Yes, I was doing that too. I also did as Roger suggested and hit RESET several times with no luck.
|
±á±ð°ù²Ô¨¢²Ô,
Ensure that you do a "CAL->RESET" before you do the OPEN, SHORT, LOAD, ISOLATION, THRU calibration. Skipping that step can result in a bad calibration state even though all screen indications look normal.
- Herb
|
Are you doing a RESET before Calibration. I find sometimes I have to touch RESET a few times to perform the operation.
Roger
|
I had tried with another set of cables with the same result. I measured the cables not connected to anything and on DC they measure fine. Connected to the VNA both read 50 ohms (DC)
|
Check your cables with an ohm meter (DMM). Your photo is fuzzy but it looks like you have a short....
Roger
|
I recently tried to measure the loss in my cables for HF ham radio. I did the calibration steps, but when I do the THRU calibration, after calibrating the CH1 LOGMAG line isn't flat at 0dB. It looks like this:
What could be causing this?
Thanks.
|
Hot on the heels of his beta 0.8 firmware release for the NanoVNA, DiSlord has followed it up with an additional beta firmware release which adds user selectable averaging via a "DISPLAY->BANDWIDTH" menu. Bandwidth can be set to 1 kHz, 300 Hz, 100 Hz, 30 Hz or 10 Hz. As any who has used a commercial VNA can tell you, using averaging can smooth out your data but at the expense of sl-o-o-owing down sweep rates. Truly no such thing as a free lunch.
Latest beta is located at . This is a preview of where the next edy555 firmware release is headed.
I thought there were no more tricks in the firmware developers bags to add more features to the limited flash space of the NanoVNA-H. That was t the main reason I begin gravitating towards the NanoVNA-H4 and NanoVNA-F. DiSLord's re-write and optimization of the NanoVNA's firmware, shows the NanoVNA-H is not quite ready to relinquish its crown. Looks like the -H4 and -F will be behind the curve until the upcoming edy555 firmware releases are ported to them.
Per DiSLord:
"When you drop below 1kHz, the scanning speed is significantly reduced, and the responsiveness of the menu drops, but is generally workable."
Also as previously noted, this beta firmware release is not for the NanoVNA-H4 or NanoVNA-F.
- Herb
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
Regarding, "...am leaning more toward the -F because of the IPS display being (much?) more visible outdoors (in bright light)."
Although it is cloudy so I cannot do the experiment in sunlight just now and I appear to have the model with better contrast anyway, but when I use polarized sun glasses I can turn the nanoVNA 90 degrees from normal and get improved contrast.
Try it when you get the chance.
Hope this helps,
F. Lee Erickson
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: hwalker Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 3:58 PM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4 On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:39 AM, DougVL wrote: I have been looking at the same question, but am leaning more toward the -F because of the IPS display being (much?) more visible outdoors (in bright light). I have an early model now updated to current firmware, but it is almost unusable outdoors. ======================================================== Doug, The display of the NanoVNA-H4 is better than the early model NanoVNA-H. It is slightly smaller than the NanoVNA-F (4" vs 4.3") and also has less screen resolution. The actual character size of the value readouts is about the same, because the NanoVNA-F uses up some of the screen with additional vertical scaling. More to your point, the NanoVNA-F has no brightness control and cannot be adjusted for different viewing conditions. The brightness of the NanoVNA-H4 is adjustable and at its maximum level is brighter than the NanoVNA-F and more visible in sunlight. The attached photo shows both units under the same strong sunlight condition. The graticule lines of the NanoVNA-H4 display are not as washed out. So yes, the NanoVNA-F's display has higher resolution, but it is only brighter if the NanoVNA-H4's brightness is not set to maximum. On a really sunny day either unit will probably have you squinting at the screen. - Herb
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:09 PM, Nbridgema wrote:
The -F and -H4 are different hardware/firmware platforms, but both interface with NanoVNA-Saver, so give the same analysis and documentation benefits.
=================================
In regards to documentation, Rune has been trying to get information on the format of the NanoVNA-F's "capture" command for while. I'm not sure what the hold-up has been for the NanoVNA-F's developers to provide that information. If screenshots for inclusion in a report matter to you, then its a bummer to find out that NanoVNA-saver does not provide that feature when used with the NanoVNA-F. Hopefully, by the next version release of NanoVNA-saver this will have been worked out.
- Herb
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:39 AM, DougVL wrote:
I have been looking at the same question, but am leaning more toward the -F because of the IPS display being (much?) more visible outdoors (in bright light). I have an early model now updated to current firmware, but it is almost unusable outdoors.
========================================================
Doug,
The display of the NanoVNA-H4 is better than the early model NanoVNA-H. It is slightly smaller than the NanoVNA-F (4" vs 4.3") and also has less screen resolution. The actual character size of the value readouts is about the same, because the NanoVNA-F uses up some of the screen with additional vertical scaling.
