开云体育

i would have used n sockets ;-) ... but i have a v2 that goes way higher in frequency as the older nanovna

but ok ... nice work

do you have a bigger battery also or a second one soldered in parallel?? (wire bridges will do fine)

dg9bfc sigi

Am 01.09.2022 um 22:14 schrieb Michael:

The following is a copy of my post of 30th August 2021 which illustrates my solution to the enclosure/connector issues:

The attached pictures show my solution to the SMA issue.

1) BNCs match all my other test gear removing the need for adapters
when interfacing. Indeed BNCs are the standard connector used for
professional test gear up to a few, GHz. (Perhaps 10GHz - Have to
check that).
2) Any risk of straining the SMA attachment point to the PCB is
eliminated.
3) The additional weight of the enclosure reduces the risk of the
nanoVNA being dragged off the workbench by the attached cables.
4) The aluminium enclosure adds a measure of screening - probably a
marginal. benefit.
5) The number of connection cycles permissible with BNCs while not
infinite, is far, far greater than the the very small number of
connection cycles specified for SMAs (in the hundreds if I remember
correctly).

The enclosure is made from extruded aluminium "U" section, readily available from eBay, with suitable apertures cut. I'm not sure that the reference planes for the BNC calibration pieces are perfect, but empirically, the results are the same as those obtained with the calibration devices supplied with the nanoVNA.

Michael. (GW7BBY/GB2MOP).



On 01/09/2022 20:40, Siegfried Jackstien wrote:

IF YOU REALLY HIT THE USB CABLE THAT TINY 2.8 INCH UNIT WILL FLY ACROSS THE ROOM HI HI

buy a 4 inch screen and print a bigger case maybe??

diSlord is experimenting with even bigger (7 inch) screens on the v2!!!

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:09 schrieb n1evh via groups.io:

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up)? so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

Bigger screen begets a bigger case which begets more weight/stability which
begets a bigger battery which begets longer use time... where is the down
side??

John
VE7KKQ

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:51 PM Siegfried Jackstien <
siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:

IF YOU REALLY HIT THE USB CABLE THAT TINY 2.8 INCH UNIT WILL FLY ACROSS
THE ROOM HI HI

buy a 4 inch screen and print a bigger case maybe??

diSlord is experimenting with even bigger (7 inch) screens on the v2!!!

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:09 schrieb n1evh via groups.io:

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up) so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

The following is a copy of my post of 30th August 2021 which illustrates my solution to the enclosure/connector issues:

The attached pictures show my solution to the SMA issue.

1) BNCs match all my other test gear removing the need for adapters
when interfacing. Indeed BNCs are the standard connector used for
professional test gear up to a few, GHz. (Perhaps 10GHz - Have to
check that).
2) Any risk of straining the SMA attachment point to the PCB is
eliminated.
3) The additional weight of the enclosure reduces the risk of the
nanoVNA being dragged off the workbench by the attached cables.
4) The aluminium enclosure adds a measure of screening - probably a
marginal. benefit.
5) The number of connection cycles permissible with BNCs while not
infinite, is far, far greater than the the very small number of
connection cycles specified for SMAs (in the hundreds if I remember
correctly).

The enclosure is made from extruded aluminium "U" section, readily available from eBay, with suitable apertures cut. I'm not sure that the reference planes for the BNC calibration pieces are perfect, but empirically, the results are the same as those obtained with the calibration devices supplied with the nanoVNA.

Michael. (GW7BBY/GB2MOP).



On 01/09/2022 20:40, Siegfried Jackstien wrote:

IF YOU REALLY HIT THE USB CABLE THAT TINY 2.8 INCH UNIT WILL FLY ACROSS THE ROOM HI HI

buy a 4 inch screen and print a bigger case maybe??

diSlord is experimenting with even bigger (7 inch) screens on the v2!!!

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:09 schrieb n1evh via groups.io:

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up)? so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

Bigger screen begets a bigger case which begets more weight/stability which
begets a bigger battery which begets longer use time... where is the down
side??

John
VE7KKQ

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:51 PM Siegfried Jackstien <
siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:

IF YOU REALLY HIT THE USB CABLE THAT TINY 2.8 INCH UNIT WILL FLY ACROSS
THE ROOM HI HI

buy a 4 inch screen and print a bigger case maybe??

diSlord is experimenting with even bigger (7 inch) screens on the v2!!!

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:09 schrieb n1evh via groups.io:

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up) so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

IF YOU REALLY HIT THE USB CABLE THAT TINY 2.8 INCH UNIT WILL FLY ACROSS THE ROOM HI HI

buy a 4 inch screen and print a bigger case maybe??

diSlord is experimenting with even bigger (7 inch) screens on the v2!!!

