开云体育

Hello,

It is not my PC. I am running a DELL Inspiration with a AMD RYZER 400 series 7 CPU with a 512Gig SSD with the latest Windows 10 with all updates.

Nova saver is the only program I have ever had problems with, so far.

I will try connecting the NanoVNA prior to running Saver.

Clyde KC7BJE

“ From: Bob ( W7BE.Bob@...?subject=Re:%20nanovna%20saver )
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 12:06:58 PST

Wonder if it's related to your PC performance? My W10 HP Envy with SSD takes 10 seconds to display the windows screen and that's awhile compared to other apps.

Absolutely no question in my mind that SSD is the greatest performer since sliced bread! ”

Sent from Mail ( ) for Windows 10

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 09:44 AM, Larry Rothman wrote:

Roger,
It's in Dislord's GitHub repo. You have to build it yourself as I did last
week.?

Larry,

Thanks. I don't know how to compile this code and there is a bit of a learning curve so I will wait for the next release. I am happy with 1.0.45

Roger

Mine hangs on the DOS screen if it doesn't find the nanovna. Try unplugging the nanovna and plugging it in again before starting nanovna-saver.

Gerald Pelnar WD0FYF

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

I'm using a Toshiba laptop, Windows 10, AMD A8 processor, 8GB ram and all I got was just a windows command prompt window with a blinking cursor and no text after about a minute. I guess I haven't waited long enough.

I have a 7+ year-old HP Pavillion desktop with an Intel I7 CPU. My NanoVNA-saver.exe (NanoVNASaver.x64) loads in 14 seconds. I do have 256GB SSD as drive C: which helps a lot on this old machine.

--
*Don - W3DRM*

Wonder if it's related to your PC performance? My W10 HP? Envy with SSD takes 10 seconds to display the windows screen and that's awhile compared to other apps.

Absolutely no question in my mind that SSD is the greatest performer since sliced bread!

--
W7BE Bob

It takes about 1 to 2 minutes to actually start on my Windows 10 machine.
Until then, all I see is a screen that looks like a dos screen.
I have reinstalled every copy of the program I could find, including, other versions with the same results.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Clyde KC7BJE

Roger,
It's in Dislord's GitHub repo. You have to build it yourself as I did last week.?
(Ignore formatting numbers):
? ? ? ?Commits on Feb 24, 2021

-
Add |Z| trace mods

-
DiSlord committed 11 days ago
- Commits on Feb 22, 2021

-
Remove redraw_requrest bitfield, now for redraw need call request_to_…

-
DiSlord committed 13 days ago
- Commits on Feb 20, 2021

-
Small UI code optimization

-
DiSlord committed 15 days ago
- Commits on Feb 14, 2021

-
Add radio button to max/min marker searchD

-
DiSlord committed?21 days ago

I'm having an issue with the time of day clock command though but have not debugged it yet. I think it's my build env. The rest of the FW works though.?
... Larry


On Sun., 7 Mar. 2021 at 12:28 p.m., Roger Need via groups.io<sailtamarack@...> wrote: On Sun, Mar? 7, 2021 at 07:04 AM, <sunkan@...> wrote:

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48

Andreas,

Where did you find the repository for DiSlord 1.0.48?? What are the changes from 1.0.45?

Roger

Use DiSlord's 1.0.45 in the forum's file section. There's a version for H and H4. Choose the correct vers for your device.?


On Sun., 7 Mar. 2021 at 12:02 p.m., J P Watters via groups.io<jpwatters@...> wrote: I saw an message that made me think that there is a TDR function available for my NanoVNA-H v3.4

Can someone point me to this firmware?

..jpw J P Watters
KC9KKO
Morris, IL USA

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 07:04 AM, <sunkan@...> wrote:

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48

Andreas,

Where did you find the repository for DiSlord 1.0.48? What are the changes from 1.0.45?

Roger

The TDR function is in most versions of the firmware. It is implemented
using an FFT from the frequency scan, so it is a 'calculated' or
'simulated' TDR, with some related limitations.
There are several message threads in this group describing details of its
use - search for TDR or 'measure length'.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:02 AM J P Watters via groups.io <jpwatters=
[email protected]> wrote:

I saw an message that made me think that there is a TDR function available
for my NanoVNA-H v3.4

Can someone point me to this firmware?

..jpw J P Watters
KC9KKO
Morris, IL USA

Message editing is disabled in this group. On purpose.

