Topics

#ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing! #ubitx #ubitx-help


D. Daniel McGlothin KB3MUN
 

I had looked over the http://ubitx.net/ site several times earlier in its infancy.

I just now read thru the entire site. It is an impressive aggregation of apparently all knowledge about the uBITX as discussed here since the uBITX release.

I will be building my new uBITX using the http://www.hfsignals.com/index.php/ubitx/ schematics and build info but viewed thru the lens of http://ubitx.net/ .

Thanks, ubitx.net for the work you have put forth in organizing this helpful information.

Daniel KB3MUN


Mike Woods
 

Dan

Thanks for the nice thoughts about www.ubitx.net

Hopefully it will help quite a few people along the way to constructing the kit, building a µBITx from scratch, or modifying their pride and joy.

73 Mike ZL1AXG ubitx.net

On 1/04/18 4:51 PM, D. Daniel McGlothin KB3MUN wrote:
I had looked over the http://ubitx.net/ site several times earlier in its infancy.

I just now read thru the entire site. It is an impressive aggregation of apparently all knowledge about the uBITX as discussed here since the uBITX release.

I will be building my new uBITX using the http://www.hfsignals.com/index.php/ubitx/ schematics and build info but viewed thru the lens of http://ubitx.net/ .

Thanks, ubitx.net for the work you have put forth in organizing this helpful information.

Daniel KB3MUN

--
Mike Woods
mhwoods@...


Bill Carpenter
 

Thanks for posting the link - I did not know about this site.  My uBITX arrives next week so the timing of your post is perfect!

73, Bill NZ0T


 

So what ever became of http://ubitx.net/ , the sites info is rather dated.

Joel
N6ALT


Evan Hand
 

Joel,
I had noted the lack of updates as well.  The only explanation that I can think of is that there is not a lot of work being done on the v6, and the older versions are no longer available.

There are two major works for the v6:
1 - Reed N's software update that fixes a number of issues with the stock software, yet retains the stock display.
2 - The replacement of the stock display with a Nextion display and then update all software to the last version from KD8CEC.

The spurs and harmonics were fixed in the v5.
Including the case as an option made the case market diminish
The only major issue not covered has been the low transmit power on SSB due to the Boafeng mic.
There would be interest in adding extra display functions, like a panadapter and maybe some DSP for CW, however, none of that has caught on, even with the material from KD8CEC.
The other area not to get much traffic is upgrading the Nano to allow for more functions.  This would be something that I would be interested in.  There is a Teensy upgrade available.  I have not seen any traffic on what has been done with it.

It seems like the major traffic has moved to QRP-Labs as the uSDX effort.

These are just my observations monitoring the Groups.io feeds for the three threads:
https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topics
https://groups.io/g/QRPLabs/topics
https://groups.io/g/ucx/topics

plus others.

73
Evan
AC9TU


Evan Hand
 

After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter" rig area:
https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite

This is not in Groups.io 

The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.   
Pros:
- It has all of the SDR functionality
- It can be bought as a complete kit
- With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software addition
Cons:
- 5 watts out
- requires a PC

When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.

I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding with the HL2.

The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed analysis.
Use as you see fit.
73
Evan
AC9TU


 

Hi Evan,
Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
- a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
- an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required rather than increasing the power);
- to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for "base station" uses for which it was not born.
If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE & hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were main-frames!

73 de IW4AJR Loris


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter" rig area:
https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite

This is not in Groups.io 

The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.   
Pros:
- It has all of the SDR functionality
- It can be bought as a complete kit
- With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software addition
Cons:
- 5 watts out
- requires a PC

When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.

I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding with the HL2.

The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed analysis.
Use as you see fit.
73
Evan
AC9TU


Evan Hand
 

Hello Loris,
I believe that the right rig depends on what the rig is intended to do and how it will be used.  When I got back into the hobby 2 years ago I wanted to start with an inexpensive rig that would be my "base station."  This was driven by my wanting to keep costs down at first.  So after 35+ years of being away from the hobby and having disposed of all of my prior gear, I was starting from scratch.  I see this as similar to the new ham just starting out, and maybe not having the funds to buy a commercial rig.  So my point of view is for a low-cost rig that can do most of the HF bands and be able to do the other modes beyond SSB.  I was not, nor am I now, that interested in portable operation.

I will not dispute the deficiencies of the uBITX.  I have bought the AmatuerRadioKits case with all of the add on pieces including the AGC to fix some of those.  It just further drives up the cost of the uBITX, and may not be needed by the new ham.  At the same time modifying the rig to fix the spurs and harmonic issues of the v4 rig (that was the first one I bought) as well as adding on the "options" has sharped my soldering and troubleshooting skills.  It also highlighted to me that IF I want to pursue the building side of the hobby that I would need more test gear than just the DMM that I had at first.  That was another journey that is outside of the scope of this thread.

Since the first v4, I have bought another v4 and a v5.  With three in my shack, I decided to forgo the v6.  Instead, I went with the Hermes HL2.  Because of that, I do not have any experience in modifying the v6 code.  I do know from following what Reed N has done to correct some of the CW and screen updates that IF you implement his code, there is no room for other features.  I also believe that the processing power of the Nano is being pushed for the v6 functions.  If you want to do some serious digital signal processing then it may not have enough capability to do it.  Dr. Lee (KD8CEC) went with a second Nano to offload the signal processing functions.

As I state in almost every email that I post to this reflector, they are my opinions based on what I have experienced, or that you need to verify what I state.  Your opinions can differ, and that is OK with me.  We most likely have different goals that will point us in different directions.  I also appreciate any new information that comments or corrections can give me.  I am constantly trying to learn.

So thank you for the information,
73
Evan
AC9TU


Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps, boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed. Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
Hi Evan,
Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
- a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
- an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required rather than increasing the power);
- to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for "base station" uses for which it was not born.
If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE & hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were main-frames!
73 de IW4AJR Loris
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
rig area:
https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
This is not in Groups.io
The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
Pros:
- It has all of the SDR functionality
- It can be bought as a complete kit
- With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
addition
Cons:
- 5 watts out
- requires a PC
When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
with the HL2.
The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
analysis.
Use as you see fit.
73
Evan
AC9TU


Jerry Gaffke
 

What the uBitx offers is a simple, understandable, cheap hackable, open source rig.
That comes with tradeoffs.
You can learn a lot about radio by following posts in this forum and attempting a few mods.

As Bill says, a manual RF attenuator in front of the receiver is not a bad idea.
A pot in the RF going into the first mixer would work.
Audio derived AGC can work well enough.
ND6T had a clever hack for the Bitx40, not sure anybody has tried that on a uBitx:
    http://bitxhacks.blogspot.com/2017/01/nd6ts-rf-gain-control-with-tombstoning.html
    https://groups.io/g/BITX20/topic/4238539#20512

Power out can be varied by adjusting the voltage to the IRF510's.
SIdetone level is easy to implement by adding a pot.
There have been several of successful thump fixes over the years.
Harmonics and spurs on the v5 and v6 are acceptable for a 5W rig.

Jerry



On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 05:17 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps, boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed. Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.


 

Evan,

Thanks for the reply, I was more concerned that Mike ZL1AXG is okay, I was hoping that I didn't miss something while working on other projects, like he became SK or something. I agree with you about most things being addressed on all the Bitx's. I have built and modified 2, Bitx 20's, 3, Bitx 40's, 1, Bitx 60, 1 Bitx 17, (I made a contact in Antarctica at Mirny station with this one),1 uBitx ver 3, 1 uBitx ver 4, and 1 uBitx ver 6 which I use everyday, so I guess I've had a good run but I still like to see what others are doing with their Bitx's. I just miss going there everyday to see whats happening. I am glad the resources are still there for others to use if they are new to the Bitx line of radios. I will keep checking once in a while to see if there is anything new on http://ubitx.net/ .

Joel
N6ALT


Shirley Dulcey KE1L
 

The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






vince adams
 

Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-

73, Vince KD7TWW


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Vince,

Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power, covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.

The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be 40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.

To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2 watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more. But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.

73,

Bill KU8H


bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
"starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>


vince adams
 

Hi Bill. I'm barking but who is listening? There are jungles where you are??
Thank you,-

73, Vince KD7TWW


From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Bill Cromwell via groups.io <wrcromwell@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 5:10 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
Hi Vince,

Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is
possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the
box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands
it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw
is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field
operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and
power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power,
covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes
require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and
more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so
much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.

The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My
PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets
on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such
radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for
casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of
those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be
40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime
operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what
you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.

To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some
old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2
watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using
appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I
want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who
carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably
couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more.
But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving
up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.

73,

Bill  KU8H


bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
> Group
> So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW
> transceiver?
> -
>
> 73, Vince KD7TWW
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey
> KE1L via groups.io <mark@...>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
> *To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
> *Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is
> amazing!
> The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes,
> since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a
> great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that
> it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
>
> Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
> underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested
> in other modes.
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...
> <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Loris,
>
>     For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
>     choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
>     S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
>     attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
>     the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
>     signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
>     those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
>     give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
>
>     A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
>     very
>     useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
>     boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
>     Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
>     requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
>     needed.
>
>     Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
>     try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
>     dim
>     with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
>     items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
>     and
>     lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
>     For
>     size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
>     outperforms it.
>
>     73,
>
>     Bill  KU8H
>
>     bark less - wag more
>
>     On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
>      > Hi Evan,
>      > Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
>      > portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
>      > connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
>     it be
>      > better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
>      > More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
>     missing
>      > some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
>      > - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
>     not on
>      > the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
>      > - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
>      > rather than increasing the power);
>      > - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
>      > "base station" uses for which it was not born.
>      > If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
>     I would
>      > advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
>      > hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
>      > Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
>      > In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
>     ? the
>      > current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
>     useless
>      > "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
>     information
>      > that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
>     those who
>      > use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
>      > By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
>     software, I
>      > have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
>      > level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
>     the need
>      > to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
>     used
>      > to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
>     were
>      > main-frames!
>      >
>      > 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>      >
>      >
>      > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>      >
>      >     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
>     email I
>      >     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
>     "starter"
>      >     rig area:
>      > https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>      >
>      >     This is not in Groups.io
>      >
>      >     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>      >     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
>     new ham.
>      >     Pros:
>      >     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>      >     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>      >     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>      >     addition
>      >     Cons:
>      >     - 5 watts out
>      >     - requires a PC
>      >
>      >     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
>     between
>      >     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>      >
>      >     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
>     both the
>      >     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
>     siding
>      >     with the HL2.
>      >
>      >     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>      >     analysis.
>      >     Use as you see fit.
>      >     73
>      >     Evan
>      >     AC9TU
>      >
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>






Arv Evans
 

The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.

Arv. K7HKL
_-_


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@...> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-

73, Vince KD7TWW

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Vince,

They are called state and national forests :) No lions or tigers here but plenty of bears, wolves, coyotes...

