Re: NanoVNA H / H4 / V2 / V2Plus / V2Plus4 firmware v1.0.69
#firmware
Stop sending the e-mail to me. I have even left the Group because I could not stop the mails You need go /g/nanovna-users/editsub and select No Email for disable receive group messages
|
Re: NanoVNA H / H4 / V2 / V2Plus / V2Plus4 firmware v1.0.69
#firmware
Stop sending the e-mail to me. I have even left the Group because I could not stop the mails
CW4EVER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 16 Aug 2021, at 19:31, Anton <om1aeg@...> wrote:
?Thank you for your reply DiSlord. I looked at both PCBs, 10R resistor for 3.3V I put in position R2 on "LCD" PCB, MOSI signals, MISO, SCLK are available on H1 connector on "LCD" PCB. The problem will be to get the PB9 (CS) signal out of U303:46, directly from U303 pin, no trace on PCB.
|
Re: Download NanaoVNA Labview
From the NI MAX web site: "NI MAX is only supported on Windows and MacOS, not Linux, and cannot be downloaded by itself. It is included with all NI drivers (NI-VISA, NI-DAQmx etc.) and NI System Configuration."
73, Don N2VGU
|
Re: NanoVNA H / H4 / V2 / V2Plus / V2Plus4 firmware v1.0.69
#firmware
Thank you for your reply DiSlord. I looked at both PCBs, 10R resistor for 3.3V I put in position R2 on "LCD" PCB, MOSI signals, MISO, SCLK are available on H1 connector on "LCD" PCB. The problem will be to get the PB9 (CS) signal out of U303:46, directly from U303 pin, no trace on PCB.
|
Don¡¯t send me your emails
CW4EVER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 16 Aug 2021, at 10:10, Knud Jorgen Olsen-Jensen via groups.io <vk2kjj@...> wrote:
?Don¡¯t send me your emails
CW4EVER
On 16 Aug 2021, at 09:15, Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote:
?Hi, Luciano...
I more or less (in my head) wrote off the "extra" resistance needed to make
the NanoVNA see a flat match as being to a combination of lead
resistance/reactance and operator error.
I think it's safe to assume that the transformer is actually a 49:1 ratio.
Thanks!
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 3:48 PM Luciano Luciano <luciano.wdc@...>
wrote:
Hi Charles,
I get "suspicious" when I see small differences like this i.e. 50 ohm as
in this case. Assuming the black box is lossless, you should measure either
2450 or 2500 ohm if you load the other port (with coax connector, right?)
with 50 ohm... if you measure 2450 then it is a 49:1 transformer as you
correctly guessed in the first place! Of course easier to say (and write)
in theory than to actually do in practice.
Regards,
Luciano
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 6:15 PM Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote:
Hello, All...
I recently had a need to measure an unknown matching transformer. As it
was
in a sealed enclosure with noth but the wire terminal and coax connector
exposed, and I didn't want to damage the enclosure, I pulled out my trusty
NanoVNA.
All I knew about the "black box" was that it was used with a
10-12-15-17-20m EFHW wire antenna. That made me assume it would be
somewhere in the range of a 49:1 ratio.
I pulled out my decade resistance box and dialed in 2450 ohms (50 ohms x
49) and put that between the output wire terminal and ground. I then
connected the NanoVNA to the coax input.
I then played with the decade box until I got a flat response from the
NanoVNA and the needed resistance to get there was 2501 ohms. Technically,
that makes the matching network about 50:1 ratio.
All of this told me what I wanted to know, but I'm wondering if there would
be an easier, more direct way of getting there with the NanoVNA.
I'm good with the idea that I may have just stumbled onto the right answer
in my madness.
Take Care & 73
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
|
Don¡¯t send me your emails
CW4EVER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 16 Aug 2021, at 09:15, Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote:
?Hi, Luciano...
I more or less (in my head) wrote off the "extra" resistance needed to make
the NanoVNA see a flat match as being to a combination of lead
resistance/reactance and operator error.
I think it's safe to assume that the transformer is actually a 49:1 ratio.
Thanks!
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 3:48 PM Luciano Luciano <luciano.wdc@...>
wrote:
Hi Charles,
I get "suspicious" when I see small differences like this i.e. 50 ohm as
in this case. Assuming the black box is lossless, you should measure either
2450 or 2500 ohm if you load the other port (with coax connector, right?)
with 50 ohm... if you measure 2450 then it is a 49:1 transformer as you
correctly guessed in the first place! Of course easier to say (and write)
in theory than to actually do in practice.