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:09 schrieb n1evh via groups.io:

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up)? so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

I recently purchased a NanoVNA (with a 2.8 inch screen). I was
wondering if anyone has designed/printed a stand for the
NanoVNA???

I'm looking for something that I can put the end of it into (so that
the SMA jacks are facing up) so I can attach an SMA antenna
for an HT to it.

With a stand... I won't have to worry about the NanoVNA falling
over if the USB cable between my laptop or tablet gets hit or
moves (more of a problem if holding a tablet) and since it will
keep the NanoVNA from falling over... I won't have worry about
anything touching the antenna to affect the measurements.

Thanks,

Mike - N1EVH

On 9/1/22 6:21 AM, Gary W9TD wrote:

EZNEC is now free.

EZNEC as a Method of Moments code that is derived from NEC is really a "wire" modeling code and doesn't do patches very well.

One can "grid" a patch, and put it over ground with soil properties set to match the substrate, but it doesn't have a way to do the ground plane on the other side of the substrate. (well, in NEC4 you could bury a grid of wires)).

NEC based codes will not do the matching sections or transmission line.


What the OP needs is a low cost tool that is designed for microstrip patches.

Ancient, but maybe PUFF (an early microwave circuit modeling package) would work?

At work we use HFSS, but that's sort of the antithesis of free.

I'd start with the list here:



Sonnet has a student version

You may have forgotten that you can put an extension cord of the length you want between the nanaoVNA box and the location where you are going to do the calibration. Even the imperfections of the extension will be compensated by the calibration. I did a test with a 93 Ω cable.

Take advantage of this extension to change the type of connector. Switch to a female BNC socket for example, firmly fixed on a support. SMA are too fragile to be screwed and unscrewed too often.

I don't think I'm going to need any of those BNC to SMA
connector holders... as I have a few of these that I could
put onto the NanoVNA...

<>

or if you want them gold plated...

<>

These would sit right against the body of the NanoVNA.

I'm looking for a stand... that I can put the other end into
so that the antenna connectors (SMA, BNC, whatever) would
be facing up... to keep the HT antennas vertical. an not
touching anything when testing them. I was wondering if
anyone has made one or just designed one so it could be
printed out on a DC printer.

If you just stand the NanoVNA on its end and you have it
connected to a laptop or tablet with a USB cable... morning
the laptop or tablet around... will make the USB cable move
and most likely make the NanoVNA fall over. A plastic stand
to put the NanoVNA in... would keep it from falling over.

Mike - N1EVH

On 9/1/2022 12:46 PM, Dave Merrill wrote:

If you have access to a 3-D printer, there are a ton of designs for NanoVNA
cases, holders, connection extensions, etc. Here is but one:

Many public libraries have Maker Labs. You upload the design file to their
server and they notify you when it's done. My library charges a nominal fee
for the amount of materials used.

Dave N9ZC

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 9:28 AM F1AMM<18471@...>? wrote:

You may have forgotten that you can put an extension cord of the length
you want between the nanaoVNA box and the location where you are going to
do the calibration. Even the imperfections of the extension will be
compensated by the calibration. I did a test with a 93 Ω cable.

Take advantage of this extension to change the type of connector. Switch
to a female BNC socket for example, firmly fixed on a support. SMA are too
fragile to be screwed and unscrewed too often.
--
F1AMM Fran?ois

De la part de n1evh via
Envoyé : jeudi 1 septembre 2022 16:10

If you have access to a 3-D printer, there are a ton of designs for NanoVNA
cases, holders, connection extensions, etc. Here is but one:

Many public libraries have Maker Labs. You upload the design file to their
server and they notify you when it's done. My library charges a nominal fee
for the amount of materials used.

Dave N9ZC

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 9:28 AM F1AMM<18471@...> wrote:

You may have forgotten that you can put an extension cord of the length
you want between the nanaoVNA box and the location where you are going to
do the calibration. Even the imperfections of the extension will be
compensated by the calibration. I did a test with a 93 Ω cable.