DaveD, co-owner

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

The ability to send the edited post or not is only available to moderators with the proper permission or to owners of groups.

Dave - VE3HTC / VE3DTR

I saw an message that made me think that there is a TDR function available for my NanoVNA-H v3.4

Can someone point me to this firmware?

..jpw J P Watters
KC9KKO
Morris, IL USA

Hi Larry

Yes! That was the answer. It now calibrates with both programs and the results are the same both with the Windows programs and compared to the NanoVNA itself when used on its own.
I watched a YouTube video about the update and followed it meticulously but there was nothing else mentioned after calibrating the screen.
It's actually very nice that the NanoVNA App allows communication without having to bother starting something like Putty.

Thanks once again.

73,
John

you made measure on Bandwidth 4k, old firmware work on 1k by default (need set to 1k as minimum for compare)
Old firmware measure on 8mA by default (but this give not linear results on long span range) set Power to 8mA after calibration reset (in CALIBRATE->POWER)

I belong to numerous other groups and none of those with message editing turned-on have the option to "Save without sending". All I see is "Save and Send", "Cancel", or "Delete". That must be another setting the group owner can make, if, they desire to do so.
--
*Don - W3DRM*

I updated the firmware, then I ran "clearconfig" as the next step.
Then I went through the calibration, starting with resetting the calibration as the first step (as per the regular calibration instructions).

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

Did you press Reset or to calibrating?
When updating firmware, do you run the clearconfig 1234 command prior to recalibrating?


I have noticed that on my NanoVNA-H v3.4 the latest FW versions things
have looked different after a calibration than it used to.

I decided to do a comparison of some FW versions to see if that could
make things clearer.

I am no expert so maybe my tests are not performed in a good way, I
tried to search the forum to get some idea of how to verify the
performance. I came to the conclusion that the S21 noise floor was one
measurement that people seem to be comparing.

So I have attached screenshots taken after the following procedure:
After each FW change I ran "clearconfig" trying to make sure there was
no stale config data causing issues and also the default settings for
that FW is then used.

Calibration was made like this:

Pigtail connected to port 1 at all times
SMA-to-BNC-50ohm termination connected to port 2 except for through calibration

Connect "open" - calibrate for open
Connect "short" - calibrate for short
Connect "load" - calibrate for load - then calibrate for isolation
Remove female-to-female adapter that was used with pigtail
Remove the termination on port 2 and connect pigtail - calibrate for through

Then the termination/load was once more connected to port1 and port2
and the screenshot was then taken using NanoVNA saver.

The filenames describes what FW was used, for example:
nanovna-0-900-dislord-1.0.48-fw.png
This would be from DiSlord's repository - version 1.0.48


To me the most prominent difference is the change on the S21 LOGMAG
measurement that is almost a flat line on the edy555 FWs and also on
hugen-0.4.5-4 but on the rest of my tests there seems to be a higher
noise floor. But also note that there are two hugen-1.0.45 screenshots
attached and they vary quite a bit so I am not sure how reliable my
tests have been.

This was what I had noticed and what got me started doing some tests.

I have also noticed a difference on the S11 noise floor which looks
best on edy555-0.8.0 FW, and I have compiled and tested many
intermediate FWs from DiSlord's repo but I think I will expand on that
in a separate post as this is too long already.


I don't know if my very non-scientific tests are relevant or not,
maybe it does not matter much for the use of the NanoVNA and I should
not care, your opinions and thoughts are very welcome.

/Andreas - SA0ZAP

John,
Did you clear the memory immediately after flashing?
Use the command console using putty or teraterm and run the 'clearconfig 1234' command then recal your touch and RF on the device


On Sun., 7 Mar. 2021 at 9:16 a.m., John Tyler<john@...> wrote: Hi
Yesterday I uploaded 1.0.45 firmware from DisLord to my H4. Everything went fine and stand alone there are no problems. I then connected to NanoVNA Saver 3.8. I calibrated using that program as I have done before but the SWR trace of my antenna was nothing like I knew it should be. It appeared to be resonant everywhere which of course was rubbish. After finding, with help, the NanoVNA App this morning I tried calibrating with that- exactly the same. I calibrated the NanoVNA and then switched to using that calibration with the program rather than the App calibration and it was good. So my question is what I have I done wrong and why doesn't it calibrate correctly with either of those Windows programs?

Thanks for any help.
John