Regards,
Luciano
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 6:15 PM Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote:
Hello, All...
I recently had a need to measure an unknown matching transformer. As it was
in a sealed enclosure with noth but the wire terminal and coax connector
exposed, and I didn't want to damage the enclosure, I pulled out my trusty
NanoVNA.
All I knew about the "black box" was that it was used with a
10-12-15-17-20m EFHW wire antenna. That made me assume it would be
somewhere in the range of a 49:1 ratio.
I pulled out my decade resistance box and dialed in 2450 ohms (50 ohms x
49) and put that between the output wire terminal and ground. I then
connected the NanoVNA to the coax input.
I then played with the decade box until I got a flat response from the
NanoVNA and the needed resistance to get there was 2501 ohms. Technically,
that makes the matching network about 50:1 ratio.
All of this told me what I wanted to know, but I'm wondering if there would
be an easier, more direct way of getting there with the NanoVNA.
I'm good with the idea that I may have just stumbled onto the right answer
in my madness.
Take Care & 73
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
|
Re: Measuring S11 at input of RF power amplifier - could I calibrate "through" an attenuator?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 02:21 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
What's the ripple in the measurement from? A reduced SNR would give a
random error, not a periodic one, but maybe it's a manifestation of a
phase bias that is contributing more or less depending on the reflected
phase?
The attenuators affect more than S11 SNR when used in this fashion They are not exactly 50 ohms input/output impedance. Also the calibration errors will probably be greater as the DUT impedance is further away from 50 ohms. Roger Roger
|
Re: download the calibration from the NanoVNA
Don¡¯t send me your emails
CW4EVER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 16 Aug 2021, at 09:17, DiSlord <dislordlive@...> wrote:
?Need use any console software (like terminal, putty RealTerm)
You receive list of error tetm (used by nanoVna as calibration data)
'data 2' ED - error term directivity
'data 3' ES - error term source match
'data 4' ER - error term refrection tracking
'data 5' ET - error term transmission tracking
'data 6' EX - error term isolation
But NanoVNA Saver Use SOLT calibration data format, so you can`t use this calibration data in it.
|
Re: download the calibration from the NanoVNA
Need use any console software (like terminal, putty RealTerm)
You receive list of error tetm (used by nanoVna as calibration data)
'data 2' ED - error term directivity
'data 3' ES - error term source match
'data 4' ER - error term refrection tracking
'data 5' ET - error term transmission tracking
'data 6' EX - error term isolation
But NanoVNA Saver Use SOLT calibration data format, so you can`t use this calibration data in it.
|
Hi, Luciano... I more or less (in my head) wrote off the "extra" resistance needed to make the NanoVNA see a flat match as being to a combination of lead resistance/reactance and operator error. I think it's safe to assume that the transformer is actually a 49:1 ratio. Thanks! On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 3:48 PM Luciano Luciano <luciano.wdc@...> wrote: Hi Charles,
I get "suspicious" when I see small differences like this i.e. 50 ohm as
in this case. Assuming the black box is lossless, you should measure either
2450 or 2500 ohm if you load the other port (with coax connector, right?)
with 50 ohm... if you measure 2450 then it is a 49:1 transformer as you
correctly guessed in the first place! Of course easier to say (and write)
in theory than to actually do in practice.
Regards,
Luciano
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 6:15 PM Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote:
Hello, All...
I recently had a need to measure an unknown matching transformer. As it was
in a sealed enclosure with noth but the wire terminal and coax connector
exposed, and I didn't want to damage the enclosure, I pulled out my trusty
NanoVNA.
All I knew about the "black box" was that it was used with a
10-12-15-17-20m EFHW wire antenna. That made me assume it would be
somewhere in the range of a 49:1 ratio.
I pulled out my decade resistance box and dialed in 2450 ohms (50 ohms x
49) and put that between the output wire terminal and ground. I then
connected the NanoVNA to the coax input.
I then played with the decade box until I got a flat response from the
NanoVNA and the needed resistance to get there was 2501 ohms. Technically,
that makes the matching network about 50:1 ratio.
All of this told me what I wanted to know, but I'm wondering if there would
be an easier, more direct way of getting there with the NanoVNA.
I'm good with the idea that I may have just stumbled onto the right answer
in my madness.
Take Care & 73
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
-- de KC6UFM Charles
|
Hi Charles,
I get "suspicious" when I see small differences like this i.e. 50 ohm as
in this case. Assuming the black box is lossless, you should measure either
2450 or 2500 ohm if you load the other port (with coax connector, right?)
with 50 ohm... if you measure 2450 then it is a 49:1 transformer as you
correctly guessed in the first place! Of course easier to say (and write)
in theory than to actually do in practice.
Regards,
Luciano
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 6:15 PM Charles KC6UFM <kc6ufm@...> wrote: Hello, All...
I recently had a need to measure an unknown matching transformer. As it was
in a sealed enclosure with noth but the wire terminal and coax connector
exposed, and I didn't want to damage the enclosure, I pulled out my trusty
NanoVNA.
All I knew about the "black box" was that it was used with a
10-12-15-17-20m EFHW wire antenna. That made me assume it would be
somewhere in the range of a 49:1 ratio.
I pulled out my decade resistance box and dialed in 2450 ohms (50 ohms x
49) and put that between the output wire terminal and ground. I then
connected the NanoVNA to the coax input.
I then played with the decade box until I got a flat response from the
NanoVNA and the needed resistance to get there was 2501 ohms. Technically,
that makes the matching network about 50:1 ratio.
All of this told me what I wanted to know, but I'm wondering if there would
be an easier, more direct way of getting there with the NanoVNA.
I'm good with the idea that I may have just stumbled onto the right answer
in my madness.
Take Care & 73
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
|
Re: download the calibration from the NanoVNA
I do not understand what you mean. Do you mean the nanovna-saver.exe window
(mostly black with some status lines on it: I am not able to do a command
from there)?
Or is there some console within the NanoVNA-Saver window?
Or do I need to start a cmd.exe window and then?
Thanks for any help.
All the best,
Victor
Op zo 15 aug. 2021 om 15:52 schreef DiSlord <dislordlive@...>:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Use console data command
data 2
data 3
....
data 6
|
Re: Download NanaoVNA Labview
I worked for PWA for decades and was the only engineer that used LabVIEW, now all the engineers do. It is very easy to learn (very friendly for EEs) and yes it is expensive. So I am glad to see that there is a free version of the IDE. National Instruments makes a huge profit from the hardware, not software, that it sells. Our department bought over $100, 000 worth of FPGA hardware a while ago. It is used world wide (CERN for one)! Having the commercial version installed on my laptop, now I'm curious just how much the free version can support for the budding developer, ie. can one develop an entire project or just a small VI? Does the version include MAX to experiment and simulate hardware devices instead of having to actually buy one? If this does included MAX, then one can make a project using simulated hardware devices in the Vi, and then simulate the device when running the VI.
wt1v
|
Re: Measuring a 1/4 wave balanced line
#cables
Great! Thanks. Any google search I attempted lead me to the RSGB website, which was a dead end for me. I did realize the forums were right here on groups.io, duh.
|
Hello, All...
I recently had a need to measure an unknown matching transformer. As it was
in a sealed enclosure with noth but the wire terminal and coax connector
exposed, and I didn't want to damage the enclosure, I pulled out my trusty
NanoVNA.
All I knew about the "black box" was that it was used with a
10-12-15-17-20m EFHW wire antenna. That made me assume it would be
somewhere in the range of a 49:1 ratio.
I pulled out my decade resistance box and dialed in 2450 ohms (50 ohms x
49) and put that between the output wire terminal and ground. I then
connected the NanoVNA to the coax input.
I then played with the decade box until I got a flat response from the
NanoVNA and the needed resistance to get there was 2501 ohms. Technically,
that makes the matching network about 50:1 ratio.
All of this told me what I wanted to know, but I'm wondering if there would
be an easier, more direct way of getting there with the NanoVNA.
I'm good with the idea that I may have just stumbled onto the right answer
in my madness.
Take Care & 73
--
de KC6UFM
Charles
|
Re: Measuring a 1/4 wave balanced line
#cables
[image: image.png] This should get you started. Dave - WLEV On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 7:40 PM Lou W7HV via groups.io <louandzip= [email protected]> wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:26 PM, David Eckhardt wrote:
Owen's posts can also be accessed on the RSGB sites. I subscribe to both
the "antennas" and the "antennas research" sites from RSGB.
Did a quick search for RSGB sites as described but didn't have any luck.
Could you provide a link or more info to help find them?
TNX
-- *Dave - W?LEV* *Just Let Darwin Work*
|
Re: Measuring S11 at input of RF power amplifier - could I calibrate "through" an attenuator?
On 8/15/21 12:37 PM, Roger Need via groups.io wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 09:14 AM, David Feldman wrote:
If I insert (example) 6 dB pad between nanovna S11 port and amplifier input
port, and calibrate the nanovna (open-short-load) at the "far" end of the pad,
what impact would this have on S11 measurements?
Here are some S11 measurements I did "calibrating out" a 10 dB and a 20 db attenuator. Measurement errors get worse as you increase the attenuation but 6 dB won't be bad at all.
/g/nanovna-users/message/18145
Roger What's the ripple in the measurement from? A reduced SNR would give a random error, not a periodic one, but maybe it's a manifestation of a phase bias that is contributing more or less depending on the reflected phase?
|
Re: Measuring S11 at input of RF power amplifier - could I calibrate "through" an attenuator?
On 8/15/21 12:06 PM, KENT BRITAIN wrote: How does the output load become part of the S11 measurement?
I agree you need it to keep the amp happy, but when you make your?amplitude and phase measurements on the antenna tuner, the load should?not be part of that.? ? ? Kent G8EMY on real amplifiers, with non zero S12, the load impedance does show up at the input - imagine an amplifier with S12 of -10 dB and a S11 of -100dB.? A total reflection at the output of the amp will make the S11 of the amplifier appear to be -10dB. With solid state stage gains for power amplifiers of 8-10dB, this isn't so unusual. As long as |S12|<|S21| the amplifier will probably be stable. And on a non-amplifier case, if you have two antennas that have any mutual coupling (or for which you hope there's negligible coupling), the impedance connected to the feedpoint of antenna 2 affects the measured impedance of antenna 1. I've been doing some measurements of just that - using only S11 measurements of the AUT.
|
This is what I get using an inductor (7 turns of RG58A through a toroid) and the component is connected to CH0 and calibrated: [image: afbeelding.png] You see the S11 |Z| graph is a straight line (when it is displayed logarithmic and the freqy axis also logarithmic). A mor eor less pure inductance will be a stright line going up (a capacitance a straight lien going down). And Marker1 is at around |Z|=94ohm (and in the Marker 1 info you see an 'Series X': 51.551uH. You can also see the S11 Serial L [H] graph where you can see the inductance is around 52uH. If I would have shown a larger freq. range, S11 Phase would have gone through 0 (aka resonance). So no extra component needed. Hope this helps. All the best, Victor Op zo 15 aug. 2021 om 11:59 schreef Victor Reijs via groups.io <pe1atn.victor.reijs@...>:
I think you need a low frequency to determine the inductance (as say you
know).Say between 10kHz and 200kHz? The log(|Z|) curve in a log(Freq)
should go up in a straight line (NanoVNA Saver can provide this log axis).
All the best,
Victor
Op zo 15 aug. 2021 om 01:29 schreef Bob Albert via groups.io <bob91343=
[email protected]>:
First put an adapter on the SMA connector and set up the calibration. Go
to Smith Chart. Select your frequency range. Short the test leads and see
how much residual inductance there is. Then connect the unknown. Move the
marker to whatever frequency you like and it will read out directly.
Bob
On Saturday, August 14, 2021, 02:58:37 PM PDT, Joe WB9SBD < nss@...>
wrote:
I have a NanoVNA-H4.
Using this, what is the best accurate way to measure the inductance of a
coil?
Joe WB9SBD
|
Re: 340 MHz Dipole - Calibration at Transmitter and Antenna Ends of Transmission Line
Dave - Thanks once again for all the information. I'll test the modification using the 1/8 wavelength frequency in SimSmith and see how it compares. That change also allows the method posted by John Gord to be checked at the same time. In that case the cable impedance can be read directly using the -jX value.
I won't be able to do anything more with the physical coax. As an alternative, I'm studying the various Smith Chart methods that measure coax impedance using SimSmith.
After comparing results with RG-58A/U, RG-213/U and a coax model with zero ohms DC resistance, it looks like DC resistance in coax cable reduces the accuracy of these measurement techniques.
I did notice something interesting yesterday. The capacitance value in the impedance rises to the left of your lower measurement point and it declines to the right. The capacitance value near the 3:00 o'clock position appears to be close to published capacitance per foot values. The frequency declines towards zero as you approach that point.
73, Kent
AA6P
|
Donald S Brant Jr
Roger Need
Lou W7HV
