Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
Jim,
That's a good point. I also ran across USB stick Wifi routers, I have to dig into what could be expected there.
I did some browsing last night and found some information that although android phones have the hardware capability to use an adhoc connection - its disabled in the software.
You would have to root the device and further develop it. But using the phone as the host and assigning a static IP as you've mentioned still seems viable and perhaps the simplest.
Andy
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
It was a busy time. Papers galore.
In electrical engineering ( ) and telecommunications ( ) the *Chu¨CHarrington limit* or *Chu limit* sets a lower limit on the Q factor ( ) for a small radio antenna ( ). [1] ( ) The theorem was developed in several papers between 1948 and 1960 by Lan Jen Chu ( ) , [2] ( ) Harold Wheeler ( ) , [3] ( ) and later by Roger F. Harrington ( ). [4] ( ) The definition of a small antenna is one that can fit inside a sphere whose diameter is
(radius
) ¨C a little smaller than 1 ? 3 wavelength ( ) in its widest dimension. For a small antenna the Q is proportional to the reciprocal of the volume of a sphere ( ) that encloses it. In practice this means that there is a limit to the bandwidth of data that can be sent to and received from small antennas such as are used in mobile phones ( ).
More specifically, Chu established the limit on Q for a lossless antenna as
for a linear polarized ( ) antenna, where
is the radius of the smallest sphere containing the antenna and its current distribution and
is the wavenumber ( ). A circular polarized antenna can be half the size [5] ( ) (an extension of the theory of Chu by Harrington). [6] ( )
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 8:26?PM, Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
? Harrington & Chu, but yes.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:52?PM, AG6CX <edwmccann@...> wrote:
?Didn¡¯t Chu - Wheeler nail this one?
Ed McCann
AG6CX
MSEE MIT
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:47?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?One of the exercises we had in grad school was to prove that a radiating
structure could be down-sized to 10% of its full and ideal size without
losing efficiency, all other parameters being equal. ?The devil is in the
details, "all other parameters being equal".
Dave - W?LEV
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:46?AM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
How you define efficiency? ?If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small
antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an
isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that
only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s
resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it
change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low
radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. ?As is a mobile whip on
40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the
radiation resistance is low.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?QUOTE (Jim Lux): ?.....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
*
Understanding the bandwidth limitations of small antennas: Wheeler, Chu and today
*
Publisher: IEEE
Cite This
Howard R. Stuart ( )
Sign In or Purchase
1
Cites in
Paper
439
Full
Text Views
Abstract ( )
Authors ( )
Figures ( )
References ( )
Citations ( )
Keywords ( )
Metrics ( )
More Like This ( )
* Download PDF
* Download References
*
* Request Permissions
* Save to
* Alerts
*Abstract:* Wheeler's 1947 paper presented the first detailed discussion on the limitations on antenna Q-factor vs. size. In light of recent work on the lower bounds on Q for antenna... View more
*Metadata*
Contents
I. Introduction
---------------
In 1947, Harold Wheeler published the following formula for the radiation -factor of an electrically small cylindrical dipole antenna [1]:
Q = 6 ¦Ð ¦Ê V k 3 (1)
where is the volume of the antenna, is the wavenumber, and is defined as the ¡®shape factor¡¯. The shape factor is defined by Wheeler as the correction factor required to determine the capacitance or inductance of the structure from its geometry (e.g. in the case of the capacitor, multiplies the cross-sectional area to account for the effects of the fringing fields outside the cylindrical volume).
Sign in to Continue Reading
More Like This
A method for calculating the resonant frequency of meander line dipole antenna by using antenna's geometrical parameters ( )
2017 6th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics and Vision & 2017 7th International Symposium in Computational Medical and Health Technology (ICIEV-ISCMHT)
Published: 2017
Shape Representation and Classification Using the Poisson Equation ( )
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Published: 2006
Show More
---------------------
IEEE Personal Account
---------------------
* CHANGE USERNAME/PASSWORD ( )
----------------
Purchase Details
----------------
* PAYMENT OPTIONS ( )
* VIEW PURCHASED DOCUMENTS ( )
-------------------
Profile Information
-------------------
* COMMUNICATIONS PREFERENCES ( )
* PROFESSION AND EDUCATION ( )
* TECHNICAL INTERESTS ( )
----------
Need Help?
----------
* US & CANADA: +1 800 678 4333 ( tel:+1-800-678-4333 )
* WORLDWIDE: +1 732 981 0060 ( tel:+1-732-981-0060 )
* CONTACT & SUPPORT ( )
------
Follow
------
* ( )
* ( )
* ( )
* ( )
* ( )
About IEEE Xplore ( ) | Contact Us ( ) | Help ( ) | Accessibility ( ) | Terms of Use ( ) | Nondiscrimination Policy ( ) | IEEE Ethics Reporting ( ) | Sitemap ( ) | IEEE Privacy Policy ( )
A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.
? Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 8:26?PM, Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
? Harrington & Chu, but yes.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:52?PM, AG6CX <edwmccann@...> wrote:
?Didn¡¯t Chu - Wheeler nail this one?
