re: S meter wiring

m5fra2@...
 

Thanks Bill. I am going to mount mine inside the BITX case and switch it in/out.

 

Coli – M5FRA

 

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> On Behalf Of Bill Carpenter
Sent: 22 July 2018 12:46
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] S meter wiring

 

I have built a couple of H-Per-Mite filters and used them with several rigs  I use one as an outboard filter with my uBITX.  They are excellent filters nice sharp 200 Hz width and no ringing at all.  I highly recommend it.

73, Bill NZ0T


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: uBitx Modulation only lows no highs in frequency response

RCC WB5YYM
 

With my radio/engineering skills very much lacking, I probably don't even need to be trying to contribute to this conversation, but here is what I ran into on my build. My tx audio was very distorted when I first tested. I then checked the transmit using the tones sent from WSJTx. I found that no tones were passing that were around 500hz or lower, but higher tones around 1600hz caused more power to be output from the radio. I adjusted the  BFO until I had maximum power out when sending a 1khz tone. This gave me power out in a range from 200hz to 1600hz. This seemed to clean up the audio on SSB. Apparently I have a very narrow filter, but I am getting good audio reports on SSB. The down side is that with it being so narrow, when operating FT8, I need to shift the VFO frequency to see all the transmissions. If I remember right, to shift the audio frequency down, I had to adjust the BFO frequency up, but please don't hold me to this statement . I did adjust about 100hz at a time, and checked the power out using different frequencies generated by WSJTx. I don't exactly know what the above means, but it did help me to have a good working radio. Hope this helps someone. 

Re: uBitx Modulation only lows no highs in frequency response

Ralph Mowery
 

I found the filter in my ubitx to be about the same narrow range.  As I work ssb and no cw I modified the filter circuit slightly.  I replaced the 5 100 pf capacitors with some 82 pf capacitors and that seemed to broaden the audio response to a more normal ssb filter band width.

de ku4pt


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:19 AM, RCC WB5YYM <curtis03@...> wrote:
With my radio/engineering skills very much lacking, I probably don't even need to be trying to contribute to this conversation, but here is what I ran into on my build. My tx audio was very distorted when I first tested. I then checked the transmit using the tones sent from WSJTx. I found that no tones were passing that were around 500hz or lower, but higher tones around 1600hz caused more power to be output from the radio. I adjusted the  BFO until I had maximum power out when sending a 1khz tone. This gave me power out in a range from 200hz to 1600hz. This seemed to clean up the audio on SSB. Apparently I have a very narrow filter, but I am getting good audio reports on SSB. The down side is that with it being so narrow, when operating FT8, I need to shift the VFO frequency to see all the transmissions. If I remember right, to shift the audio frequency down, I had to adjust the BFO frequency up, but please don't hold me to this statement . I did adjust about 100hz at a time, and checked the power out using different frequencies generated by WSJTx. I don't exactly know what the above means, but it did help me to have a good working radio. Hope this helps someone. 


Re: uBitx Modulation only lows no highs in frequency response

Jerry Gaffke
 

You got it right.
Raising the BFO frequency brings it closer to signals coming from the filter, which lowers the audio frequencies..
We have a BFO below the 12mhz crystal filter passband  which mixes (at D5,T7) with signals in that passband creating audio.
Lets give it some numbers, the numbers for your particular rig might be a bit different.
I'm assuming we are in receive mode, transmit is the same math but in the opposite direction.

The BFO frequency in the stock firmware is at 11996500 hz.
The 12mhz crystal filter has a roughly 2000 hz 3dB passband, something like 11997000 to 11999000.
A signal coming in through the crystal filter on the bottom edge of the passband creates an audio tone of 11997000-11996500 = 500 hz.
A signal coming in through the crystal filter on the top edge of the passband creates an audio tone of 11999000-11996500 = 2500hz.

If we now raise the BFO frequency from 11996500 to 11996700 hz, 
the audio coming through would fall between 11997000-1196700 = 300 hz and 1199900-1199700 = 2300 hz.

Jerry


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 06:19 AM, RCC WB5YYM wrote:
With my radio/engineering skills very much lacking, I probably don't even need to be trying to contribute to this conversation, but here is what I ran into on my build. My tx audio was very distorted when I first tested. I then checked the transmit using the tones sent from WSJTx. I found that no tones were passing that were around 500hz or lower, but higher tones around 1600hz caused more power to be output from the radio. I adjusted the  BFO until I had maximum power out when sending a 1khz tone. This gave me power out in a range from 200hz to 1600hz. This seemed to clean up the audio on SSB. Apparently I have a very narrow filter, but I am getting good audio reports on SSB. The down side is that with it being so narrow, when operating FT8, I need to shift the VFO frequency to see all the transmissions. If I remember right, to shift the audio frequency down, I had to adjust the BFO frequency up, but please don't hold me to this statement . I did adjust about 100hz at a time, and checked the power out using different frequencies generated by WSJTx. I don't exactly know what the above means, but it did help me to have a good working radio. Hope this helps someone. 

