Topics

Encoder Replacment?


Donnie G
 

Does anyone know of a higher quality replacement encoder for the Ubitx V6?

Donnie / WA9TGT 


Evan Hand
 

Donnie,
How would you define the quality improvement required?  The stock v6 software has some issues with the encoder response.  That is not a fault of the encoder, rather the processing power and coding of the Nano and the firmware.  There are both hardware and software alternatives that make the response better. 

Check out this GitHub link:
https://github.com/reedbn/ubitxv6
Reed has improved the responsiveness of the screen and hence the encoder, as well as adding some other features or changing operating characteristics.  This option uses the stock hardware.  It is only a software upgrade.

For the Processor upgrade, you can check out this link:
http://www.w0eb.com/

73
Evan
AC9TU


Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

I installed Reed's software in a V6 for another ham and it made a night and day difference. The original software made the radio unusable on CW. With Reed's software it was much nicer to use. The display was smoother too.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 7:52 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
Donnie,
How would you define the quality improvement required?  The stock v6 software has some issues with the encoder response.  That is not a fault of the encoder, rather the processing power and coding of the Nano and the firmware.  There are both hardware and software alternatives that make the response better.
Check out this GitHub link:
https://github.com/reedbn/ubitxv6
Reed has improved the responsiveness of the screen and hence the encoder, as well as adding some other features or changing operating characteristics.  This option uses the stock hardware.  It is only a software upgrade.
For the Processor upgrade, you can check out this link:
http://www.w0eb.com/
73
Evan
AC9TU


Donnie G
 

Evan:
I would say mainly from a mechanical standpoint. The shaft seems kinda sloppy in my v6 encoder.

Donnie / WA9TGT 


Evan Hand
 

Donnie,

Sorry, I would not be able to help with that.  I did some quick searches on Digikey where I bought a replacement and could not find a better one.  Someone else may know of a better part.

73
Evan
AC9TU


Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

From the old days (and in other applications in the present) we associate that 'sloppiness; with imminent failure and "backlash". It is an encoder and some sloppiness doesn't much affect it's function. It does feel as though it is about to fall off in your hand. Setting it back farther into the radio and using an extension shaft and bushings with tighter tolerances will improve bit the feel and the actual 'slop' at the encoder. Maybe that is the route you will have to take. I am thinking of doing that here.

In a commercial radio I have that uses an encoder the knob is not mounted directly on the encoder shaft. It uses an extension shaft as I have described and is smooth as butter. That radio cost many times the price of a uBitX.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 9:09 AM, Donnie G wrote:
Evan:
I would say mainly from a mechanical standpoint. The shaft seems kinda sloppy in my v6 encoder.
Donnie / WA9TGT


Jack, W8TEE
 

I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless" encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a matter of personal choice.

Jack, W8TEE

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 10:47:20 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:


Hi,

From the old days (and in other applications in the present) we
associate that 'sloppiness; with imminent failure and "backlash". It is
an encoder and some sloppiness doesn't much affect it's function. It
does feel as though it is about to fall off in your hand. Setting it
back farther into the radio and using an extension shaft and bushings
with tighter tolerances will improve bit the feel and the actual 'slop'
at the encoder. Maybe that is the route you will have to take. I am
thinking of doing that here.

In a commercial radio I have that uses an encoder the knob is not
mounted directly on the encoder shaft. It uses an extension shaft as I
have described and is smooth as butter. That radio cost many times the
price of a uBitX.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 9:09 AM, Donnie G wrote:
> Evan:
> I would say mainly from a mechanical standpoint. The shaft seems kinda
> sloppy in my v6 encoder.
>
> Donnie / WA9TGT
>






--
Jack, W8TEE


Scott McDonald
 

I’m agnostic on clicks vs no clicks, but really enthusiastic about using a panel pushing and shaft to drive the encoder, after using it on my last 2 projects.

With the bushing bearing the weight you can use all manner of heavier knobs, or one of the old style shaft weights behind the panel that give such a good feel to the great vintage receivers (if you’re into that).  Maybe not the best idea if you’re neurotic  about backpacking weight but otherwise well worth the effort.

Scott Ka9p

Make something good happen!

On Sep 29, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io <jjpurdum@...> wrote:


I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless" encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a matter of personal choice.