Ed McCann
AG6CX
MSEE MIT
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:47?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?One of the exercises we had in grad school was to prove that a radiating
structure could be down-sized to 10% of its full and ideal size without
losing efficiency, all other parameters being equal. ?The devil is in the
details, "all other parameters being equal".
Dave - W?LEV
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:46?AM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
How you define efficiency? ?If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small
antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an
isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that
only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s
resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it
change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low
radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. ?As is a mobile whip on
40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the
radiation resistance is low.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?QUOTE (Jim Lux): ?.....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
Harrington & Chu, but yes.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:52?PM, AG6CX <edwmccann@...> wrote:
?Didn¡¯t Chu - Wheeler nail this one?
Ed McCann
AG6CX
MSEE MIT
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:47?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?One of the exercises we had in grad school was to prove that a radiating
structure could be down-sized to 10% of its full and ideal size without
losing efficiency, all other parameters being equal. The devil is in the
details, "all other parameters being equal".
Dave - W?LEV
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:46?AM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote: How you define efficiency? If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small
antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an
isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that
only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s
resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it
change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low
radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. As is a mobile whip on
40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the
radiation resistance is low.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote: ?QUOTE (Jim Lux): .....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
Didn¡¯t Chu - Wheeler nail this one?
Ed McCann
AG6CX
MSEE MIT
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 7:47?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?One of the exercises we had in grad school was to prove that a radiating
structure could be down-sized to 10% of its full and ideal size without
losing efficiency, all other parameters being equal. The devil is in the
details, "all other parameters being equal".
Dave - W?LEV
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:46?AM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
How you define efficiency? If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small
antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an
isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that
only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s
resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it
change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low
radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. As is a mobile whip on
40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the
radiation resistance is low.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote: ?QUOTE (Jim Lux): .....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
One of the exercises we had in grad school was to prove that a radiating
structure could be down-sized to 10% of its full and ideal size without
losing efficiency, all other parameters being equal. The devil is in the
details, "all other parameters being equal".
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:46?AM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote: How you define efficiency? If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small
antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an
isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that
only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s
resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it
change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low
radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. As is a mobile whip on
40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the
radiation resistance is low.
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?QUOTE (Jim Lux): .....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
-- *Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
How you define efficiency? If there¡¯s no loss, then an infinitely small antenna (a hertzian dipole, for instance) just has 1.5 dB gain over an isotropic antenna. Small antennas have low radiation resistance, but that only affects efficiency if there¡¯s loss.
For the run of the mill, nearly full sized, dipole, whether or not it¡¯s resonant doesn¡¯t change the radiation resistance much, neither does it change the loss resistance, so the efficiency doesn¡¯t change much.
What might change is the loss in the matching network or feedline.
The compact loop is notorious for having high loss because it has low radiation resistance compared to loss resistance. As is a mobile whip on 40 meters and down - they¡¯re a tiny fraction of a wavelength, so the radiation resistance is low.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 1:01?PM, W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?QUOTE (Jim Lux): .....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: DFU drivers not loading
Exactly which flavor nanovna do you have?
What prompted the need for DFU mode? Secondary to physical damage like deceleration trauma or charging damage?? The more info the better.
Jason Burchell
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 11:25?AM, Roger Need via groups.io <sailtamarack@...> wrote:
?On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 01:58 PM, John Mazzone wrote:
I cant get the DFU driver to work. WIN11 opsys.
I tried all the procedures in the "absolute beginner guide" but no dice.
/g/nanovna-users/message/33097
Roger
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
It's also pretty easy to set up a battery powered access point that everyone can connect to. In a Field Day scenario, this is handy for logging, and backups and such, because you can hang a backup drive off the access point. And in Field Day, if you're out in the field, WiFi works at more distance (because there's not interfering networks)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: < [email protected]> Sent: Mar 4, 2024 1:24 PM To: < [email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] Question on remote use of NanoVNA The Samsung S4 connected right up with the H with the TCPUART app. When it came to the server portion I had also checked the box to use the connection by default. On my Lenovo ideapad running Win 10 and the NanoVNA-app 1.1.208 I connected to the phone and could run a continuous feed without problem. I'd call that a victory. This functionality is pretty cool. I do get my house wifi through most of my yard so the connectivity issue would only really come up during field day setups. I'm still going to tinker and see what I can. Creating a wifi hotspot should be do-able I'd think. Thanks all, Andy
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
The Samsung S4 connected right up with the H with the TCPUART app. When it came to the server portion I had also checked the box to use the connection by default.
On my Lenovo ideapad running Win 10 and the NanoVNA-app 1.1.208 I connected to the phone and could run a continuous feed without problem. I'd call that a victory.
This functionality is pretty cool. I do get my house wifi through most of my yard so the connectivity issue would only really come up during field day setups. I'm still going to tinker and see what I can. Creating a wifi hotspot should be do-able I'd think.
Thanks all,
Andy
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
QUOTE (Jim Lux): .....short antennas have a different pattern than full
size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
Jim, if we address small tuned loops on transmit, the efficiency over a
dipole radiator is considerably less, in round numbers, -20 dB.
In the limit of a point radiator (if it could radiate) - a true isotropic
source, the efficiency is zip, zero.
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 7:28?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote: This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the
outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from
it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance.
(aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a
different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't
intrinsically different).
-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna
performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as
that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so
it’s easier to match,
Ray
-- *Dave - W?LEV*
--
Dave - W?LEV
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
The TCPUART app enables a simple TCP connection to the IP network, so it should work with any method of getting your phone and the computer on a network with the same IP address space, ad-hoc or peer-to-peer or whatever. I just used my home wifi because that was easiest (my computer already was on that network). Using hotspot mode may work, but some phones require a cellular connection to get the phone to activate a hotspot (since the normal intent of hotspot software is to bridge the wifi to the cell connection to the network).
And correct, my OTG adaptor is for the phone, not the nano. It is an old one I used with an old Samsung tablet I had, to attach external devices.
Good luck, and let us know what you find out.
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
This is using resonance as a choke, not resonance of the entire antenna.
You want your choke to be high Z, so that currents don't flow on the outside of the coax.
As far as the antenna goes, if you can drive it or couple power to/from it, whether it's resonant or not makes no difference on the performance. (aside from any other length related issues - short antennas have a different pattern than full size antenna, but their "efficiency" isn't intrinsically different).
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: < [email protected]> Sent: Mar 4, 2024 9:54 AM To: < [email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as that’s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so it’s easier to match, Ray
|
Re: DFU drivers not loading
On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 01:58 PM, John Mazzone wrote:
I cant get the DFU driver to work. WIN11 opsys.
I tried all the procedures in the "absolute beginner guide" but no dice.
/g/nanovna-users/message/33097Roger
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
Yes, if it has the ability to be a hotspot that would work.
An advantage of "connecting both to a network hot spot" as opposed to making the phone a hotspot/AP is that your computer can then hit other places on the network (like the web, or your file server, or email, or...) while you're connected to the NanoVNA.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: < [email protected]> Sent: Mar 4, 2024 10:39 AM To: < [email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] Question on remote use of NanoVNA Jim, I agree. I use the terms access point and hot spot interchangeably. Android or at least the old 5.0.1 version I'm looking at on these ancient Samsung S4's have the ability to turn the phone into a mobile Hotspot. Allowing sharing and file and data transfer would also have to be turned on. So it sounds promising I just need time to play and confirm how that will pair with TCPUART. Andy
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
Jim,
I agree. I use the terms access point and hot spot interchangeably. Android or at least the old 5.0.1 version I'm looking at on these ancient Samsung S4's have the ability to turn the phone into a mobile Hotspot. Allowing sharing and file and data transfer would also have to be turned on. So it sounds promising I just need time to play and confirm how that will pair with TCPUART.
Andy
|
Re: where is the end fed natural resonance
But then ARRL Antenna book says resonance has no affect on antenna performance. Hams like to operate antennas at or near resonance as that¡¯s where drive point impedance is at its lowest value so it¡¯s easier to match,
Ray
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
It would be a ¡°IP network connection¡±, so both ends need to be ¡°on the network¡±, whether by WiFi or wired.
If you could set up one end as an ¡°access point¡± and the other could connect to it, that would work.
It¡¯s been a long time since I¡¯ve seen WiFi in ad-hoc mode, rather than in ¡°infrastructure¡± mode (access point). However, if both ends are set up that way (which might also require assigning static IP addresses) no reason it shouldn¡¯t work.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 4, 2024, at 4:35?AM, Andrew Harman <Nexus9d9@...> wrote:
?Stan,
I pulled out an assortment of cell phones last night. Three were Samsung Galaxy S4's, an LTE A910. The S4's should work even though Android 5, the TCPUART program says its good back to 3.5. You do have an unusual OTG there. I've had similar connection issues with a dirty port.
With this software the OTG goes to the cell side of the cable (as you've shown) and throws the phone from being a peripheral to being into a host. I believe your wording indicated that your connection was dependent on your home wifi and not a peer-peer. I have to look at that.
Andy
|
Re: Question on remote use of NanoVNA
Stan,
I pulled out an assortment of cell phones last night. Three were Samsung Galaxy S4's, an LTE A910. The S4's should work even though Android 5, the TCPUART program says its good back to 3.5. You do have an unusual OTG there. I've had similar connection issues with a dirty port.
With this software the OTG goes to the cell side of the cable (as you've shown) and throws the phone from being a peripheral to being into a host. I believe your wording indicated that your connection was dependent on your home wifi and not a peer-peer. I have to look at that.
Andy
|
Re: Which version of the firmware supports rotary encoders
This was discussed 4 years ago and the developer(s) decided not to implement it since you also have the touch screen and at the time, code storage on the original devices was at a premium. A few owners decided to add push buttons instead. Have a look in the WIKI: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/13194#Buttons-and-switchesAlso have a look in the FILES area under mods.
|
Jason Burchell
Roger Need