Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Here is the link wihtout the embedded spaces.
NanoVNA-H.pdf
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 24, 2019, at 06:40, Kurt Poulsen <kurt@...> wrote: Hi Piotr The link is as follows to my document and female calibration NanoVNA-H.pdf Please note that the female female adaptor you have been supplied with the NanoVNA might differ. The Hugen-H supplied from end of October has a female female adaptor with low loss and the earlier delivered has much higher loss and different delay if length differ. In the document the female female delay is 50.7ps and has a length end to end off 15mm. The previous delivered female female adaptor has the same length but as said higher loss. If you have another female female adaptor test it after S21 calibration with the previous supplied one, and if it show S21 dB trace above the reference line (showing gain) it has lower loss and use it. After my best memory we are dealing with 0.3dB difference and also obscure the calibration when used for female kit calibration. If it has a different length then adjust the delay with 4.796ps per mm length difference Kind regards Kurt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [email protected] < [email protected]> P? vegne af Piotr Wozniak Sendt: 24. december 2019 14:23 Til: [email protected]Emne: Re: [nanovna-users] New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H Hi Gunthard, In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success. Could you (or someone else) give me a link? I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: errors of "error" models
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 07:22 AM, gin&pez@arg wrote:
And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model"
results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network
The 3 term error model is a 2 port network and 3 independent measurements to fully characterize the network -- NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/homeNanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/filesErik, PD0EK
|
Re: First PCB pictures of the V2
edy555,
In saying this, I am not saying you have done anything wrong. I think you
have done a great service creating the NanoVNA and many are enjoying the
fruits of your work.
However, this situation points out the utility of open-source licenses. To
the extent that any of these legal mechanisms are enforceable, you can
choose a license for your hardware and software that suits your wishes as
to how you intend your work to be used.
I looked at the NanoVNA and decided not to use any materials from it and
build my own precisely because the license of the NanoVNA is ambiguous. I
have my own VNA design () with its own
software and hardware, licensed specifically under the Creative Commons and
zlib license because it is my wishes that the design be sold commercially
as a benefit to the community. Because I am a citizen of the USA, I have
to be mindful of your intellectual property rights. You decided to limit
your design to being available as a kit that you distribute and that is
your choice. If that is what you intend, you should state it clearly, so
that least those who are using the work know they are using it in a manner
not in accordance with your wishes. However, if you leave your intentions
ambiguous or unstated, you can not expect others to respect them.
I am unfamiliar with Japanese law, but under American law, unless you have
registered the name NanoVNA as a trademark, others can use it freely. I
would personally not use for something that is not the NanoVNA device as
you designed it, but that is my choice. There are many choices for names
and I do not see why all of these variants and redesigns must have the name
NanoVNA. I think it is reasonable to ask that others who create their own
VNAs name them differently to avoid confusion.
Best regards,
Daniel Marks
KW4TI
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 9:24 AM <edy555@...> wrote: Someone takes the account name of "nanovna" on github.
In that repository, there are projects named NanoVNA-V2 you mention.
You and your team don't have any morals.
As an original developer, I feel my project was stolen.
I cannot cooperate with you and I would like to prohibit you to use my
copyrighted property, Temma.
|
Re: errors of "error" models
#93': On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture - #93 : On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture: 24 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8618Hello, Allow us, please, to rephrase the following part of what we previously wrote: " Well, this a most fortunate fact, indeed, because makes possible various "error" models of VNA measurements, with each one of them to take the name of the number of finally kept terms, the remaining ones after the deletion of the rest of the others. And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model" results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network. " and to * c o r r e c t l y * rephrase it, as follows: " Well, this a most fortunate fact indeed, because it makes possible an even simplified formulation of G = (Ag + B)/(Cg + D). Thus, since we do not expect to have all 4 coefficients simultaneously equal to zero, we can always select a non-zero of them to divide all of them with it, and thus to arrive in an expression showing 3 coefficients at most, which was so called "3-terms error model", forming "something" that reminds strongly a two-port network. " We terribly sorry for the inconvenience; please accept our apologies. Sincerely, gin&pez@arg :#93'
|
I will have a copy of the magazine shortly and will summarize any findings
John VE3IPS
Ham Radio is a lifestyle not a Hobby!
