Tony, As you remember I have a xtall (first version) installed on a 20/30 6.2 kit and I can TX on 20/30/17 without any problem. One must exercise care not to TX for example on 40 meters although it receives very well.
By the way, XTALL v.1.1 has a difference of about 12KHz from the fundamental. It really is a version 2.1 SW. I plan to wait for my pics to arrive to test it better... 73 On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Tony Parks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Yes, one needs to exercise care that the XTALL board DIP switch is set so > that transmission is in the right band for the mode in use. I think it is > safer to use the v2.4 code that gives one of 16 center frequency > selections. Custom EE values in the XTALL PIC memory could help reduce the > possibility of transmission outside of the desired band. > > 73, > Tony KB9YIG > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* g3zoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:42 PM > *Subject:* [softrock40] Re: Small additional run of RXTXv6.2 kits > > --- In [email protected], "kb9yig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The XTALLv1.1 kit with a CMOS Si570 would be a good addition to the > > RXTXv6.2 kit to provide many additional center frequencies. > > Just to check one point, if a XTALLv1.1 is used with a RXTXv6.2, my > understanding is that it increases the number of sub-bands within the > two design bands of the chosen RXTXv6.2 but does not make it multi- > band. So presumably care should be taken not to TX with the XTALLv1.1 > set to a "wrong" band? Is this correct or am I missing something? > > Many thanks, > > Brian > G3ZOH > > > -- Jose Bonanca (CT1aos)
