开云体育

Can you be more specific as to what copyright you are referring to? The hardware is our own design with nothing taken from your design, and the firmware uses your UI code in compliance with the GPLv3 (as stated in your source code). The name "NanoVNA" is a generic street name by now because there is no registered trademark and everyone is already selling under this name. I'll talk to my customer about possible name changes but as I said we are a contractor and it isn't under our/my control.

Our customer owns the "nanovna" account on GitHub and I have commit access. I'll bring up the naming issue with them, but as a contractor we aren't in a position to directly make changes to our customer's accounts. I'll see what I can do.

Will do

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

@Erik, PD0EK - 24 December 2019: /g/nanovna-users/message/8632 :
Dear Erik, Take into account, please, that we already * c o r r e c t l y * rephrased what
you are quoting -obviously by mistake- with your above message, with our message:
/g/nanovna-users/message/8630 , and allow us, please, to definitely
point that we showed the way in which it is proved what you are saying, by our message:
/g/nanovna-users/message/8618 . By the way, in addition of your Maxima
code, of which we are still expecting its correct results, after we answered what you
asked from us, with our message: /g/nanovna-users/message/8482 ,
would you also correct, please, your picture currently existing at your website at:
, because its contents
appear -at least to us- as to be self-contradictory ? Kind regards - gin&pez@arg

Here is the link wihtout the embedded spaces.

NanoVNA-H.pdf

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 07:22 AM, gin&pez@arg wrote:

And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model"
results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network

The 3 term error model is a 2 port network and 3 independent measurements to fully characterize the network

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

edy555,

In saying this, I am not saying you have done anything wrong. I think you
have done a great service creating the NanoVNA and many are enjoying the
fruits of your work.

However, this situation points out the utility of open-source licenses. To
the extent that any of these legal mechanisms are enforceable, you can
choose a license for your hardware and software that suits your wishes as
to how you intend your work to be used.

I looked at the NanoVNA and decided not to use any materials from it and
build my own precisely because the license of the NanoVNA is ambiguous. I
have my own VNA design () with its own
software and hardware, licensed specifically under the Creative Commons and
zlib license because it is my wishes that the design be sold commercially
as a benefit to the community. Because I am a citizen of the USA, I have
to be mindful of your intellectual property rights. You decided to limit
your design to being available as a kit that you distribute and that is
your choice. If that is what you intend, you should state it clearly, so
that least those who are using the work know they are using it in a manner
not in accordance with your wishes. However, if you leave your intentions
ambiguous or unstated, you can not expect others to respect them.

I am unfamiliar with Japanese law, but under American law, unless you have
registered the name NanoVNA as a trademark, others can use it freely. I
would personally not use for something that is not the NanoVNA device as
you designed it, but that is my choice. There are many choices for names
and I do not see why all of these variants and redesigns must have the name
NanoVNA. I think it is reasonable to ask that others who create their own
VNAs name them differently to avoid confusion.

Best regards,
Daniel Marks
KW4TI

#93': On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture
-
#93 : On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture:
24 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8618

Hello,

Allow us, please, to rephrase the following part of what we previously wrote:

"
Well, this a most fortunate fact, indeed, because makes possible various
"error" models of VNA measurements, with each one of them to take the
name of the number of finally kept terms, the remaining ones after the
deletion of the rest of the others.

And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model"
results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network.
"

and to * c o r r e c t l y * rephrase it, as follows:

"
Well, this a most fortunate fact indeed, because it makes possible an even
simplified formulation of G = (Ag + B)/(Cg + D). Thus, since we do not expect
to have all 4 coefficients simultaneously equal to zero, we can always select
a non-zero of them to divide all of them with it, and thus to arrive in an
expression showing 3 coefficients at most, which was so called "3-terms error
model", forming "something" that reminds strongly a two-port network.
"

We terribly sorry for the inconvenience; please accept our apologies.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

:#93'

I will have a copy of the magazine shortly and will summarize any findings

John VE3IPS

Ham Radio is a lifestyle not a Hobby!
Take the radio outside and operate from the Field

My guess warming battery.
But in my room temps vary from 6C to 15C and that requires recalibration.