Jack, W8TEE

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 10:47:20 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:


Hi,

From the old days (and in other applications in the present) we
associate that 'sloppiness; with imminent failure and "backlash". It is
an encoder and some sloppiness doesn't much affect it's function. It
does feel as though it is about to fall off in your hand. Setting it
back farther into the radio and using an extension shaft and bushings
with tighter tolerances will improve bit the feel and the actual 'slop'
at the encoder. Maybe that is the route you will have to take. I am
thinking of doing that here.

In a commercial radio I have that uses an encoder the knob is not
mounted directly on the encoder shaft. It uses an extension shaft as I
have described and is smooth as butter. That radio cost many times the
price of a uBitX.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 9:09 AM, Donnie G wrote:
> Evan:
> I would say mainly from a mechanical standpoint. The shaft seems kinda
> sloppy in my v6 encoder.
>
> Donnie / WA9TGT
>






--
Jack, W8TEE


Jerry Gaffke
 

The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
Sounds like a programming error.
That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.

And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick one way or the other
when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that could be fixed in software.
For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single ticks.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless" encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a matter of personal choice.
 
Jack, W8TEE


Jack, W8TEE
 

I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the encoder's fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it. It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction, perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I know is that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off and I'd have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.

Jack, W8TEE

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via groups.io <jgaffke@...> wrote:


The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
Sounds like a programming error.
That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.

And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick one way or the other
when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that could be fixed in software.
For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single ticks.

Jerry, KE7ER

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless" encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a matter of personal choice.
 
Jack, W8TEE

--
Jack, W8TEE


Bill Cromwell
 

Hi,

With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no 'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band! Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).

With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT* mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through layered menus.

So many choices :)

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the encoder's fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it. It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction, perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I know is that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off and I'd have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
Jack, W8TEE
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
Sounds like a programming error.
That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick one way or the other
when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that could be fixed in software.
For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single ticks.
Jerry, KE7ER
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
matter of personal choice.
Jack, W8TEE
--
Jack, W8TEE


Jack, W8TEE
 

It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that on one of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a second factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you approached the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.

As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.

Jack, W8TEE

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:


Hi,

With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were
always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and
a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp
spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).

With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller
set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to
do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more
changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my
previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with
a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
layered menus.

So many choices :)

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the encoder's
> fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts
> like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it.
> It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction,
> perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I know is
> that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off and I'd
> have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
> groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
>
> The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
> Sounds like a programming error.
> That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>
> And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick
> one way or the other
> when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
> could be fixed in software.
> For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single
> ticks.
>
> Jerry, KE7ER
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>
>    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
>    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
>    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>    matter of personal choice.
>    Jack, W8TEE
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>






--
Jack, W8TEE


Bill Cromwell
 

Hello Jack,

I experienced something like that in a uBitX radio. I didn't like it because it engaged when I didn't want it and didn't engage when I did want it. I sometimes even found myself out of the band completely. Instead of trying to guesstimate how fast the user's hand moved we might make use of one of those unused pins and a switch (not the painful encoder switch) to rapidly choose faster or slower. And now that I have thought about it I can put it on my agenda to figure out how to do that. I do have your books...

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/30/20 8:48 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that on one of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a second factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you approached the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.
As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.
Jack, W8TEE
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi,
With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were
always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and
a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp
spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).
With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller
set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to
do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more
changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my
previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with
a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
layered menus.
So many choices :)
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the encoder's
> fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts
> like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it.
> It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction,
> perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I know is
> that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off and I'd
> have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
> groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>
wrote:
>
>
> The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
> Sounds like a programming error.
> That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>
> And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick
> one way or the other
> when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
> could be fixed in software.
> For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single
> ticks.
>
> Jerry, KE7ER
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>
>    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
>    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
>    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>    matter of personal choice.
>    Jack, W8TEE
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>
--
Jack, W8TEE


Jack, W8TEE
 

Hi Bill:

Yep, I know what you're saying. However, that's why I specified a "user-define" rate. What appears fast to an old person like me might appear as continental drift to a younger person. By setting the interrupt timer rates by the user, they can adjust to suit their reflexes.

Right now Al and I are working on a really smaller keyer designed for "field use". Some of the design applies to

Inline image

what you're talking about. One of the things I dislike about my QRP rigs is that adjusting the WPM speed is a menu dance I'd prefer not to do. This keyer only has one control: the encoder to adjust the speed, which is displayed on a small 128x32 OLED display. (The three switches on top are for "canned" messages typically used for a SOTA activation or Field Day response.)

To prevent damage in the field and to avoid the weight of a paddle set, the keyer arm swings up on a pivot point and folds into the bottom of the case to protect it during transit.

Inline image

By keeping things simple, the keyer allows for instantaneous WPM adjustment without a menu system. It wouldn't be hard to do something similar for the frequency increment.

Jack, W8TEE


On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 9:33:43 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:


Hello Jack,

I experienced something like that in a uBitX radio. I didn't like it
because it engaged when I didn't want it and didn't engage when I did
want it. I sometimes even found myself out of the band completely.
Instead of trying to guesstimate how fast the user's hand moved we might
make use of one of those unused pins and a switch (not the painful
encoder switch) to rapidly choose faster or slower. And now that I have
thought about it I can put it on my agenda to figure out how to do that.
I do have your books...

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/30/20 8:48 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that on one
> of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were
> turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate
> passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of
> 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a second
> factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one
> end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you approached
> the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.
>
> As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell
> <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
> arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
> we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
> 'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were
> always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
> mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and
> a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp
> spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
> Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).
>
> With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller
> set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
> distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to
> do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
> will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more
> changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
> mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my
> previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with
> a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
> layered menus.
>
> So many choices :)
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
> bark less - wag more
>
> On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  > I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the encoder's
>  > fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts
>  > like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it.
>  > It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction,
>  > perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I know is
>  > that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off and I'd
>  > have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>  >
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
>  > groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>
> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
>  > Sounds like a programming error.
>  > That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>  >
>  > And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick
>  > one way or the other
>  > when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
>  > could be fixed in software.
>  > For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore single
>  > ticks.
>  >
>  > Jerry, KE7ER
>  >
>  > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>  >
>  >    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
>  >    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>  >    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
>  >    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>  >    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>  >    matter of personal choice.
>  >    Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>






--
Jack, W8TEE


Bill Cromwell
 

Jack,

I think my hand 'speed' varies quite a bit. I have a PFR-3A that uses an up/down switch. Holding the switch in one direction a second or two speeds up the tuning rate. Letting go of the switch it returns to the default rate. Still not quite what I want but a 'step' in the right direction. CW speed is changed in fewer steps but still not my preference. However, it is great for portable field radio operation and that is it's first name - PFR.

That keyer is close to what I prefer in operation. I see those funny metric marks and the ruler in the photo. I am getting comfortable with metric 'stuff' but I have not quite completed the 'bilingual' process. I wonder if will work in the my archaic hands. I do also see inches marked on that ruler.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/30/20 9:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
Hi Bill:
Yep, I know what you're saying. However, that's why I specified a "user-define" rate. What appears fast to an old person like me might appear as continental drift to a younger person. By setting the interrupt timer rates by the user, they can adjust to suit their reflexes.
Right now Al and I are working on a really smaller keyer designed for "field use". Some of the design applies to
Inline image
what you're talking about. One of the things I dislike about my QRP rigs is that adjusting the WPM speed is a menu dance I'd prefer not to do. This keyer only has one control: the encoder to adjust the speed, which is displayed on a small 128x32 OLED display. (The three switches on top are for "canned" messages typically used for a SOTA activation or Field Day response.)
To prevent damage in the field and to avoid the weight of a paddle set, the keyer arm swings up on a pivot point and folds into the bottom of the case to protect it during transit.
Inline image
By keeping things simple, the keyer allows for instantaneous WPM adjustment without a menu system. It wouldn't be hard to do something similar for the frequency increment.
Jack, W8TEE
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 9:33:43 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hello Jack,
I experienced something like that in a uBitX radio. I didn't like it
because it engaged when I didn't want it and didn't engage when I did
want it. I sometimes even found myself out of the band completely.
Instead of trying to guesstimate how fast the user's hand moved we might
make use of one of those unused pins and a switch (not the painful
encoder switch) to rapidly choose faster or slower. And now that I have
thought about it I can put it on my agenda to figure out how to do that.
I do have your books...
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/30/20 8:48 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that on one
> of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were
> turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate
> passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of
> 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a second
> factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one
> end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you approached
> the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.
>
> As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell
> <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
> arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
> we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
> 'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were
> always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
> mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and
> a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp
> spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
> Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).
>
> With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller
> set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
> distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to
> do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
> will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more
> changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
> mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my
> previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with
> a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
> layered menus.
>
> So many choices :)
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
> bark less - wag more
>
> On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  > I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the
encoder's
>  > fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts
>  > like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it.
>  > It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction,
>  > perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I
know is
>  > that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off
and I'd
>  > have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>  >
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
>  > groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io
<mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>>
> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
>  > Sounds like a programming error.
>  > That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>  >
>  > And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick
>  > one way or the other
>  > when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
>  > could be fixed in software.
>  > For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore
single
>  > ticks.
>  >
>  > Jerry, KE7ER
>  >
>  > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>  >
>  >    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
>  >    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>  >    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
>  >    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>  >    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>  >    matter of personal choice.
>  >    Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>
--
Jack, W8TEE