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 7:17 PM, vince adams wrote:
Hi Bill. I'm barking but who is listening? There are jungles where you are??
Thank you,-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Bill Cromwell via groups.io <wrcromwell=gmail.com@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 5:10 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
Hi Vince,
Th uBitX is SSB and CW and it covers 80 through 10 meters. It is
possible to get a clean signal on 160 meters too but not 'out of the
box'. It is supposed to give ten watts but on the higher frequency bands
it provides less. Without "add-ons" there is no CW bandwidth filter. Cw
is an afterthought but can be improved. We had been talking about field
operations. The uBitX requires quite a bit more in size, weight, and
power consumption than my PFR-3. Of course - it produces more power,
covers more bands, and deals with more modes. Some of those modes
require a computer..more bulk and more weight and more batteries and
more cables to drag up a hill. A few feet to a picnic table is not so
much. I did mention going beyond the nearest picnic table.
The PFR-3 (and a number of other radios) is much smaller and lighter. My
PFR-3 is only slightly too big for a shirt pocket but the cargo pockets
on cargo pants are well bigger than needed. At five watts RF output such
radios are much kinder to smaller batteries. Again - doesn't matter for
casual operation at a picnic table a few feet from your car. Many of
those *small* radios have three bands like the PFR-3 does. That will be
40, 30, and 20 meters. All of those are prime spectrum for daytime
operations like we do afield. And yes - CW only. So depending on what
you want to or can do pick the appropriate radio.
To save somebody the embarrassment of jumping my case about being some
old S.O.B. who hates phone ops (or appliance ops) I have used SSB with 2
watts PEP and digital modes when the wattmeter didn't even move - using
appliances. It's all good. When I have to pack across "wilderness" I
want more food and water with less radio. There are some people who
carry heavier radios and batteries up mountains. Most of us probably
couldn't. I do not have the freedom to go out in the jungle any more.
But I still like the simplicity of less radio. However, I am not giving
up my uBitX:) Nor my Kenwood.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 5:06 PM, vince adams wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
     Hi Loris,
     For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
     choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
     S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
     attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
     the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
     signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
     those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
     give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
     A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is*
     very
     useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
     boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
     Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
     requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not
     needed.
     Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
     try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights
     dim
     with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
     items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters
     and
     lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio.
     For
     size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
     outperforms it.
     73,
     Bill  KU8H
     bark less - wag more
     On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
      > Hi Evan,
      > Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
      > portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
      > connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't
     it be
      > better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
      > More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are
     missing
      > some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
      > - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and
     not on
      > the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
      > - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
      > rather than increasing the power);
      > - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
      > "base station" uses for which it was not born.
      > If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used,
     I would
      > advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
      > hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
      > Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
      > In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example
     ? the
      > current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses,
     useless
      > "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
     information
      > that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for
     those who
      > use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
      > By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
     software, I
      > have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
      > level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without
     the need
      > to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be
     used
      > to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they
     were
      > main-frames!
      >
      > 73 de IW4AJR Loris
      >
      >
      > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
      >
      >     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior
     email I
      >     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
     "starter"
      >     rig area:
      > https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
      >
      >     This is not in Groups.io
      >
      >     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
      >     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a
     new ham.
      >     Pros:
      >     - It has all of the SDR functionality
      >     - It can be bought as a complete kit
      >     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
      >     addition
      >     Cons:
      >     - 5 watts out
      >     - requires a PC
      >
      >     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition
     between
      >     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
      >
      >     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on
     both the
      >     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me
     siding
      >     with the HL2.
      >
      >     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
      >     analysis.
      >     Use as you see fit.
      >     73
      >     Evan
      >     AC9TU
      >
      >


Shirley Dulcey KE1L
 

Since the crystal filters that most hams use now are built out of inexpensive commodity crystals, it's probably simpler to build a second CW-optimized filter and switch the entire thing out.

Elecraft did use a variable bandwidth varactor-tuned filter in the K2, so it can be done; their circuit uses six 1SV149 varactors in a five crystal filter. The 1SV149 is now obsolete and not available from distributors; you can get them from Asian sources on eBay if you want to play the component lottery.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:13 PM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@...> wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.

Arv. K7HKL
_-_


On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@...> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW transceiver?
-

73, Vince KD7TWW

From: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <mark=buttery.org@groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
To: BITX20@groups.io <BITX20@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/ site is amazing!
 
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of dedicated CW fans.

Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are interested in other modes.

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...> wrote:
Hi Loris,

For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.

A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is not needed.

Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far outperforms it.

