开云体育

I would presume type 43 material is used?

For 160 and 80-meters your setup is quite reasonable. If you scanned to 30
MHz, likely a clean-up would be required, but you are aware of that.

Good work!

Dave - W?LEV

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

Here’s what I did to measure the common mode attenuation of a current balun that I recently constructed.
--
VE6WGM

Dragan,

Thank you for clarifying what you did on your tests. I took a look at the .s2p file that you posted and see that you get the same large S21 phase shift that I got in my tests. I posted my plot of your S21 data below. For a tiny SMD resistor like the one you used the phase shift should be minimal (at least on the lower frequencies.). The S21 magnitude loss is very close to what it should be for a 10K resistor but that phase shift will give a lower R value and indicate reactance that isn't there if I understand this correctly. Do you agree?

I also did a conversion from serial to parallel impedance and your S11 measurement was surprising close to 10K ohms. For a VNA designed for 50 ohm system impedance this was very good. Plot attached.

Roger

Hi all!
I don't know if I have problem, a faulty display or a firmware bug. I'm testing the function L/C Match. I enable the function by clicking "MARKER/SMITH VALUE/L/C MATCH" in the menu system, but I get no visible text on my screen! I also have a nanoVNA SAA-2N, and it's working nice in this model, but not in the NanoVNA H4.....
By studying the screen very close, I can see parts of letters. I can see the lines are interferred with black pixels! I can se the pattern changes when moving the marker and it seems to mee that the letters are written in black, and therefor they are not shown. Anyone out there seen this, or is it only me/my system?

I compared the SAA2N and the H4, and there is something odd with the SAA2N too, not really a problem, just a bit odd. When using the function on the SAA2N, some of the results fro the L/C Match calculation is not removed from the screen. This only happens when using a stylus to move the marker, and not when moving the push buttons!

I almost forgot to mention the firmware version information :-)
NanoVNA-H 4 have got the 1.0.45 from Dec 15 2020 - 20-03:40
The NanoVNA SAA 2N have got version: git-202001226-7b1abc9 Built Time: Dec 27 2020 - 00:35:52

Anyone else seen this problems?

Karl Jan - LA3FY

Your setup is far from ideal, the breadboard is rarely
a proper choice for VNA measurements.
If you want to go via that route use something like this:

Most of it is in the initial post, except for software (SimSmith).
Plot commands for SimSmith were:

Plot("R1", S1.z.R, "Ω", "y1");
Plot("X1", S1.z.X, "Ω", "y2");
Plot("Z1", S1.z.M, "Ω", "y1");

I have attached the simsmith circuit and the s2p file if someone wants to
play with it.
The second set of measurements were done with the test jig directly at
port2, in the first
test the jig was connected via 30cm of RG405. I was lazy, could not be
bothered to
solder a jumper on the jig so I did not calibrate out the test jig, just
used a -2ps offset.


On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 18:16, Roger Need via groups.io <sailtamarack=
[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 06:43 PM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:

Calibrated with "0 length through", test jig connected to port2 directly:

You did not provide any detail in your post about your test setup or how
you derived R, X and Z from the S21 measurement. I do not recognize the
plot formats that you are using. Also you did not describe what component
you are measuring.

For those that are not familiar with the S21 series method here is an
introductory paper.


Keysight gives a derivation of the conversion formula. (note S21 is a
complex number)



If we are to have a discussion on this topic please let the group know a
bit about what you are doing...
- What VNA is being used
- A description of the test jig
- What software program or method you are using to convert S21 to complex
impedance (R,X)
- What component you are measuring. I suggest a 1K SMD resistor of around
1000 ohms because it is easy to see measurement errors and compare
results. Another is a 10 pF SMD capacitor or very short lead ceramic type.

- When I measure (with a NanoVNA-H4) a 1K resistor on a microstrip with 50
ohm impedance my S21 phase starts at 0 but goes to 17 degrees by 100 MHz.
. It should stay close to 0 degrees for a component that has minimal
inductance.

Roger

This user group is for both versions (I believe) but a new topic would
be appreciated.

Firmware clone, especially when it is an open source project
is a meaningless term. Hope that clears things up.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 06:43 PM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:

Calibrated with "0 length through", test jig connected to port2 directly:

You did not provide any detail in your post about your test setup or how you derived R, X and Z from the S21 measurement. I do not recognize the plot formats that you are using. Also you did not describe what component you are measuring.