Hi Piotr
The link is as follows to my document
and female calibration NanoVNA-H.pdf
Please note that the female female adaptor you have been supplied with the NanoVNA might differ. The Hugen-H supplied from end of October has a female female adaptor with low loss and the earlier delivered has much higher loss and different delay if length differ. In the document the female female delay is 50.7ps and has a length end to end off 15mm. The previous delivered female female adaptor has the same length but as said higher loss. If you have another female female adaptor test it after S21 calibration with the previous supplied one, and if it show S21 dB trace above the reference line (showing gain) it has lower loss and use it. After my best memory we are dealing with 0.3dB difference and also obscure the calibration when used for female kit calibration.
If it has a different length then adjust the delay with 4.796ps per mm length difference
Kind regards
Kurt

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: [email protected] <[email protected]> P? vegne af Piotr Wozniak
Sendt: 24. december 2019 14:23
Til: [email protected]
Emne: Re: [nanovna-users] New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H

Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.

Thanks Gunthard! My NanoVNA-H is coming Saturday and this will help get me started!

Andrew
KD5RKO

Someone takes the account name of "nanovna" on github.
In that repository, there are projects named NanoVNA-V2 you mention.


You and your team don't have any morals.
As an original developer, I feel my project was stolen.

I cannot cooperate with you and I would like to prohibit you to use my copyrighted property, Temma.

If one needs a spectrum analyzer on the cheap, try the AirSpy (full units
to 1.8 Ghz - not the HF+ or Discovery) for around $200. SpectrumSpy is
included with the SDR# download at no cost.

Another option is the SDR Play RSP1A and the free spectrum analyser software that can be downloaded from the SDR Play website.



This will give you 1KHz to 2GHz coverage with many basic spectrum analyser features such as variable span width, a few fixed filter bandwidths and markers etc. for about $100 USD.

So it's now possible to get setup with quite a good basic set of RF / workshop instruments for well under $200 USD.

I know you can use CH1 S21 amplitude measurement on a Nano VNA as a very crude spectrum analyser, but I wonder if a 'Nano Spectrum Analyser' will ever become available ?

Seems like the next logical progression.

Regards,

Martin - G8JNJ

Thanks, this is what I was looking for.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 05:23 AM, Piotr Wozniak SP3UQE wrote:

"Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set".

/g/nanovna-users/message/7441

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

See



73

Arie PA3A

Op 24-12-2019 om 14:23 schreef Piotr Wozniak:

Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.

Thank you Erik!

73

Arie PA3A

Op 24-12-2019 om 09:20 schreef erik@...:

#93: On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture

Hello,

- - - - - - (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 : start - - - - - -

Allow us, please, to continue with the finalization of our picture:



towards to that approximated one, which we already called it a virtual
two-port.

This can be achieved by expressing the reflection coefficient G, of a load
or DUT connected at T Test Port, that is by the ratio of the ("reflected")
output signal bT from T port (that is the one caused by the voltage wave
directed from inside-to-outside of T port or by a "reflected" to T wave),
to the ("incident") input signal aT to T port (that is the one caused by the
voltage wave directed from outside-to-inside of T port or by an "incident"
to T wave):

G := bT/aT

in terms of the ratio of the two separate signals aA and aR,
* B O T H * I N P U T * ("incident") to the ("receiving") ports A and R,
respectively:

g := aA/aR

This is possible and results -after a really tedious work, if someone
selects to do it without some lower of the high mathematics- to the form:

G = (Ag + B)/(Cg + D)

where A, B, C, and D are rather complicated expressions of various Sij.

However, with a careful, technically appropriate, adjustment of the
whole of Sij values, it is possible a simplification of these expressions
by approximating, diminishing or reasonably ignoring a lot of various
signal paths in the above 4-port signal flow diagram:



Well, this a most fortunate fact, indeed, because makes possible various
"error" models of VNA measurements, with each one of them to take the
name of the number of finally kept terms, the remaining ones after the
deletion of the rest of the others.

And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model"
results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network.

But, since in this way only the T port is clearly shown, while the other
one is a totally absent from the reality, we thought to define a Virtual
measurement Port, as we already presented it at:

#85: On the Formation of a Virtual Port:
25 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8237

- - - finish : (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 - - - - - - - - - -

That's all.

With the best of our regards to all Members who insist to read this thread,

gin&pez@arg

93#: