¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
Date

About cable delay compensation and NanoVna_Saver #improvement #test-jig #tdr #nanovna-saver #measurement

 

I have an open circuit on the other end of some 50cm of coaxial cable. What is the easiest way to insert some delay to tune off that cable. NanoVna_save seems to need to calibrate the Vna after every delay. That is not very good because I don't know delay exact delay yet, I wish to test different delays until I see an "open" in charts.


Re: Amplitude calibration

ejfelix4976
 

Yes, that¡¯s exactly what I see


Re: SimSmith - great, not only for Measuring resonance from coax far end.

 

Sorry, after having rearranged my text, some not meant to send text had remained below

73, Hans
DJ7BA

Sorry, please ignore this remainder.



Von: DJ7BA <dj7ba@...>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Januar 2020 22:33
An: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Betreff: AW: [nanovna-users] SimSmith - great, not only for Measuring resonance from coax far end.



Hi Jim,


yes, once you got started using SimSmith, you will not want to miss it anymore. It is the perfect companion
of NannVNA and NanoVNA saver or any VNA. You can not only ¡°measure resonance from coax far end¡±, but so much more.
The best freeware ever programmed ¨C imho ¨C for radio amateur and RF engineering use.



There is, however, one little precaution that needs to be mentioned here, as you said this about SimSmith:

> Like drop in an LC element between two impedances, and it automatically calculates appropriate values to match.

In a sense (when finally matched) that is correct. More generally, (when mismatched) it is not.

I assume you want to get best power transfer (making best use of available power).



SimSmith uses the correct Gamma calculation for T R A N S M IS S I O N L I N E S by using this formula:

Gamma = (Z2 - Z1) / (Z2 + Z1) (a) with Z2 being the load impedance, Z1 the characteristic wave impedance of the line.

This type (a) calculation also is the mapping formula in Smith Charts between the Z (or Y) plane and the Gamma plane.
So far so good, nothing wrong.

But (a) is not generally adequate in your case. Let¡¯s look at this circuit:



Interconnecting two identical impedances, doesn¡¯t lead to maximum power transfer as (a) could make you think.
This is a common mistake resulting from using (a) only and neglecting the difference between

characteristic wave impedance of the line
and
impedance toward the generator (or source).

In your case the impedance toward the source is given. So, instead (a) we need:

Gamma = (ZL - Zs*) / (ZL + Zs) (b) with ZL being impedance toward the load, Zs the impedance toward the source,
and * meaning conjugate complex.

(b) sometimes is called is the "generalized reflection factor". It is valid for any, including imperfectly matched, impedances.
In most publications, this general formula is not mentioned, but often the special case of perfect conjugate match is.

Gamma at resonance does not get real in (a), but only in (b).
Using (a) for arbitrary impedances even could result in negative SWR,
that SimSmith covers up in later versions by saying SWR = |SWR|, thus ironing away the bad looking negative SWR. Why?

Ward Harriman, AE6TY, program Author of SimSmith, belongs to a school that does not accept the difference above.

This school, instead, teaches and believes in a doctrine ¨C that (making me shake my head) even became something like a standard:



(The above I found in a glossary from ATIS or former ANSI.)

The difference of (a) and (b) is marginal near resonance, that is, for well-tuned narrow band antennas.
But it can become important at larger mismatch, i.e. like using a 1.8 MHz resonant antenna at 2.0 MHz,
or when using way out-of-resonance antennas, i.e. an electrically short antenna, with a rig side only tuner.

Having mentioned this little (worth a foot note) precaution, I anyway strongly insist:

SimSmith is absolutely recommended. It's all worth the reasonably small time investment it takes to get started.
I Strongly recommend it. Don¡¯t panic because of the vast number of possibilities SimSmith offers.

Go, find it at

Download it at

and use it with great benefit.

Anyone interested in more detail of (b), is invited to ask me for the derivation of (b).
It takes, however, some basic complex math understanding.

Please don¡¯t try to bother AE6TY with suggesting (b). I did. Save his time. He just doesn¡¯t want it.


73, Hans
DJ7BA










But you wanted to match two impedances by an L/C network (Tuner) made of lumped L and C (but no line) in this example.

Here we have no characteristic wave impedance, but we have two impedances: One, Z2, toward the generator, as above.
But another one, Z1, toward the generator. That one is NOT any characteristic wave impedance of any cable.

As there are no reflections (that would be caused at a mismatched, terminated cable end), but we have a simple
AC serial circuit with the following: Generator (thought as made of a constant voltage source and some Th¨¦venin
internal impedance), and a load impedance (having an resistive part and a reactive part) . That's all. So there is
no reflection (though generally quite often people speak of a reflection factor, as if we had a misterminated line).



The above (a) will do that -in case of perfect conjugate match - a situation we often want, of course.





-----Urspr¨¹ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Im Auftrag von Jim Allyn - N7JA
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Januar 2020 05:02
An: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [nanovna-users] Measuring resonance from coax far end.



On 1/9/20 3:55 PM, WB2UAQ wrote:

I bet SimSmith will make it even easier but right now I don't have the
patience to sit still and figure out how to run it:)




You won't need any patience, it's amazingly simple. Like drop in an LC element between two impedances, and it automatically calculates appropriate values to match. Tell it you want a high pass instead of a low pass, and it automatically recalculates.


Re: SimSmith - great, not only for Measuring resonance from coax far end.

 

Hi Jim,


yes, once you got started using SimSmith, you will not want to miss it anymore. It is the perfect companion
of NannVNA and NanoVNA saver or any VNA. You can not only ¡°measure resonance from coax far end¡±, but so much more.
The best freeware ever programmed ¨C imho ¨C for radio amateur and RF engineering use.




There is, however, one little precaution that needs to be mentioned here, as you said this about SimSmith:

> Like drop in an LC element between two impedances, and it automatically calculates appropriate values to match.

In a sense (when finally matched) that is correct. More generally, (when mismatched) it is not.

I assume you want to get best power transfer (making best use of available power).



SimSmith uses the correct Gamma calculation for T R A N S M IS S I O N L I N E S by using this formula:

Gamma = (Z2 - Z1) / (Z2 + Z1) (a) with Z2 being the load impedance, Z1 the characteristic wave impedance of the line.

This type (a) calculation also is the mapping formula in Smith Charts between the Z (or Y) plane and the Gamma plane.
So far so good, nothing wrong.

But (a) is not generally adequate in your case. Let¡¯s look at this circuit:





Interconnecting two identical impedances, doesn¡¯t lead to maximum power transfer as (a) could make you think.
This is a common mistake resulting from using (a) only and neglecting the difference between

characteristic wave impedance of the line
and
impedance toward the generator (or source).

In your case the impedance toward the source is given. So, instead (a) we need:

Gamma = (ZL - Zs*) / (ZL + Zs) (b) with ZL being impedance toward the load, Zs the impedance toward the source,
and * meaning conjugate complex.

(b) sometimes is called is the "generalized reflection factor". It is valid for any, including imperfectly matched, impedances.
In most publications, this general formula is not mentioned, but often the special case of perfect conjugate match is.

Gamma at resonance does not get real in (a), but only in (b).
Using (a) for arbitrary impedances even could result in negative SWR,
that SimSmith covers up in later versions by saying SWR = |SWR|, thus ironing away the bad looking negative SWR. Why?

Ward Harriman, AE6TY, program Author of SimSmith, belongs to a school that does not accept the difference above.

This school, instead, teaches and believes in a doctrine ¨C that (making me shake my head) even became something like a standard:



(The above I found in a glossary from ATIS or former ANSI.)

The difference of (a) and (b) is marginal near resonance, that is, for well-tuned narrow band antennas.
But it can become important at larger mismatch, i.e. like using a 1.8 MHz resonant antenna at 2.0 MHz,
or when using way out-of-resonance antennas, i.e. an electrically short antenna, with a rig side only tuner.

Having mentioned this little (worth a foot note) precaution, I anyway strongly insist:

SimSmith is absolutely recommended. It's all worth the reasonably small time investment it takes to get started.
I Strongly recommend it. Don¡¯t panic because of the vast number of possibilities SimSmith offers.

Go, find it at

Download it at

and use it with great benefit.

Anyone interested in more detail of (b), is invited to ask me for the derivation of (b).
It takes, however, some basic complex math understanding.

Please don¡¯t try to bother AE6TY with suggesting (b). I did. Save his time. He just doesn¡¯t want it.


73, Hans
DJ7BA










But you wanted to match two impedances by an L/C network (Tuner) made of lumped L and C (but no line) in this example.

Here we have no characteristic wave impedance, but we have two impedances: One, Z2, toward the generator, as above.
But another one, Z1, toward the generator. That one is NOT any characteristic wave impedance of any cable.

As there are no reflections (that would be caused at a mismatched, terminated cable end), but we have a simple
AC serial circuit with the following: Generator (thought as made of a constant voltage source and some Th¨¦venin
internal impedance), and a load impedance (having an resistive part and a reactive part) . That's all. So there is
no reflection (though generally quite often people speak of a reflection factor, as if we had a misterminated line).



The above (a) will do that -in case of perfect conjugate match - a situation we often want, of course.






-----Urspr¨¹ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Jim Allyn - N7JA
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Januar 2020 05:02
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [nanovna-users] Measuring resonance from coax far end.



On 1/9/20 3:55 PM, WB2UAQ wrote:

I bet SimSmith will make it even easier but right now I don't have the
patience to sit still and figure out how to run it:)




You won't need any patience, it's amazingly simple. Like drop in an LC element between two impedances, and it automatically calculates appropriate values to match. Tell it you want a high pass instead of a low pass, and it automatically recalculates.


