开云体育

David

The scan command implemented by edy555 can scan max 101 points.
I tried to convince him otherwise but failed.

Erik PD0EK

Hi Peter,
after much popular demand, it's now hiding at the bottom of the readme on
the GitHub page. Also available at the bottom of the "project homepage"
(which is a nice looking version of the readme):



I don't expect *anyone* to donate to me for making this. I've had a lot of
fun making it, and I'll keep working on it as long as I'm having fun. But
the option is there for those who feel such an obligation. :-)
--
Rune / 5Q5R

Sounds good! If your firmware has similar / compatible commands, there
shouldn't be any problems with it. I can't vouch for future releases, of
course, as I develop for the NanoVNA I happen to have :-) But I am happy if
my software also works for your community!

--
Rune / 5Q5R

I utilized an attenuator and a band-reject filter today to compare results of the nanoVNA with a Keysight analyzer:



The results were pleasantly surprising.

Tomorrow I'll be making similar comparisons at 144, 440 and 1030 MHz.

73,
John AE5X

It may be that there is a problem with my statement. We are currently testing nanovna-saver and nanovna-f, and it seems that they do not need to be modified to be compatible.Of course, we don't want to release a software that has the same name but different functions as nanovna-saver.

I do wonder whether with all the changes being proposed, you'll end up with something so expensive and esoteric that no-one will be able to afford it! Multi-board, plug-in processors, exotic materials. Probably have to be made by HP or whatever there's called today!

Nice to dream, though.

Cheers,
David
--
SatSignal Software - Quality software for you
Web:
Email: david-taylor@...
Twitter: @gm8arv

I'd have wished they'd contact me about it instead, but as it's open
source, they are of course free to use the code.

I may need to make sure they don't reuse the name, though, so there isn't
confusion about which version is which.

Thanks for letting me know :-)
--
Rune / 5Q5R
===============================

Rune,

Yes, as a user of the nanoVNA and with a nanoVNA-F on order, I would hope that only ONE NanoVNA-saver program was required and that it would adapt to either hardware.

Duplication and different (potentially incompatible) versions are the last thing we need!

Looking forward to more cooperation.

73,
David GM8ARV
--
SatSignal Software - Quality software for you
Web:
Email: david-taylor@...
Twitter: @gm8arv

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:00, yza <yzaVNA@...> wrote:

19 : "true value" - also : @Dr. David Kirkby :

/g/nanovna-users/message/3207

Hello,

We both thank you very much for the time you spent
to compose such a lengthy reply, by which you definitely
assured us that you are really interested on this subject,

I am interested. As an undergraduate student I spent some of my time at a
calibration laboratory run by the Ministry of Defence in the UK. That
placement got me interested in metrology, so measurement uncertainly.
However, I am *not* a metrologist. I have an interest in the subject, but
are not an expert.

Core of Measurement Uncertainty in VNA/nanoVNA,
that is, for example, when he insists to force his mind
to be trapped by the conventional triplet of the
"standards" (S,L,O), instead of the most general
one of "loads" (A,B,C)
-
he has been warned.

I can assure you that I am *not* trapped into assuming that the calibration
standards need to be open, short & load. I have designed and sold waveguide
calibration kits, where it is totally impossible to make a “open “. In
fact, I wrote an explanation of why an open can not be used for waveguide
calibrations about a year ago. You almost certainly know why, but I will
post the link, hoping to convince you I am not stuck into this
open/short/load procedure, and perhaps it will be useful to others



However, I am trying to bring to your attention the fact that in the
English speaking world, your use of “loads (A, B, C)” is *very confusing.*
Many people will interpret that as meaning three resistive devices.
Instead I believe that you should use the term

“*calibration standards (A,B,C)”*

Personally, I would write something like

“calibration standards (A, B, C), where typically A, B and C are a short,
open and a load, but A, B & C can theoretically be any combination of
three devices which have a different reflection coefficient at every
frequency over which they are used“

Although I admit that it is longer to write, it has several advantages.

* It avoids the use of the word “loads” which is confusing in the English
language.
* Making a reference to the three calibration standards typically being a
short, open and load will help the reader understand more.
* Stating that theoretically the calibration standards can be any
combination of three devices having different reflection coefficients, will
educate some readers who may not know this.
* By stating that theoretically any combination of three devices can be
used, will allow you to address the problem I stated earlier, that if the
phase of the calibration standards are too similar, the calibration will be
poor.