Jack, W8TEE
 

The ruler shows metric to give the illusion of being modern, the inch marks are for measuring!

Jack, W8TEE

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 10:12:55 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:


Jack,

I think my hand 'speed' varies quite a bit. I have a PFR-3A that uses an
up/down switch. Holding the switch in one direction a second or two
speeds up the tuning rate. Letting go of the switch it returns to the
default rate. Still not quite what I want but a 'step' in the right
direction. CW speed is changed in fewer steps but still not my
preference. However, it is great for portable field radio operation and
that is it's first name - PFR.

That keyer is close to what I prefer in operation. I see those funny
metric marks and the ruler in the photo. I am getting comfortable with
metric 'stuff' but I have not quite completed the 'bilingual' process. I
wonder if will work in the my archaic hands. I do also see inches marked
on that ruler.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/30/20 9:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> Hi Bill:
>
> Yep, I know what you're saying. However, that's why I specified a
> "user-define" rate. What appears fast to an old person like me might
> appear as continental drift to a younger person. By setting the
> interrupt timer rates by the user, they can adjust to suit their reflexes.
>
> Right now Al and I are working on a really smaller keyer designed for
> "field use". Some of the design applies to
>
> Inline image
>
> what you're talking about. One of the things I dislike about my QRP rigs
> is that adjusting the WPM speed is a menu dance I'd prefer not to do.
> This keyer only has one control: the encoder to adjust the speed, which
> is displayed on a small 128x32 OLED display. (The three switches on top
> are for "canned" messages typically used for a SOTA activation or Field
> Day response.)
>
> To prevent damage in the field and to avoid the weight of a paddle set,
> the keyer arm swings up on a pivot point and folds into the bottom of
> the case to protect it during transit.
>
> Inline image
>
> By keeping things simple, the keyer allows for instantaneous WPM
> adjustment without a menu system. It wouldn't be hard to do something
> similar for the frequency increment.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 9:33:43 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell
> <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Jack,
>
> I experienced something like that in a uBitX radio. I didn't like it
> because it engaged when I didn't want it and didn't engage when I did
> want it. I sometimes even found myself out of the band completely.
> Instead of trying to guesstimate how fast the user's hand moved we might
> make use of one of those unused pins and a switch (not the painful
> encoder switch) to rapidly choose faster or slower. And now that I have
> thought about it I can put it on my agenda to figure out how to do that.
> I do have your books...
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
> bark less - wag more
>
> On 9/30/20 8:48 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  > It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that on one
>  > of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were
>  > turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate
>  > passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of
>  > 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a second
>  > factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one
>  > end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you approached
>  > the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.
>  >
>  > As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.
>  >
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell
>  > <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
>  > arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
>  > we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
>  > 'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them) there were
>  > always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
>  > mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster speed and
>  > a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a sharp
>  > spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
>  > Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).
>  >
>  > With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my controller
>  > set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
>  > distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at all to
>  > do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
>  > will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate more
>  > changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
>  > mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up. On my
>  > previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be done with
>  > a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
>  > layered menus.
>  >
>  > So many choices :)
>  >
>  > 73,
>  >
>  > Bill  KU8H
>  >
>  > bark less - wag more
>  >
>  > On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  >  > I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the
> encoder's
>  >  > fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind of acts
>  >  > like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit turning it.
>  >  > It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more friction,
>  >  > perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I
> know is
>  >  > that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off
> and I'd
>  >  > have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>  >  >
>  >  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
>  >  > groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io
> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io
> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>>
>  > wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
>  >  > Sounds like a programming error.
>  >  > That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>  >  >
>  >  > And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep at tick
>  >  > one way or the other
>  >  > when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
>  >  > could be fixed in software.
>  >  > For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore
> single
>  >  > ticks.
>  >  >
>  >  > Jerry, KE7ER
>  >  >
>  >  > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some "detentless"
>  >  >    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>  >  >    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g., a net
>  >  >    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>  >  >    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>  >  >    matter of personal choice.
>  >  >    Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > --
>  >  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>






--
Jack, W8TEE


Bill Cromwell
 

High Five!

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/30/20 10:16 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
The ruler shows metric to give the illusion of being modern, the inch marks are for measuring!
Jack, W8TEE
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 10:12:55 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Jack,
I think my hand 'speed' varies quite a bit. I have a PFR-3A that uses an
up/down switch. Holding the switch in one direction a second or two
speeds up the tuning rate. Letting go of the switch it returns to the
default rate. Still not quite what I want but a 'step' in the right
direction. CW speed is changed in fewer steps but still not my
preference. However, it is great for portable field radio operation and
that is it's first name - PFR.
That keyer is close to what I prefer in operation. I see those funny
metric marks and the ruler in the photo. I am getting comfortable with
metric 'stuff' but I have not quite completed the 'bilingual' process. I
wonder if will work in the my archaic hands. I do also see inches marked
on that ruler.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/30/20 9:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
> Hi Bill:
>
> Yep, I know what you're saying. However, that's why I specified a
> "user-define" rate. What appears fast to an old person like me might
> appear as continental drift to a younger person. By setting the
> interrupt timer rates by the user, they can adjust to suit their
reflexes.
>
> Right now Al and I are working on a really smaller keyer designed for
> "field use". Some of the design applies to
>
> Inline image
>
> what you're talking about. One of the things I dislike about my QRP rigs
> is that adjusting the WPM speed is a menu dance I'd prefer not to do.
> This keyer only has one control: the encoder to adjust the speed, which
> is displayed on a small 128x32 OLED display. (The three switches on top
> are for "canned" messages typically used for a SOTA activation or Field
> Day response.)
>
> To prevent damage in the field and to avoid the weight of a paddle set,
> the keyer arm swings up on a pivot point and folds into the bottom of
> the case to protect it during transit.
>
> Inline image
>
> By keeping things simple, the keyer allows for instantaneous WPM
> adjustment without a menu system. It wouldn't be hard to do something
> similar for the frequency increment.
>
> Jack, W8TEE
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 9:33:43 AM EDT, Bill Cromwell
> <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Jack,
>
> I experienced something like that in a uBitX radio. I didn't like it
> because it engaged when I didn't want it and didn't engage when I did
> want it. I sometimes even found myself out of the band completely.
> Instead of trying to guesstimate how fast the user's hand moved we might
> make use of one of those unused pins and a switch (not the painful
> encoder switch) to rapidly choose faster or slower. And now that I have
> thought about it I can put it on my agenda to figure out how to do that.
> I do have your books...
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
>
> bark less - wag more
>
> On 9/30/20 8:48 AM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  > It's easy to change the step increment on the fly, and I had that
on one
>  > of the rigs I built. The encoder sensed the rate at which you were
>  > turning the tuning knob using a timer interrupt. If your turning rate
>  > passed a user-defined rate, the increment was bumped up by a factor of
>  > 10. I even experimented with multiple rates that would bump up a
second
>  > factor of 10 for even larger frequency changes (e.g., moving from one
>  > end of 10M to the other). As you naturally slowed down as you
approached
>  > the target frequency, the increment dropped back to its default level.
>  >
>  > As it turns out, users didn't like it much, so I dropped the idea.
>  >
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 11:31:00 PM EDT, Bill Cromwell
>  > <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>
<mailto:wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>>> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > With a heavy knob and/or an intentional flywheel it is possible to
>  > arrive fairly quickly at the other end of a band. With digital control
>  > we can select a faster tuning rate. The steps get bigger. There are no
>  > 'steps' with analog VFOs and in those days (I still use them)
there were
>  > always tradeoffs regarding tuning rates. There were kokamaimie
>  > mechanical two speed schemes that sort of worked with a faster
speed and
>  > a slower speed. The heavy flywheel always worked better. Give it a
sharp
>  > spin and in a couple of seconds you are at the other end of the band!
>  > Otherwise it is about 10 - 25 kc per revolution (or less).
>  >
>  > With a digital encoder the same thing works. I could leave my
controller
>  > set for ten Hertz steps and rely on a flywheel for rapid QSY to a
>  > distant part of the band. It's all on the flywheel and nothing at
all to
>  > do with the encoder. I think changing the step size is too clumsy and
>  > will probably build a new, larger cabinet for my V3 to accommodate
more
>  > changes - including a heavy flywheel with the flywheel and knob *NOT*
>  > mounted on the encoder shaft. I wonder if the Raduino can keep up.
On my
>  > previously mentioned commercial radio, step size change can be
done with
>  > a single button push *OR* by direct keypad entry. No hunting through
>  > layered menus.
>  >
>  > So many choices :)
>  >
>  > 73,
>  >
>  > Bill  KU8H
>  >
>  > bark less - wag more
>  >
>  > On 9/29/20 9:09 PM, Jack, W8TEE via groups.io wrote:
>  >  > I don't think it's a software problem and it's really not the
> encoder's
>  >  > fault. The FT-1200 has a fairly heavy tuning knob and it kind
of acts
>  >  > like a flywheel in that it has some inertia after you quit
turning it.
>  >  > It might not be the same for all FT-1200's. Just a tad more
friction,
>  >  > perhaps on the encoder mounting (?), and it might be fine. All I
> know is
>  >  > that if I tried to hit an exact frequency, it might be 100Hz off
> and I'd
>  >  > have to "bump-tune" it to get on the exact frequency I wanted.
>  >  >
>  >  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >  > On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 8:36:53 PM EDT, Jerry Gaffke via
>  >  > groups.io <jgaffke=yahoo.com@groups.io
<mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>
> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>
<mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>
> <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io <mailto:yahoo.com@groups.io>>>>
>  > wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > The encoder "coasts" to a stop?
>  >  > Sounds like a programming error.
>  >  > That is not inherent to the mechanics of an encoder.
>  >  >
>  >  > And I can imagine that an encoder without detents might creep
at tick
>  >  > one way or the other
>  >  > when stationary.  That is a possible inherent mechanical issue that
>  >  > could be fixed in software.
>  >  > For example, if nothing has happened for a second or two, ignore
> single
>  >  > ticks.
>  >  >
>  >  > Jerry, KE7ER
>  >  >
>  >  > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:51 AM, Jack, W8TEE wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >    I go back-and-forth on this. Optical encoders and some
"detentless"
>  >  >    encoders are very smooth. My FT-1200 had a smooth encoder, but I
>  >  >    found it very difficult to exactly set the frequency (e.g.,
a net
>  >  >    frequency). The encoder didn't stop, but seemed to "coast" to a
>  >  >    stop. I actually like the detent encoder for this reason. It's a
>  >  >    matter of personal choice.
>  >  >    Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > --
>  >  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Jack, W8TEE
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jack, W8TEE
>
--
Jack, W8TEE