Re: uBitx Modulation only lows no highs in frequency response

Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...>
 

Hi Jerry,

That is a pretty good description. I have my BFO set so that the incoming signals start rolling off at 300 Hz just as you have described. A few decades ago when we were looking at "compandered" SSB we were shown that the human voice has three main 'bands' of audio spectrum that are required for intelligibility. The lowest band is at 300 Hz. there is a mid band (I don't recall the frequency range) and high band around 1500 to 1800 Hz. Compandering used some Rube Goldberg approaches to squeeze those bands all together (with multiple filters and mixers) so as to reduce the RF bandwidth used to transmit it. There was also some kind of pilot tone to help sort it back out at the receiver. Did I mention Rube Goldberg? It kind of worked in the lab. But not in the wild.

So our SSB filter would like to bridge all of those bands without mashing or bending them. Even with the narrower passband of the stock filters in the uBitx we can get all of that fitted in if the BFO presents that lowest frequency band at about 300 Hz (as you have described). The high end will be close to 19 or 20 kHz. Mine is right around 1900 Hz. "Narrow SSB filters are designed and installed with a 1.8 kHz bandwidth. So the uBitx filters are at the narrow side of SSB. They may sound a little better for armchair chatting at 2400 to 3000 Hz. The bottom end still wants to be rolling off stuff starting around 300 Hz and the wider passband used to to increase the high end of the audio spectrum.

That will probably be very good for digital operation too. I am a CW guy and it does nothing to hurt CW either. I have several times outlined how to set the BFO this way by using the noise shadow displayed on all of the digi-mode screens and the audio frequencies shown on the scale below it. If yours is working well for you just go take a look - without changing the BFO. The noise starts to drop off about 300 Hz on one end (or wherever your is actually set) and the other end it starts dropping off well above 1800 Hz. With CW (or other narrow) filters that noise band is obviously much narrower and the width of that 'noise shadow' is much less - as expected.

73,

Bill KU8H

On 07/22/2018 10:29 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io wrote:
You got it right.
Raising the BFO frequency brings it closer to signals coming from the
filter, which lowers the audio frequencies..
We have a BFO below the 12mhz crystal filter passband which mixes (at
D5,T7) with signals in that passband creating audio.
Lets give it some numbers, the numbers for your particular rig might be
a bit different.
I'm assuming we are in receive mode, transmit is the same math but in
the opposite direction.

The BFO frequency in the stock firmware is at 11996500 hz.
The 12mhz crystal filter has a roughly 2000 hz 3dB passband, something
like 11997000 to 11999000.
A signal coming in through the crystal filter on the bottom edge of the
passband creates an audio tone of 11997000-11996500 = 500 hz.
A signal coming in through the crystal filter on the top edge of the
passband creates an audio tone of 11999000-11996500 = 2500hz.

If we now raise the BFO frequency from 11996500 to 11996700 hz,
the audio coming through would fall between 11997000-1196700 = 300 hz
and 1199900-1199700 = 2300 hz.

Jerry


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 06:19 AM, RCC WB5YYM wrote:

With my radio/engineering skills very much lacking, I probably don't
even need to be trying to contribute to this conversation, but here
is what I ran into on my build. My tx audio was very distorted when
I first tested. I then checked the transmit using the tones sent
from WSJTx. I found that no tones were passing that were around
500hz or lower, but higher tones around 1600hz caused more power to
be output from the radio. I adjusted the BFO until I had maximum
power out when sending a 1khz tone. This gave me power out in a
range from 200hz to 1600hz. This seemed to clean up the audio on
SSB. Apparently I have a very narrow filter, but I am getting good
audio reports on SSB. The down side is that with it being so narrow,
when operating FT8, I need to shift the VFO frequency to see all the
transmissions. If I remember right, to shift the audio frequency
down, I had to adjust the BFO frequency up, but please don't hold me
to this statement . I did adjust about 100hz at a time, and checked
the power out using different frequencies generated by WSJTx. I
don't exactly know what the above means, but it did help me to have
a good working radio. Hope this helps someone.

--
bark less - wag more

Re: Mike element

Ken Held KF7DUR
 

Greg,
I ordered a few of the -24 dB mic elements from Mouser. I put one in a cheapo Baofeng speaker mic and it works great! The stock mics element was very weak the -24 dB element made a huge difference. Good find.

Ken
KF7DUR

Re: Mike element

Kevin Rea
 

HI Ken,

Would you happen to have the mouser part number for that element ?

 

Thanks,

Kevin rea

Lancaster, calif

K6rea

 

 

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> On Behalf Of Ken Held KF7DUR via Groups.Io
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 8:39 AM
To: BITX20@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BITX20] Mike element

 

Greg,
I ordered a few of the -24 dB mic elements from Mouser. I put one in a cheapo Baofeng speaker mic and it works great! The stock mics element was very weak the -24 dB element made a huge difference. Good find.

Ken
KF7DUR

Re: surprising CW sidetone value in uBITX Manager 0.11 #ubitx

Tom, wb6b
 

It has been awhile (so I may not remember all the details) since I ran the uBITX manager, but I believe it did do checks for valid input. The display was split between a panel that showed the "raw" hex values in EEPROM and a panel with input boxes that that were labeled and operated with the human readable values you were adjusting. Also, Farhan adopted the EEPROM memory layout used by Ian, so that increased the cross compatibility between the CEC firmware and the subset of functionality in the factory firmware. 

I'm going to speculate on one thing, originally Ian assumed people would be upgrading from the factory firmware, so the EEPROM values in the factory subset would be programmed. As of late, more people are starting from Nanos that have never been programmed and installing the CEC software. I wonder if that is why some of the new issues are coming up. In any case I'm sure when he can, he will look into these. 

The Nextion displays are turning out to be quite a success for the CEC software, it looks like they solve many of the feedback, due to lack of screen space, issues. Maybe even lessen the need for the uBITX manager. Ian may be concentrating on that track for now. The Nextion displays seem to fall into some kind of sweet spot that makes it more accessible for other people to contribute to the project. 

Tom, wb6b

Re: Mike element

Arv Evans
 

Ken  KF7DUR

How weak were the stock elements you removed?  I'm assuming that you measured the
output on both the original and the new replacement units in order to have a good comparison.

Arv  K7HKL
_._


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ken Held KF7DUR via Groups.Io <kf7dur=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Greg,
I ordered a few of the -24 dB mic elements from Mouser. I put one in a cheapo Baofeng speaker mic and it works great! The stock mics element was very weak the -24 dB element made a huge difference. Good find.

Ken
KF7DUR

Re: Source for female connectors/pins/manual crimp tool?

Robert Ogburn
 

To reposition wire/contact in berg/DuPont 2.54mm connectors so the colors are correct:

PCB Artwork hint

Robert Ogburn
 

for those new to PCB layout.  Thermal relief pads are very important as they enable good solder connections where otherwise the heat from the iron would be drawn-away by attached surrounding copper.

Re: PCB Artwork hint

Arv Evans
 

Even more important if the boards are to be commercially wave-soldered.
_._


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:24 AM Robert Ogburn <ogburnrobert2@...> wrote:
for those new to PCB layout.  Thermal relief pads are very important as they enable good solder connections where otherwise the heat from the iron would be drawn-away by attached surrounding copper.

Re: Mike element

Ken Held KF7DUR
 

Kevin,

Mouser# 665-AOM-5024L-HD-R
Digi-Key# 668-1596-ND
MFG# AOM-5024L-HD-R

Ken

Re: Mike element

Ken Held KF7DUR
 

Art,

I didn't measure the output before replacing the element.
I compared it to a microphone from a GE commercial radio and it was much lower with the original, now the audio sounds very close.

Ken

Re: Mike element

Arv Evans
 

Ken

Thanks for the reply.  I was wondering if there was a generic problem with elements
used in the Baofeng microphones, or if yours was an anomaly?  May have to order
one just so I can test it.

Measuring the electret microphone output in typical BITX radio circuits seems to
indicate that most elements from on-line dealers put out around 45 millivolts as
measured with an oscilloscope.  Of course this will vary with circuit changes and
with different loading factors.

Arv


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:09 AM Ken Held KF7DUR via Groups.Io <kf7dur=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Art,

I didn't measure the output before replacing the element.
I compared it to a microphone from a GE commercial radio and it was much lower with the original, now the audio sounds very close.

Ken

Re: uBitx Modulation only lows no highs in frequency response

jim
 



On Sunday, July 22, 2018, 6:20:06 AM PDT, RCC WB5YYM <curtis03@...> wrote:


With my radio/engineering skills very much lacking, I probably don't even need to be trying to contribute to this conversation,


Just a note ...

This is what the recieve passband looked like on my ubitx as recieved from the 'factory'

Jim

Re: Windows Serial Port Problem

James Kerns <jamesjkerns@...>
 

This same W10 update issue (honey, I lost my comm ports) happened to me twice (how dumb am I?).
Well the second time I was prepared and rolled back to the previous
version.Rolling back is my suggestion.  I also changed a W10 setting (somewhere) to never update
again. Now who's dumb? 

best, 73, j/KM4UFN


On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jim Lommel <wd8rwi@...> wrote:
I was completely wrong about there being a download manager for Win 10.  Microsoft has changed to a service model from a subscription model and now you have no control over what updates get installed and what don't get installed other than not be connected to the internet.  My understanding it that this was done so all extant Win 10 installations are the same  instead of there being millions of different installations.

Does anyone else have information about how MS is 

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jim Lommel <wd8rwi@...> wrote:
I would guess that the install went badly.  I think that there is a program called Windows Update manager that you should look at and see ifit will allow you to uninstall the update.  I also think that there is a setting in th Update Manager that you can set to not automatically install updates.

73,

Jim
WD8RWI

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Albert Woodhull <n1aw@...> wrote:
A few days ago my Windows 10 installation got updated, without asking me, of course.  I stepped away from the computer for a while and when
I came back updates were being installed.

I think my USB port drivers were changed.  When I try to run the KD8CEC Memory Manager or to upload a newly compiled  ubitx_20 version
I do not see the COM4 port any more. The Windows Device Manger shows an "Unusable Parallel Port (LPT3) where I previously saw a COM4
Serial Port.

Does anyone know what happened or how to undo it?

- Al N1AW