 

Hi Luc, Could you please show me the link for the english translation of
your presentation? I can not find File Section on your website.

Regards

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:16 AM Randall Steffens II via Groups.Io <pomology=
[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Luc, very helpful!
Randy
NC8U
On Jan 5, 2020, at 11:09 AM, Roger Need via Groups.Io <sailtamarack=
[email protected]> wrote:

?Thanks Luc for taking the time to write and translate this document.
Very well done...

Roger

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 08:31 AM, Luc ON7DQ wrote:

Hi Folks,

I finally did the translation myself, I realized it is difficult for
someone
else to get the meaning of what I wanted to tell ...





Re: RF Demo Kit Testing tutorial released

 

Test field 8 is a series LC. Hence at DC this is an Open.

It most have a trajectory that rotates CW and cross the short side of the chart at the series resonate point. There after the Z must be dominated by the L value and the rotation is confined to the upper portion of the chart.

It is a shame from an instructional point of view that the explanations for each of these test beds is so terse.


Re: Amplitude calibration

 

Just to be clear, you are saying that the vna gives an insertion loss that is different than what the SA TG provides and the difference is as much as 2- 3 dB?


Re: Amplitude calibration

ejfelix4976
 

There is a 2 to 3 dB difference between what the spec an says and the nanoVNA.
I know the spec an is good as it is calibrated.


Re: Amplitude calibration

 

Is there a difference in S21 after thru calibration using a direct cable between CH0 and CH1?
That should not be as the thru calibration should normalize S21

--
NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/home
NanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/files
Erik, PD0EK


Re: RF Demo Kit Testing tutorial released

 

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:15 PM, Klaus W?rner wrote:

Your Smith chart 8.png of test field 8 (470 nH) shows at low frequency an
Open.
That can not be correct.
This is correct. 8 contains a series capacitor. This is an isolator at low
frequency.
Hello Klaus,
It looks like, tha we have slightly differen PCB layouts.
My PCB layout was posted in number 9245.

73, Rudi DL5FA


Re: RF Demo Kit Testing tutorial released

 

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:07 PM, Klaus W?rner wrote:

Yes. The other ones are OK.
Hello Klaus,

I am glad that your RF Demo Kit now works as it should.
I think it is mainly for learning, and not for every day work.

73, Rudi DL5FA


Re: Amplitude calibration

ejfelix4976
 

Thanks for the replies!
Actually My spec an has a tracking gen which I normalize.
I noticed after doing a cal on the nanovna and nanoVNA F that there is a 2 to 3 dB difference in the measurement.
Used the same cables and the frequency was 6.5M to 14.5M on both
RBW was 3 KHz
I know the spec an is good.
I was curious if there is a way to adjust the Nanovna calibration to reflect the same value.


Re: nanovna that continues to indicate 50 ohms when S11 is open

Bob Albert
 

Sometimes the 'scale' function needs to be reset to 1:1.
Bob

On Friday, January 10, 2020, 10:08:45 AM PST, Torbj?rn Toreson <torbjorn.toreson@...> wrote:

Quite right, whatever impedance but no signal in on CH1 will show 50 ohm. Thanks.
/Torbjorn


Re: Poor Manual

 

From: Robert E. Gross

Where can I get better manual or instructions?
==========================



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


Re: RF Demo Kit Testing tutorial released

 

Your Smith chart 8.png of test field 8 (470 nH) shows at low frequency an
Open.
That can not be correct.
This is correct. 8 contains a series capacitor. This is an isolator at low frequency.


Re: nanovna that continues to indicate 50 ohms when S11 is open

 

Quite right, whatever impedance but no signal in on CH1 will show 50 ohm. Thanks.
/Torbjorn


Re: RF Demo Kit Testing tutorial released

 

Yes. The other ones are OK.


Re: We started selling nanoVNA-H4 using STM32F303CCT6 and 4-inch LCD

 

Hugen - Nice work. I am looking forward to working with the improved version.

On the alibaba page, the four inch model is the more expensive of the two listed, correct?

Cheers, bill


Re: nanovna that continues to indicate 50 ohms when S11 is open

 

50 ohm on CH1 means no input signal to CH1 as expected

--
NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/home
NanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/files
Erik, PD0EK


Re: nanovna that continues to indicate 50 ohms when S11 is open

 

Colin,

What You see in blue on the screen is the CH1 Smith Chart and the value off 50 ohm is to best of my knowledge the input impedance of CH1. Switch to Channel 0 reflect and the marker will jump to the right sida showing infinity. I just tested that myself since I was curious of the 50 ohm on an open CH1. Calibration with SOL on CH0 will not affect what You see on CH1.
Regards/Torbjorn