Dennis Zabawa
 

The scheme I have implemented is to allow tuning in steps from 1MHz down to 1Hz with the current step displayed.  You can change the step in two ways:

- Press and release the encoder switch to go to the next lower step (e.g.  100KHz to 10KHz) - tune at the selected step rate

- Press and hold the encoder switch then rotate to go to the next higher/lower step - release the encoder switch  and tune at the selected step rate


Gerard
 

hello,
I noticed on the oscilloscope that a "mechanical" encoder creates parasitic pulses when you turn it.
We have a square signal, but also small very short pulses. (On the 2 phases)
We may have to put 2 capacitors to the ground to eliminate them? Tests to do. (10Nf, 0.1µ..?)
I don’t get a variation just when you turn the encoder on the frequency. 
example: with a 10Htz pitch, you can go from 10 to 50 at once

cdt


Jerry Gaffke
 

Gerard,

That's contact bounce, will see it on almost any mechanical switch.
Can be dealt with in software, by waiting a few milliseconds after sensing a change
before accepting the next change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch#Contact_bounce

Alternately, can be dealt with by adding a capacitor across the switch contacts.
But the slow rise time of the signal from the switch can cause chatter inside the
sensing chip due to ground bounce or perhaps a noisy power supply.

Jerry, KE7ER


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:07 AM, Gerard wrote:
hello,
I noticed on the oscilloscope that a "mechanical" encoder creates parasitic pulses when you turn it.
We have a square signal, but also small very short pulses. (On the 2 phases)
We may have to put 2 capacitors to the ground to eliminate them? Tests to do. (10Nf, 0.1µ..?)
I don’t get a variation just when you turn the encoder on the frequency. 
example: with a 10Htz pitch, you can go from 10 to 50 at once

cdt