73,

Bill  KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones, wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission, without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more), just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the "starter"
>     rig area:
>     https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>






Bill Cromwell
 

Hi Arv,

uBitX uses the xtal filter for transmit and receive in the SSB mode but only in receive for cw operation. It isn't really trivial but not impossible to modify the SSB filter so it can switched to a second, narrower configuration. Also possible to just build a second xtal filter with a narrower bandwidth. I have used radios that switch filters automatically and one that is manually selected. I prefer the manual selection - even if the selector was a menu item with a microcontroller operated radio.

I just acquired a spectrum analyzer and I will be working toward that very thing this winter:) That little machine will make it much easier than just a sweeper or wobbulator.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 8:13 PM, Arv Evans wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes.  This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter could be manual or tied to band switching in software.
Arv. K7HKL
_-_
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@... <mailto:vince@...>> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a CW
transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io> <BITX20@groups.io
<mailto:BITX20@groups.io>> on behalf of Shirley Dulcey KE1L via
groups.io <http://groups.io> <mark=buttery.org@groups.io
<mailto:buttery.org@groups.io>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io> <BITX20@groups.io
<mailto:BITX20@groups.io>>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/
<http://ubitx.net/> site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital
modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the
uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of full
break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice of
dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are
interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@...
<mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is not
the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power. AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at all
using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF
stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make the
weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only further
buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory
S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on transmit
*is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth is
needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing power is
not needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few
will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the house
lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after page
of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches and
meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low power
radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born for
QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with
additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones,
wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me that
are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF chain
and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is often
required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use and
not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the micro
used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use the
IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33 platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an
example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP & portable
uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass of
information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste time
for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not like
software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to view
the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission,
without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more),
just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as if
they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the
prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into the
"starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my
opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver arena
for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with free
software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close
competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall display
on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason for
me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported with
detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>


Bill Cromwell
 

High five!

I posted about the separate filter just before I read your post. It seems to me it would be more reliable.