I am really trying to help you, but unless you address some of my concerns,
in particular the need to write your work in one document that at least
some English speaking readers will be able to follow, I fear nobody on this
group will understand your work.

I have a Fortran compiler (gcc), and probably could compile your Fortran
code. However, I am not going to do this unless you can give me a clearer
explanation of the scope of your work.

Dave
--
Dr. David Kirkby,
Kirkby Microwave Ltd,
drkirkby@...

Telephone 01621-680100./ +44 1621 680100

Registered in England & Wales, company number 08914892.
Registered office:
Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United
Kingdom

The NanoVNA firmware (as I understand it) assumes that the SMA Short, Open, and Load standards are ideal, with the single exception of defining the Open to have a C0 50 femtofarads.

I was wondering -- is this a sufficient definition for these standards, given the NanoVNA's frequency limit of 900 MHz? Or should we also be including values for C1-C3, L0-L3, Offset Loss and Offset Zo?

So I wrote some Matlab code to calculate a standard's Reflection Coefficient (Gamma) based on Keysight's "Full" model (using C0-C3, L0-L3, Offset Loss, Offset Delay and Offset Zo), and compared this to a simplified model in which all of these values were set to 0 except for C0 and Offset Delay.

I've attached a table of results.

My conclusion is that the simplified model (C1-C3, L0-L3, and Loss are set to 0, and Zo is set to 50) is perfectly adequate for use with the NanoVNA.

But my math could be wrong. Do my results seem correct?

(A detailed explanation of what I've done is in the top post of this blog: )

Thanks,

- Jeff, k6jca

P.S. I did NOT zero-out Offset Delay in my simplified model (I believe (but have not verified) that this delay IS assumed to be zero in the NanoVNA firmware). If the actual Offset Delays for the Open and Short standards are defined by their supplier to be non-zero, then the net effect of zeroing out these delays is to simply move the reference plane of each -- i.e. rotate the Open and Short's reflection coefficients around the Smith Chart circle. However, note that zeroing out the two delays could become an issue if the Short's delay is NOT equal the Open's delay -- you would then lose this difference in delays (should this delta be large enough to be important)).

I conducted a small test with IP5303.
IP5303 does not work longer than 30 seconds with a load that consumes less than 65 milliamps. Nanovna consumes 90-110mA.
With such a current consumption, IP5303 should power the device for a long time, until the battery energy is depleted.
Test with the new IP5303, connect a 47-38 ohm resistor parallel to the capacitor C47.
If IP5303 will turn off at a load current of 100mA, then IP5303 is fake, or the elements in its bundle are faulty, although there are few of them.

Hi,

That's for you :

@edy555 edy555 released this 2 hours ago
in-device TDR support (contributed by @cho45)
add scan command for multisegment scan excess 101 points
fixed invalid sweep at the narrow span (<5kHz)
fixed failures caused by a race condition between USB and measuring loop
find device automatically in python script




Regards,
David F4HTQ

digit255,

Larry addressed this topic a couple of days ago:

" Larry Rothman
Sep 26 #3138

As hugen mentioned yesterday, he is thinking of re-integrating (merging?) the larger fonts with his current source code.
The larger fonts were created in order to display Chinese characters.
Hopefully, that will offer more options to all us older, more mature folk."

Basically the larger font size cannot be used with the most recent firmware until memory is freed up by first dumpling the space used to create Chinese characters.


Herb

Hi Rune,
I tested a BP-filter and I am wondering why the VSWR plot is interrupted. If you take a look at the attached screenshot, there is no VSWR line from about 268MHz till 846MHz. A tested LP-filter shows a similar symptom.
Would you please take a look at it?
Did anybody of the group see similar VSWR plots?

Kind regards
Norbert, DG1KPN

Not yet but forum member hugen is looking into something to help with this.
Stay tuned...may take a week or two.

Bo

I am the owner of RFzero (THANK YOU!) and of three, soon to be four, Nanovnas. While it does not fundamentally alter the discussion here, The Nanovna only has two frequency ranges: 55kHz to 300 MHz is accomplished using the fundamental. 300.01 MHz to 900 MHz is accomplished using the third harmonic of the Si5351 with the fundamental level boosted about 9 dB for this range.

Nanovna uses a second 5351 oscillator as a "tracking" source that operates 5 kHz above the measurement frequency and is used as a heterodyne source to the mixer which generates the 5 kHz audio signal for measurement. I believe (I have measured it but cannot find the data) that Nanovna uses the third harmonic for this "tracking" source from 300 - 600 MHz and then switches to the 5th harmonic for 600-900 MHz.

So it goes like this:

55kHz - 300 MHz: Measurement = Fundamental; "Tracking" = Fundamental

300MHz - 600 MHz: Measurement = 3rd Harmonic; "Tracking" = 3rd Harmonic

600MHz - 900 MHz: Measurement = 3rd Harmonic; "Tracking" = 5th Harmonic

BTW..... I have a HUGE problem trying to decide between RFzero and Nanovna as which is my favorite instrument!

WA8TOD

Rune wrote:

" I'd have wished they'd contact me about it instead, but as it's open
source, they are of course free to use the code.

I may need to make sure they don't reuse the name, though, so there isn't
confusion about which version is which "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember edy555 having similar thoughts after Hugen started selling the NanoVNA based on his original open source design. For a brief history lesson, see posted comments from edy555 to Hugen below:


" Hi hugen,

I'm an original developer of NanoVNA.

When I knew that you made the clone of my project, I very surprised that
you made PCB from schematics, and as an enthusiast, I felt pleased with
your challenges such as frequency range expansion and your original pc
software.

However, I was annoyed that you sell your clone without any prior notice
to me. Though I had a plan to forge and sell my product, it becomes
difficult.

Furthermore, your act cause that your design material was stolen by other
clone makers, and quite many units were sold in aliex, ebay and also amazon.
Those include worse clone as you say. This is a worrying state of affairs I think,
and you might agree.

To distinguish any unexpected clones, I propose that you should change your
product name by adding a suffix such as NanoVNA-H from your name, and it
should be shown in the market and printed on your product.

And also I'd like to publish the name of qualified products, so customers
become able to avoid worse clone.

I hope you think about this issue seriously.

Regards,

edy555
Aug 13, 2019 "


Herb

Is there build firmware with battery indicator, 1500 MHz and big font ?
I only found with small font.

Hi Herman,
That is really strange. However, your Nano is not lost -just buy a cheap power bank that puts out 5v and use that to power the Nano, which really runs from 5v, not 3.7v.
In fact, you can always buy a very inexpensive and small charger-inverter board from the likes of banggood for around $2.
Yes, I know it's a pain in the butt but at least you can keep using your unit.

These boards use the 54xx chip..




Note both boards use a 4R7 coil but the cheaper board uses a 33ohm in series with USB 5v but the more expensive board uses 2 - 1ohm in parallel for current limiting.
I wonder if these chips are sensitive to input current from USB and are being damaged somehow.
Try placing a 33ohm at the 5v input to the chip and see if that helps.

You might be able to transplant parts from one of these modules to the Nano.

Regards
Larry

Its time to give Rune a cup of coffee!
Where is the paypal button?? :-)

Peter
Op 28-9-2019 om 15:06 schreef Rune Broberg:

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:38 PM, yza wrote:

where, the sine qua non Core Uncertainty is due both to:

(a) the 5 = 2 + 1 + 2 uncertainties of the S, L, and O standards,
which are known from their manufacturers' data, as well as

(b) the 8 = 2 x 4 inaccuracies of the four VNA readings,

that is the Core Uncertainty is due to a combination of
26 = 13 x 2 error bounds, in total.

Hello yin&pez,

Thank you for introducing the topic of errors of error-models. This discussion is very interesting.

To help me understand, I would like to ask a few questions.

First, you mention that the S and O standards have 2 uncertainties each (while the load has 1 uncertainty). How are you defining these uncertainties? Are they defined as uncertainties in a Standard's Reflection Coefficient (that is, uncertainties in rho and theta), or are they defined to be something else? And why does the load only have 1 uncertainty?

Second, you mention the inaccuracies of the four VNA readings (two inaccuracies for each of the four readings, which I assume are the three readings for the SOL standards plus a fourth reading for the device-under-test). Could you please explain what these inaccuracies are and how one determines them?

Finally, how did you arrive at a Core Uncertainty of 26 error bounds? I can see how you calculate 13 (by adding 5 plus 8), but I do not understand why this value is then multiplied by 2.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards,

- Jeff, k6jca