Take the radio outside and operate from the Field
|
My guess warming battery.
But in my room temps vary from 6C to 15C and that requires recalibration.
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Hi Piotr The link is as follows to my document and female calibration NanoVNA-H.pdf Please note that the female female adaptor you have been supplied with the NanoVNA might differ. The Hugen-H supplied from end of October has a female female adaptor with low loss and the earlier delivered has much higher loss and different delay if length differ. In the document the female female delay is 50.7ps and has a length end to end off 15mm. The previous delivered female female adaptor has the same length but as said higher loss. If you have another female female adaptor test it after S21 calibration with the previous supplied one, and if it show S21 dB trace above the reference line (showing gain) it has lower loss and use it. After my best memory we are dealing with 0.3dB difference and also obscure the calibration when used for female kit calibration. If it has a different length then adjust the delay with 4.796ps per mm length difference Kind regards Kurt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [email protected] < [email protected]> P? vegne af Piotr Wozniak Sendt: 24. december 2019 14:23 Til: [email protected]Emne: Re: [nanovna-users] New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H Hi Gunthard, In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success. Could you (or someone else) give me a link? I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Thanks Gunthard! My NanoVNA-H is coming Saturday and this will help get me started!
Andrew
KD5RKO
|
Re: First PCB pictures of the V2
Someone takes the account name of "nanovna" on github.
In that repository, there are projects named NanoVNA-V2 you mention.
You and your team don't have any morals.
As an original developer, I feel my project was stolen.
I cannot cooperate with you and I would like to prohibit you to use my copyrighted property, Temma.
|
If one needs a spectrum analyzer on the cheap, try the AirSpy (full units
to 1.8 Ghz - not the HF+ or Discovery) for around $200. SpectrumSpy is
included with the SDR# download at no cost. Another option is the SDR Play RSP1A and the free spectrum analyser software that can be downloaded from the SDR Play website. This will give you 1KHz to 2GHz coverage with many basic spectrum analyser features such as variable span width, a few fixed filter bandwidths and markers etc. for about $100 USD. So it's now possible to get setup with quite a good basic set of RF / workshop instruments for well under $200 USD. I know you can use CH1 S21 amplitude measurement on a Nano VNA as a very crude spectrum analyser, but I wonder if a 'Nano Spectrum Analyser' will ever become available ? Seems like the next logical progression. Regards, Martin - G8JNJ
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
See
73
Arie PA3A
Op 24-12-2019 om 14:23 schreef Piotr Wozniak:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Thank you Erik!
73
Arie PA3A
Op 24-12-2019 om 09:20 schreef erik@...:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
To help understanding the impact of the various terms of the complete G formula
/g/nanovna-users/message/8459
I plotted a 1000 point zero to 900MHz uncalibrated measurement of the SOL calibration standards as delivered with the nanoVNA
The colored lines represent the S, O and L values in the complete G formula.
Apart from a rotation of S and O due to electrical length (linear with frequency) and a decrease (probably due to a symmetrical capacitive load in the bridge) the S, O and L stay well behaved. This explains why the nanoVNA is able to reach high accuracy.
This has been verified by doing a T-Check measurement which showed less than 5% measurement error up to 900MHz, mostly due to the port 2 deviation from Z0 so the pure one port accuracy is probably even better.
I attached the raw data to support further evaluation. These are s2p files but only contain relevant S11 data
|
Re: errors of "error" models
#93: On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture Hello, - - - - - - (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 : start - - - - - - Allow us, please, to continue with the finalization of our picture: towards to that approximated one, which we already called it a virtual two-port. This can be achieved by expressing the reflection coefficient G, of a load or DUT connected at T Test Port, that is by the ratio of the ("reflected") output signal bT from T port (that is the one caused by the voltage wave directed from inside-to-outside of T port or by a "reflected" to T wave), to the ("incident") input signal aT to T port (that is the one caused by the voltage wave directed from outside-to-inside of T port or by an "incident" to T wave): G := bT/aT in terms of the ratio of the two separate signals aA and aR, * B O T H * I N P U T * ("incident") to the ("receiving") ports A and R, respectively: g := aA/aR This is possible and results -after a really tedious work, if someone selects to do it without some lower of the high mathematics- to the form: G = (Ag + B)/(Cg + D) where A, B, C, and D are rather complicated expressions of various Sij. However, with a careful, technically appropriate, adjustment of the whole of Sij values, it is possible a simplification of these expressions by approximating, diminishing or reasonably ignoring a lot of various signal paths in the above 4-port signal flow diagram: Well, this a most fortunate fact, indeed, because makes possible various "error" models of VNA measurements, with each one of them to take the name of the number of finally kept terms, the remaining ones after the deletion of the rest of the others. And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model" results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network. But, since in this way only the T port is clearly shown, while the other one is a totally absent from the reality, we thought to define a Virtual measurement Port, as we already presented it at: #85: On the Formation of a Virtual Port: 25 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8237- - - finish : (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 - - - - - - - - - - That's all. With the best of our regards to all Members who insist to read this thread, gin&pez@arg 93#:
|
Two thoughts here:
1) A great time for two or three or more hams getting together and jointly buying a subscription to QEX, AND making it available to their club. And you can jointly purchase the DVD at the end of the year and donate it to the club. You don¡¯t belong to a club? So sad. Start one. We did years ago out in Missouri while I was in school. Put an ad in the local paper (or eblog now) and a few interested folks came out of the woods and the club started. Mainly as a coffee round table but later a formal club. I also belong to two clubs, one with a formal schedule and the other just a breakfast gathering without all the rigamarole..... both very enjoyable and educational.
2) One of our club members brought in his Airspy HF+ (Yes, just the less expensive HF+) and showed how to use it as a spectrum analyzer.... I was blown away with the simplicity of it. We were testing the QRP Guys FT8 xcvr vs the Crkits D4D xcvr build.... a lot went over my head but a neat use of a simple DSP tool for those who want to experiment or test things. These Airspy (and other DSP thingies) aren¡¯t just another radio for listening to short wave. They are more like a piece of test gear than any radio you will ever own.
David J. Wilcox K8WPE¡¯s iPad
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, David Eckhardt <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?If one needs a spectrum analyzer on the cheap, try the AirSpy (full units
to 1.8 Ghz - not the HF+ or Discovery) for around $200. SpectrumSpy is
included with the SDR# download at no cost. It is the SW of choice for the
AirSpy offerings. The spectrum analyzer has a minimum span of 10 MHz and a
maximum of 20 MHz through 1.8 GHz. While it, as well, is not an
HP/Agilent/Keysite, its pretty good. Even the HP 8753C VNA does not make a
good spectrum analyzer, so why expect the NANOVNA to do same? It's the
NANOVNA and the HP 8753C are designed and purposed as a Vector Network
Analyzer, not a spectrum analyzer.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:13 PM Bob Albert via Groups.Io <bob91343=
[email protected]> wrote:
As the owner of two nanoVNAs and two lab grade VNAs I have run
comparisons between them. They all do their intended job well, and can be
very useful in testing hardware, as well as providing a nearly priceless
opportunity for education in high frequency electronics.
Yes the expensive jobs have important advantages over the little unit.
But when one factors in certain characteristics, such as convenience and
cost and user interface, the nano gives far more per dollar. Yes I can do
better spectrum analysis with the big units and my measurements are both
more accurate and have better noise performance for tiny signals.
So my educated analysis indicates that the nano needs to be a part of any
laboratory for casual measurements. These casual measurements are probably
more than enough to satisfy the needs of any radio amateur or other
hobbyist. For commercial and industrial uses, the expensive units are
almost mandatory, as their accuracy can be verified and their frequency
range wider, not to mention control over bandwidth.
My attempts at spectrum analysis with the nano have proven it to be not
especially useful. For instance, there are images. Fine grequency control
is lacking. There is no control over resolution. Precise analysis of
filters is not one of its strengths.
Notwithstanding these and other limitations, I find the nano the unit of
choice for the majority of my measurements. This may not be true of anyone
else but I am a satisfied customer. One of my big VNAs only goes up toe
150 MHz and that's useful for most of my spectrum analysis and other lower
frequency work, which is the majority of my interest. The other goes up to
a few GHz but my needs seldom go there. The small size and rapid
deployment of the nano make it a fun unit to operate; while I am doing some
work with it I notice things I might not see with the other VNAs.
So take what I say for what it's worth and for what you pay for it, and
draw your own conclusions.
73, Bob K6DDX On Monday, December 23, 2019, 10:43:44 AM PST, hwalker <
herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
hwalker wrote:
The Jan-Feb 2020 Issue of the ARRL QEX magazine has a cover story on the
NanoVNA by Dr. George Steber:
"Dr. George R. Steber, WB9LVI, reviews a tiny vector network analyzer
(VNA) introduced for about US$50 and compares its capabilities with
full-featured lab grade analyzers that cost thousands of dollars. An RF VNA
is the instrument of choice for measuring the electrical parameters of
antennas, components, filters and more. Dr. Steber describes his
experiences with the tiny VNA, termed a NanoVNA. He begins with a short
description of some technical specifications, and relates how he acquired
the NanoVNA. He then includes historical details on the evolution of the
product. Next, he describes the general architecture of the instrument, and
finally he describes the operation of the unit and including examples."
===============================================================================================
My original intention in starting this topic was to let our users know
about the QEX NanoVNA article and to acknowledge one of my favorite
technical authors. The original post does not, as stated by at least one
responder, in any way, shape, or form advocate copyright infringement.
Dr. Steber usually gives a down to earth technical description of a
device's inner workings before preceding on to numerous practical use
applications. Those expecting some type of a-b comparison with high end
commercial VNA's are likely to be disappointed.
I guess the second reason for starting the topic was to acknowledge the
NanoVNA's semi-Rockstar status as the cover boy for QEX magazine :)
Happy holidays,
- Herb
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
|
Re: errors of "error" models
@Erik, PD0EK - 24 December 2019: /g/nanovna-users/message/8615/g/nanovna-users/message/8614Dear Erik, Allow us, please, to carefully reserve ourselves from commenting on matters, which either excerpt engineering techniques applied, more-or-less successfully, in the time domain with the obscure purpose to also apply them in the frequency one, or on those mixing-up probabilistic techniques with deterministic ones, or to say it most simply and for the third time, if we are correctly counting : we are not able at all to correct perhaps down to zero the Uncertainties of the Standards, as they are given to us by their Decent Manufacturers; the only thing we can do is to propagate these Uncertainties through that simple formula to its G results, and then, its G results through that well-known one to Z results, and thus to finally to express the unavoidable Core Uncertainty of Z measurements. Yes! We perfectly understand that this is a most unpleasant fact, but what can we do? That's Life - a Scientific one, of course. Best regards, gin&pez@arg
|
Re: errors of "error" models
To help understanding the impact of the various terms of the complete G formula /g/nanovna-users/message/8459I plotted a 1000 point zero to 900MHz uncalibrated measurement of the SOL calibration standards as delivered with the nanoVNA The colored lines represent the S, O and L values in the complete G formula. Apart from a rotation of S and O due to electrical length (linear with frequency) and a decrease (probably due to a symmetrical capacitive load in the bridge) the S, O and L stay well behaved. This explains why the nanoVNA is able to reach high accuracy. This has been verified by doing a T-Check measurement which showed less than 5% measurement error up to 900MHz, mostly due to the port 2 deviation from Z0 so the pure one port accuracy is probably even better. I attached the raw data to support further evaluation. These are s2p files but only contain relevant S11 data -- NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/homeNanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/filesErik, PD0EK
|
Re: errors of "error" models
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:20 PM, gin&pez@arg wrote:
prefer to sell Standards marked with Uncertainty Values, instead
of cancel it using "correction polynomials",
Gin@Pez Not sure I do understand what you try to say. If the correction polynomials have a physical underpinning (L for short, C for open) would you still call it an excuse? And its less work to enter a few factors of a polynomial then to enter the actual 1001 point measurement of the calibration standard I guess. So if the polynomial reflects in a limited amount of numbers the actual measurement impact of the calibration standard I do not understand why it has anything to do with uncertainty values? -- NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/homeNanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/filesErik, PD0EK
|
gin&pez@arg
John
Kurt Poulsen
Andrew Harmon
Arie Kleingeld PA3A
David Wilcox K8WPE