73,

Bill KU8H

bark less - wag more

On 9/20/20 10:22 PM, Shirley Dulcey KE1L wrote:
Since the crystal filters that most hams use now are built out of inexpensive commodity crystals, it's probably simpler to build a second CW-optimized filter and switch the entire thing out.
Elecraft did use a variable bandwidth varactor-tuned filter in the K2, so it can be done; their circuit uses six 1SV149 varactors in a five crystal filter. The 1SV149 is now obsolete and not available from distributors; you can get them from Asian sources on eBay if you want to play the component lottery.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:13 PM Arv Evans <arvid.evans@... <mailto:arvid.evans@...>> wrote:
The uBITX is a CW or SSB transceiver.  Several digital modes are
also possible.  CW operations utilize a different circuit layout
scheme than does SSB.  The crystal filter is shared by both modes. This implies that capacitors in the IF  filter could be switched to
optimize bandwidth for both modes.  Problem in doing this is that it
is not a task for the usual appliance operator.  Those who have a
good understanding of crystal filters should be able to design and
impliment the necessary changes.  Switching capacitors in the filter
could be manual or tied to band switching in software.
Arv. K7HKL
_-_
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 3:06 PM vince adams <vince@...
<mailto:vince@...>> wrote:
Group
So, I take it that the uBITX is not a voice transceiver? Only a
CW transceiver?
-
73, Vince KD7TWW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>
<BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>> on behalf of
Shirley Dulcey KE1L via groups.io <http://groups.io>
<mark=buttery.org@groups.io <mailto:buttery.org@groups.io>>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>
<BITX20@groups.io <mailto:BITX20@groups.io>>
*Subject:* Re: [BITX20] #ubitx #ubitx-help Wow! the ubitx.net/
<http://ubitx.net/> site is amazing!
The uBITX is infinitely better than the PFR-3 on SSB and digital
modes, since the PFR-3 is a CW-only radio. On the flip side, the
uBITX is not a great CW rig; the wide IF filter and the lack of
full break-in mean that it's never going to be the first choice
of dedicated CW fans.
Not all field operators are CW operators. The uBITX fills an
underpopulated niche; an inexpensive radio for people who are
interested in other modes.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 8:17 AM Bill Cromwell
<wrcromwell@... <mailto:wrcromwell@...>> wrote:
Hi Loris,
For portable operation beyond some park bench the uBitX is
not the best
choice. It is too big and consumes too much battery power.
AGC and
S-meters are absolutely not needed. There is no problem at
all using an
attenuator in the receive antenna line ahead of the first RF
stage of
the first mixer. I have and use such attenuators. They make
the weakest
signals pop out from under the big gun signals. AGC only
further buries
those signals. In actual operation outside the laboratory
S-meters only
give us a crude, wild guess about signal strength.
A "drive" control to throttle the power out output on
transmit *is* very
useful. Control of the CW sidetone level is desirable. Loud
thumps,
boops, and yoops are unwanted. Control over system bandwidth
is needed.
Harmonics and other spurious output are bad. None of those
things
requires a computer nor microcontroller. More computing
power is not needed.
Other hams have other wants and preferences. More than a few
will not
try to copy the weakest signals. Others want to see the
house lights dim
with every dit and dah (or syllable). For some, page after
page of menu
items have replaced ranks and files of knobs and switches
and meters and
lights. For me the uBitX is a reasonably simple HF, low
power radio. For
size, simple operation, and field portability my PFR-3 far
outperforms it.
73,
Bill  KU8H
bark less - wag more
On 9/20/20 4:58 AM, IW4AJR Loris wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> Rather than thinking about how to weigh down a rig born
for QRP and
> portable uses with Hyper-micro at 32 or 64 bit or with
additional PC
> connections and "base station" uses like "digital" ones,
wouldn't it be
> better to think about the rig's "hardware deficiencies"?
> More than thinking about the "software" it seems to me
that are missing
> some vital parts for a QRP & portable rig:
> - a decent AGC that intervenes on the signal of the MF
chain and not on
> the BF signal and on the attenuation of the antenna input;
> - an output power attenuation command (a decrease is
often required
> rather than increasing the power);
> - to try a little to think of the rig for its native use
and not for
> "base station" uses for which it was not born.
> If really you want to act on the software and on the
micro used, I would
> advise you (if you don't want to lose all the OMs who use
the IDE &
> hardware Arduino as a hobby) to think about how to
transport the
> Libraries and the Main on the new NANO EVERY or NANO 33
platform.
> In portable use, the fewer complications the better! , an
example ? the
> current LCD monitor is more than enough for QRP &
portable uses, useless
> "spectrum analyzers" (mostly unreal) or a shapeless mass
of information
> that makes the monitor unreadable only serve to waste
time for those who
> use the radio as HAM and not as a computer engineer!
> By the way, just to say that I am not one who does not
like software, I
> have finished a modification to the original Ver. 6.1 to
view the S
> level in reception and the Power level in transmission,
without the need
> to change micro (1 or 2 KB are enough and there is more),
just be used
> to using Microprocessors for what they were born, not as
if they were
> main-frames!
>
> 73 de IW4AJR Loris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 01:05 AM, Evan Hand wrote:
>
>     After thinking about the groups that I monitor in the
prior email I
>     believe that I should mention another that fits into
the "starter"
>     rig area:
> https://groups.google.com/g/hermes-lite
>
>     This is not in Groups.io
>
>     The reason for adding it to the list is that in my
opinion, it is
>     the current leader for me in the SDR transceiver
arena for a new ham.
>     Pros:
>     - It has all of the SDR functionality
>     - It can be bought as a complete kit
>     - With a PC provides all of the digital modes with
free software
>     addition
>     Cons:
>     - 5 watts out
>     - requires a PC
>
>     When you add in everything needed it is a close
competition between
>     the uBITX and the HL2 for price and features.
>
>     I have gotten really spoiled with the waterfall
display on both the
>     HL2 and my IC-7300.  That probably is the main reason
for me siding
>     with the HL2.
>
>     The above are just opinions, not really supported
with detailed
>     analysis.
>     Use as you see fit.
>     73
>     Evan
>     AC9TU
>
>