For those that are not familiar with the S21 series method here is an introductory paper.


Keysight gives a derivation of the conversion formula. (note S21 is a complex number)


If we are to have a discussion on this topic please let the group know a bit about what you are doing...
- What VNA is being used
- A description of the test jig
- What software program or method you are using to convert S21 to complex impedance (R,X)
- What component you are measuring. I suggest a 1K SMD resistor of around 1000 ohms because it is easy to see measurement errors and compare results. Another is a 10 pF SMD capacitor or very short lead ceramic type.

- When I measure (with a NanoVNA-H4) a 1K resistor on a microstrip with 50 ohm impedance my S21 phase starts at 0 but goes to 17 degrees by 100 MHz. . It should stay close to 0 degrees for a component that has minimal inductance.

Roger

It's a cool firmware. But I think we have to discuss this in an other group. It's not for V1.

--
Klaus, DL5KV

I'm not sure, but I think there are clones for H4 firmware, too. This ist only a notice of me. Maybe this problem doesn't exist on the V1. I haven't updated the firmware on V1 for a long time.

--
Klaus, DL5KV

This has been discussed before:
/g/nanovna-users/message/2726
45 messages in thread.

a number of thread of similar problems on different units. So I don't think a dif mfg is going to solve the problem. One solution in a thread was to add ESD diodes which may be the best solution. Not sure what the best type are, but the ones specified were listed as "not for new design" and there were a couple opinions as to operating and clamping voltage. So if anyone has a good suggestion RE ESD diodes???

Wow! Your calculator is great Lex.

Thank you for making it available to the rest of us.

John
AA7US

TU sir. Yes tried cal right at the terminal no cables. Checked the short and it is. The load is 50 ohms
I am too unsure of loading firmware but a Buddy ham offered Thought might hv been a static discharge as I was measuring the character of an antenna. So who knows. Perhaps he can un mess it up Hihi
Good excuse to buy the H4 from another Chinese company.
73 my friends
Paulk


Paul Kobetz
SKCC 19615C
CWOPS 2589
Rubicon Observatory

Instead of taking it personally and flying off the handle how about you offer an explanation as to why the Drake engineers put an electrolytic in this spot in the circuit? I posed this to Garey K4OAH (SK) who had as along and storied a career as you. He called it a "buzz kill" without further explanation I left it at that.

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:24:37 +0000
"David Eckhardt" <davearea51a@...> wrote:

On second thought, forget it. Those of us who have been there, done that
know better. I have a well outfitted RF lab covering to 21 GHz and know
how to use the equipment. I'm through replying to your posts. Go find
someone else to flame......

Reapectfully submetted:

Dave - W?LEV

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:17 PM David Eckhardt <davearea51a@...>
wrote:

OK. I'm stupid and really don't know what I'm talking about. I spread
snake oil, saucery, witchcraft, and magic as applied to RF. Smith charts
are just disguised wiggie boards. And, of course, the earth is flat and
all celestial movements are determined by epicycles and epispheres. I
spent 10 years in RF design and the last 30 in EMC/RFI. Color me stupid,
dumb, incapable of handling DC Ohm's Law and don't know which end of the
soldering pen to grab.

I do not appreciate being attacked for my posts. I am working on data and
will post to this group.

Electrolytic, tantalums do NOT make good bypasses for high frequencies. I
proved that to myself decades ago in RF design and following in control of
EMC/RFI. Go build a preamp using only SMD 'electrolytics'. Control RF
emission of a ?P ringing at 3.6 GHz with only SMD 'electrolytics'. I am
taking data on that and will present it to this group. Please hold off on
flaming me further until that work is complete?

Dave - W?LEV

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 2:43 AM Jim Shorney <jshorney@...>
wrote:

Drake TR7/TR4310.

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 03:31:07 +0100
"Dragan Milivojevic" <d.milivojevic@...> wrote:

Forgot to ask, what's this legendary piece of equipment,
it has transistors so it can't be that good ?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 03:27, Jim Shorney <jshorney@...>

wrote:

Yeah, I remembered that about the one on the left after I sent the

pic.

The one on the right he called a "buzz kill".

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 02:07:44 +0000 (UTC)
"Bob Albert via groups.io" <bob91343@...> wrote:

The left hand one is bypassed with a .01 so that doesn't count. I

am

puzzled by the other one; what's it supposed to do?

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

Calibrated with "0 length through", test jig connected to port2 directly:

X:

[image: image.png]

R:

[image: image.png]

Z:

[image: image.png]



On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 01:38, Roger Need via groups.io <sailtamarack=
[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:55 PM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:

It has been stated, by multiple members of this group, that due to

hardware

deficiencies (port 2 is not a perfect 50Ω) and lack of 12 term error
correction,
the "S21 method" can't be used to measure high impedance reliably.

Yes this is true. The "S21 series method" is a way of calculating the
complex impedance (R+jX) of a device under test (DUT). Unfortunately it
does not work on a NanoVNA-H or -H4 which are 2 port uni-directional
analyzers for the reasons you outlined in your post.

If you try it you will find that you can calculate the magnitude of a high
impedance |Z| DUT fairly well but the phase angle is not correct except at
very low frequencies. You need the correct phase angle in order to convert
from polar (Z&angle) to polar (R+jX) format.

Users interested in trying this should use a SMD resistor as the DUT which
should have a S21 phase angle very close to zero. You will only get this
at very low frequencies. A small capacitor as the DUT should have a phase
angle near 90 degrees but this will be incorrect as you increase frequency.
I have seen this on several test jigs that I have built.

If users want to try these measurements be very careful with parasitic
capacitance on the test fixture. The capacitance across the terminals
where you connect the DUT has to be well under a pF or the S21 loss in dB
will be incorrect.

Roger

Hi Roger
Man, it sure did go off topic. (Bypass caps; where did that come from? Should be a whole thread on its own.) All I wanted was for someone to tell me how to use nano to measure caps and inds. Well, it forced me to do it right; get some data. I now understand more about component values and frequencies. And as long as I measure parts at very low frequencies, it appears that I get good data. And on three different machines. Now I'm gong to build some test fixtures for real world components and see what happens.
But... I now have all kinds of questions about why those components seem to retain their marked values at high frequencies (if they didn't, you couldn't calculate resonant frequencies), but that's another topic.
BTW: part of the weirdness in the inductor plots (sudden knee in curves) is due t coarseness in frequency steps. But finer steps wouldn't change the general trends. It's a mystery to me.
--
Ed K9EK

Paul,

Don't throw in the towel yet.

Did you have the NanoVNA anywhere near a transmitter? I wouldn't put more than about 20 dBm into CH0 or CH1 or you can blow out the front end.

Have you tried connecting it to a PC program like NanoVNA Sharp to see if that works?

There have been problems like this reported before and sometimes it was faulty cal loads or a faulty cable. I know you tested the 50 ohm load but what about the short load? Do the cal right on the SMA connectors without a cable attached to eliminate one source of error. Try setting the frequency range to something low like 30 MHz. and see if that works.

Sometimes users forget to press Reset before doing a cal and Done when finished. I always hit Reset twice to make sure and then check the left of the screen to see that it is cleared.

As a last resort you could try reloading your firmware but only after all other avenues have been exhausted.

Hope you get it working again.

Roger

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 05:03 PM, Ed Krome wrote:

NWDZ board, like it says in the graphs. All calibrated on the same board with
a single cable, as stated. And results were repeatable; I ran it several
times. Are the board standards 100% accurate? Who knows? But the results were
remarkably consistent over specific ranges.

Ed,

Sorry that this discussion went so far off topic. It would be really interesting to get an answer to your initial question. From reading your posts and looking at your data I think it might be one of the following.

1. You can see in the photos of your board and the other board there is quite a difference in the layout of the cal loads. You want the reference plane to be right where the device under test (DUT) is connected. On your board it looks like the open and short are not at the same location as the load. This is fairly critical for accurate measurements. Also the DUT should be in the same position as the load especially for higher frequency measurements.

2. Your cap plot is pretty typical. Inductance will make the "apparent capacitance" rise with frequency. In your plot you went to 300 MHz. and if you tried 600 MHz. you will see the circuit at its self -resonant frequency. After that you effectively have an inductor. The exact frequency can be easily determined by plotting the S11 phase angle - it will abruptly change at resonance. I have attached a plot I did of a 10 pf cap with short and long leads which illustrates this point.

3. It is hard to figure out what is going on with your inductor plot. It should not be abruptly changing at 30 MHz. You do get considerable inductance change with ferrite inductors versus frequency because the complex permeability changes. With powdered iron very little and with air-core types it is self capacitance which has the most effect. It would be interesting to see the S11 phase plot and the resistance plot over this frequency range.

Regards - Roger