Take advantage of this extension to change the type of connector. Switch
to a female BNC socket for example, firmly fixed on a support. SMA are too
fragile to be screwed and unscrewed too often.
--
F1AMM Fran?ois

De la part de n1evh via
Envoyé : jeudi 1 septembre 2022 16:10

? Hi Dave
Very very difficult to get Duroid processed these days.I don't know of any
US shops that will touch that stuff any more.(Rumors of one in California
with a Plasma etcher)
If you want plated though holes, you have to etch the raw material to make
it porous enough to take the Copper.? Do you know what kind of chemicals
are necessary to etch Teflon!!!? ? Stuff the EPA does not like!
Rogers 4350 is a ceramic filled material that uses FR4 processing.? Not
quite as low Er and loss tangent as Duroid, but it's not bad.? And regular
PCB houses can process it.? Kent


? ? On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 10:43:29 AM CDT, W0LEV <
davearea51a@...> wrote:

? I was also going to suggest you actually measure the εr of the PCB you
actually used at the frequency you intend to use it.? The εr of FR-4 board
falls between an upper an lower limit, but it is not controlled.? If you
want something more controlled and predictable, use RT/Duroid, but it is
expensive.? Also, Teflon board is also better controlled than FR-4, but
also expensive.? Both are far better substrates for microwave applications.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 10:31 AM Diane BONKOUNGOU <dianebonk2@...>
wrote:

Hello everyone,
I used OpenEMS software for my simulation and I got simulation results
that are very different from my experimental result, I have a PCB antenna
whose resonant frequency is around 2.4GHz. I design the same thing on
OpenEMS but the simulation gives me a resonant frequency of around

2.66GHz.

Such a difference of 0.2GHz is important in RF, isn't it?? Knowing that

the

frequency range of Bluetooth Low Energy is 2.4-2.5GHz.
I have calibrated very well my NanoVNA and my experiment result must be
good. I know that because I tested the Texas instrument PCB IFA antenna

and

I get the same result as in their Datasheet.
Can you recommend a free tool for antenna simulation?
I have searched but I can only find OpenEMS based on the FDTD method. The
others are professional and paid tools for PCB trace antenna simulation.
Best regards.

--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*


--
Dave - W?LEV

You may have forgotten that you can put an extension cord of the length
you want between the nanaoVNA box and the location where you are going to
do the calibration. Even the imperfections of the extension will be
compensated by the calibration. I did a test with a 93 Ω cable.

Take advantage of this extension to change the type of connector. Switch
to a female BNC socket for example, firmly fixed on a support. SMA are too
fragile to be screwed and unscrewed too often.
--
F1AMM Fran?ois

De la part de n1evh via
Envoyé : jeudi 1 septembre 2022 16:10

Hi Dave
Very very difficult to get Duroid processed these days.I don't know of any
US shops that will touch that stuff any more.(Rumors of one in California
with a Plasma etcher)
If you want plated though holes, you have to etch the raw material to make
it porous enough to take the Copper. Do you know what kind of chemicals
are necessary to etch Teflon!!! Stuff the EPA does not like!
Rogers 4350 is a ceramic filled material that uses FR4 processing. Not
quite as low Er and loss tangent as Duroid, but it's not bad. And regular
PCB houses can process it. Kent


On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 10:43:29 AM CDT, W0LEV <
davearea51a@...> wrote:

I was also going to suggest you actually measure the εr of the PCB you
actually used at the frequency you intend to use it. The εr of FR-4 board
falls between an upper an lower limit, but it is not controlled. If you
want something more controlled and predictable, use RT/Duroid, but it is
expensive. Also, Teflon board is also better controlled than FR-4, but
also expensive. Both are far better substrates for microwave applications.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 10:31 AM Diane BONKOUNGOU <dianebonk2@...>
wrote:

Hello everyone,
I used OpenEMS software for my simulation and I got simulation results
that are very different from my experimental result, I have a PCB antenna
whose resonant frequency is around 2.4GHz. I design the same thing on
OpenEMS but the simulation gives me a resonant frequency of around

2.66GHz.

Such a difference of 0.2GHz is important in RF, isn't it? Knowing that

the

frequency range of Bluetooth Low Energy is 2.4-2.5GHz.
I have calibrated very well my NanoVNA and my experiment result must be
good. I know that because I tested the Texas instrument PCB IFA antenna

and

I get the same result as in their Datasheet.
Can you recommend a free tool for antenna simulation?
I have searched but I can only find OpenEMS based on the FDTD method. The
others are professional and paid tools for PCB trace antenna simulation.
Best regards.

--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*


--
Dave - W?LEV

Hello everyone,
I used OpenEMS software for my simulation and I got simulation results
that are very different from my experimental result, I have a PCB antenna
whose resonant frequency is around 2.4GHz. I design the same thing on
OpenEMS but the simulation gives me a resonant frequency of around 2.66GHz.
Such a difference of 0.2GHz is important in RF, isn't it?? Knowing that the
frequency range of Bluetooth Low Energy is 2.4-2.5GHz.
I have calibrated very well my NanoVNA and my experiment result must be
good. I know that because I tested the Texas instrument PCB IFA antenna and
I get the same result as in their Datasheet.
Can you recommend a free tool for antenna simulation?
I have searched but I can only find OpenEMS based on the FDTD method. The
others are professional and paid tools for PCB trace antenna simulation.
Best regards.