More to your point, the NanoVNA-F has no brightness control and cannot be adjusted for different viewing conditions. The brightness of the NanoVNA-H4 is adjustable and at its maximum level is brighter than the NanoVNA-F and more visible in sunlight. The attached photo shows both units under the same strong sunlight condition. The graticule lines of the NanoVNA-H4 display are not as washed out.
So yes, the NanoVNA-F's display has higher resolution, but it is only brighter if the NanoVNA-H4's brightness is not set to maximum. On a really sunny day either unit will probably have you squinting at the screen.
- Herb
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
I have the original small screen version and both the -F and -H4. They all work well with Saver. However, you must the latest version of Saver on your PC / laptop. Dave - W?LEV On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:09 PM Nbridgema via Groups.Io <nbridgema= [email protected]> wrote: The -F and -H4 are different hardware/firmware platforms, but both
interface with NanoVNA-Saver, so give the same analysis and documentation
benefits.
... or so I've been told; have not yet received the -F.
--
I_B_Nbridgema
-- *Dave - W?LEV* *Just Let Darwin Work* *Just Think*
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
The -F and -H4 are different hardware/firmware platforms, but both interface with NanoVNA-Saver, so give the same analysis and documentation benefits.
... or so I've been told; have not yet received the -F.
--
I_B_Nbridgema
|
WB2UAQ,
Reminder the 468/F is a rule of thumb approximation at best. That will be
altered by wire diameter, height above ground, and if the wire has insulation.
In all cases of testing over decades it always proved to be shorter than that
for dipoles.
For EFHW one end of the wire has the transformer so its also capacitively
loaded and the differs in actual compared to a dipole of the same wire at
same height is shorter still by .01 to .05 wavelengths. Since you asked
the missing length is supplied by the coax shield.
Analysis of EFHW is best followed by considering it as a extreme form of
off center fed antenna as there is always and needs to be a "other half
or part of the antenna" to complete the RF circuit.
Allison
-----------------
No direct email, it goes to bit bucket due address harvesting in groups.IO
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 22:41, Guillaume Larouche <va2na@...> wrote: Hello group,
I would like to get a nano VNA ( already use great VNA at work ) to play
with, but i am confusing about wich one to get?
I would like the 4.3 or 4.0 inch display, but it's look like the F and H4
version are not the same processor, so wich one is the more supported model?
Also, i would like to use TDR one day, any clue if a version running it
will be released soon?
Thank you
Guillaume
I have two friends - one with the F, the other the H4. The screen on the F is *much* better. Dave
|
Re: ON7DQ_NanoVNA_Presentation_English
...
and forgot to mention that the affected slides are nr 49-50-51
Luc ON7DQ
|
Re: ON7DQ_NanoVNA_Presentation_English
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ...
BIG thanks to Eric, KE6US, for finding another stupid error I made.
I made a demo LPF for 40m, but it seems I used the correct capacitor values from the W3NQN table, but then I took the inductor values for the 30m filter !
The resulting filter still looks like a LPF , so I didn't pay much attention, it was only for a demo after all ...
Looking at my error, I noticed that the easiest way to fix it was to make indeed a 30m filter, only the middle capacitors had to change from 680 pF to 560 pF.
I changed that and made new measurements for the powerpoint.
But I also noticed that the middle coil had too high a value too, so I had to remove one turn.
All is corrected in the slides, and I changed the version into V2.03 now (both Dutch and English versions).
You can fnd them in the Files > Presentations folder.
I hope all errors are gone now, but if you still find one, let me know.
And the good news is : there is a German, Spanish and Portuguese version coming soon !
73,
Luc ON7DQ
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
I have been looking at the same question, but am leaning more toward the -F because of the IPS display being (much?) more visible outdoors (in bright light). I have an early model now updated to current firmware, but it is almost unusable outdoors. If I take along a phone or tablet with the nanovna web app, then it should be better, but a bit less convenient for quick checks.
So I plan to eventually buy the -F, since pretty much my only use for the analyzer is HF antennas - outdoors.
Doug
|
Re: NanoVNA-H4 What are the exact steps to adjust the display brightness?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:13 AM, RickkS wrote:
I had a similar thing happen with the brightness on my H4. I couldn't find any information on adjusting the brightness.
=======================================================
Rick,
From a similar message thread on the "ides of March" (always wanted to say that):
Brightness can be manually adjusted from the "BRIGHTNESS" sub-menu under the "CONFIG" tab. Adjustment can be made using any value between 800 and 3300 with 800 being the lowest brightness and 3300 the highest. 100 step increments from 800 to 3300 give the visual brightness changes (i.e. 800, 900, 1000 ....)
The NanoVNA-H4 is delivered with a mid-range brightness setting of 1800. Remote changes to brightness can be performed using the "dac" console command.
- Herb
|
Re: Wich one the get ? nanoVNA F or H4
Wow nice comment and i have now a better understanding of the different version!
73
Guillaume
|
Re: NanoVNA-H4 What are the exact steps to adjust the display brightness?
I had a similar thing happen with the brightness on my H4. I couldn't find any information on adjusting the brightness.
|
Roger Need
Nbridgema
Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd