Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
NanoVNA Under The Covers
Having expressed accolades to AliExpress supplier Guangyi0016 store... I felt duty bound to provide a thorough overview of the hardware itself. I also think I missed the "i" in the supplier's ID, so I corrected it here. :-)
If the attached photos are of insufficient resolution, I can attempt uploading them at higher definition. I first removed the top and bottom covers and observed that both are constructed of double sided copper clad PCB material (appear to be FR4), and both are painted on both surfaces. The external surface of each are both stenciled, but don't appear to have a clearcoat finish to protect them from wear. Users might want to remove and spray them with a clear acrylic for added longevity. I then photographed both sides of the board and made the following observations: 1. The front-end shielding provided is mounted in blade standoffs, such that they can be readily removed if repairs are warranted. I removed them forthwith and photographed that side of the board again for completeness. 2. It is unclear whether or not a footprint exists for an SD card reader, but I don't believe there is. The internal LIPO battery pack is secured in place with double sided tape, where such a footprint would likely reside. 3. There is not an on-board LIPO charger, but rather a tiny sliver of a PCB is afixed (presumably taped) to one end of the LIPO battery and wrapped in Kapton. 4. Brass standoffs are used to suspend the covers above and below the board. The paint on the covers prevent them from serving as a ground references, so the covers only serve to provide electrostatic shielding. 5. The mixers are SA602's, the processor an STM32F072CBT6, The codec an AIC3204, and the clock an SI5351. It looks to be a pretty faithful clone. 6. The PCB is stenciled, and marked under the battery as "NANOVNA V3.1". I secured the shields back into position, reattached the covers, and verified all was well. I performed a couple of 1 port calibrations, plugged it into my Windows 10 machine and verified that it communicates with the NanoVNA Sharp GUI. From there I was able to download the attached Firmware info. Navigating the hardware is pretty intuitive. The NanoSharp GUI not so much. :-) I'll stop here before I accidentally delete everything I've composed here again... Yikes! Fortunately it was autosaved as a draft. Phew! For the first few hours out of the box an all in all very positive experience. 72/73 Gary, N3GO |
Thanks Gary. I contacted my supplier, EBay and ask if I could get another set of cal8bration loads.? No luck. The 50 ohm was of very high quality, return loss -70dB compared to -40dB from another source I had, up to 1GHz.? Anyone knows where to get such loads??Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------From: Gary O'Neil <n3go@...> Date: 04/08/2019 08:55 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Having expressed accolades to AliExpress supplier Guangyi0016 store... I felt duty bound to provide a thorough overview of the hardware itself. I also think I missed the "i" in the supplier's ID, so I corrected it here. :-)If the attached photos are of insufficient resolution, I can attempt uploading them at higher definition.?? I first removed the top and bottom covers and observed that both are constructed of double sided copper clad PCB material (appear to be FR4), and both are painted on both surfaces. The external surface of each are both stenciled, but don't appear to have a clearcoat finish to protect them from wear. Users might want to remove and spray them with a clear acrylic for added longevity. I then photographed both sides of the board and made the following observations:1.?? The front-end shielding provided is mounted in blade standoffs, such that they can be readily removed if repairs are warranted. I removed them forthwith and photographed that side of the board again for completeness.2.?? It is unclear whether or not a footprint exists for an SD card reader, but I don't believe there is. The internal LIPO battery pack is secured in place with double sided tape, where such a footprint would likely reside.?? 3.? There is not an on-board LIPO charger, but rather a tiny sliver of a PCB is afixed (presumably taped) to one end of the LIPO battery and wrapped in Kapton.?? 4. Brass standoffs are used to suspend the covers above and below the board. The paint on the covers prevent them from serving as a ground references, so the covers only serve to provide electrostatic shielding. 5. The mixers are SA602's, the processor an STM32F072CBT6, The codec an AIC3204, and the clock an SI5351. It looks to be a pretty faithful clone. 6. The PCB is stenciled, and marked under the battery as "NANOVNA V3.1".I secured the shields back into position, reattached the covers, and verified all was well.I performed a couple of 1 port calibrations, plugged it into my Windows 10 machine and verified that it communicates with the NanoVNA Sharp GUI. From there I was able to download the attached Firmware info.Navigating the hardware is pretty intuitive. The NanoSharp GUI not so much. :-) I'll stop here before I accidentally delete everything I've composed here again... Yikes!? Fortunately it was autosaved as a draft. Phew!? For the first few hours out of the box an all in all very positive experience. 72/73Gary, N3GO
|
Excellent review, Gary.
The small PCB on the battery is the protection circuit. The charging circuit is located just below the jog switch and is a combined LiIon charger and 5v inverter. Lastly, this version of the PCB removed the SD card pads so going forward, there is no longer an incentive to add local storage routines to the firmware. Cheers, Larry |
Hello Gary, and other users of the Group,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I would like to correct your comments regarding the 2 outer Covers of the nanoVNA, being only an electrostatic shield at best because they are not at ground potential. My unit is identical to the one you show in your photographs. The Covers are both indeed grounded. The 4 mounting holes in each cover is a plated through hole, and there is a small area of no paint around the rim of each hole. The screws, when tightened down properly, do indeed ground to the little brass stand-offs mounted on the main board, and thus the PC copper material on the face and the reverse of the 2 shield covers are properly at earth potential. I have also made certain of this by measuring each plated thru hole to ground with an Ohmmeter which says 0? in all 8 cases (with the other 7 screws in place). 73¡¯²õ Peter, ZL2iK -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary O'Neil Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2019 18:55 To: [email protected] Subject: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Having expressed accolades to AliExpress supplier Guangyi0016 store... I felt duty bound to provide a thorough overview of the hardware itself. I also think I missed the "i" in the supplier's ID, so I corrected it here. :-) If the attached photos are of insufficient resolution, I can attempt uploading them at higher definition. I first removed the top and bottom covers and observed that both are constructed of double sided copper clad PCB material (appear to be FR4), and both are painted on both surfaces. The external surface of each are both stenciled, but don't appear to have a clearcoat finish to protect them from wear. Users might want to remove and spray them with a clear acrylic for added longevity. I then photographed both sides of the board and made the following observations: 1. The front-end shielding provided is mounted in blade standoffs, such that they can be readily removed if repairs are warranted. I removed them forthwith and photographed that side of the board again for completeness. 2. It is unclear whether or not a footprint exists for an SD card reader, but I don't believe there is. The internal LIPO battery pack is secured in place with double sided tape, where such a footprint would likely reside. 3. There is not an on-board LIPO charger, but rather a tiny sliver of a PCB is afixed (presumably taped) to one end of the LIPO battery and wrapped in Kapton. 4. Brass standoffs are used to suspend the covers above and below the board. The paint on the covers prevent them from serving as a ground references, so the covers only serve to provide electrostatic shielding. 5. The mixers are SA602's, the processor an STM32F072CBT6, The codec an AIC3204, and the clock an SI5351. It looks to be a pretty faithful clone. 6. The PCB is stenciled, and marked under the battery as "NANOVNA V3.1". I secured the shields back into position, reattached the covers, and verified all was well. I performed a couple of 1 port calibrations, plugged it into my Windows 10 machine and verified that it communicates with the NanoVNA Sharp GUI. From there I was able to download the attached Firmware info. Navigating the hardware is pretty intuitive. The NanoSharp GUI not so much. :-) I'll stop here before I accidentally delete everything I've composed here again... Yikes! Fortunately it was autosaved as a draft. Phew! For the first few hours out of the box an all in all very positive experience. 72/73 Gary, N3GO |
Good day. I am curious how did you measure a 70 dB return loss? That is an extraordinary measurement indeed, Thanks.
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:46 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Thanks Gary. I contacted my supplier, EBay and ask if I could get another set of cal8bration loads. No luck. The 50 ohm was of very high quality, return loss -70dB compared to -40dB from another source I had, up to 1GHz. Anyone knows where to get such loads? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: Gary O'Neil <n3go@...> Date: 04/08/2019 08:55 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Having expressed accolades to AliExpress supplier Guangyi0016 store... I felt duty bound to provide a thorough overview of the hardware itself. I also think I missed the "i" in the supplier's ID, so I corrected it here. :-)If the attached photos are of insufficient resolution, I can attempt uploading them at higher definition. I first removed the top and bottom covers and observed that both are constructed of double sided copper clad PCB material (appear to be FR4), and both are painted on both surfaces. The external surface of each are both stenciled, but don't appear to have a clearcoat finish to protect them from wear. Users might want to remove and spray them with a clear acrylic for added longevity. I then photographed both sides of the board and made the following observations:1. The front-end shielding provided is mounted in blade standoffs, such that they can be readily removed if repairs are warranted. I removed them forthwith and photographed that side of the board again for completeness.2. It is unclear whether or not a footprint exists for an SD card reader, but I don't believe there is. The internal LIPO battery pack is secured in place with double sided tape, where such a footprint would likely reside. 3. There is not an on-board LIPO charger, but rather a tiny sliver of a PCB is afixed (presumably taped) to one end of the LIPO battery and wrapped in Kapton. 4. Brass standoffs are used to suspend the covers above and below the board. The paint on the covers prevent them from serving as a ground references, so the covers only serve to provide electrostatic shielding. 5. The mixers are SA602's, the processor an STM32F072CBT6, The codec an AIC3204, and the clock an SI5351. It looks to be a pretty faithful clone. 6. The PCB is stenciled, and marked under the battery as "NANOVNA V3.1".I secured the shields back into position, reattached the covers, and verified all was well.I performed a couple of 1 port calibrations, plugged it into my Windows 10 machine and verified that it communicates with the NanoVNA Sharp GUI. From there I was able to download the attached Firmware info.Navigating the hardware is pretty intuitive. The NanoSharp GUI not so much. :-) I'll stop here before I accidentally delete everything I've composed here again... Yikes! Fortunately it was autosaved as a draft. Phew! For the first few hours out of the box an all in all very positive experience. 72/73Gary, N3GO |
Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 08:46, tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> wrote:
Thanks Gary. I contacted my supplier, EBay and ask if I could get another Return loss of loads should not stated as a *positive* number as it¡¯s a loss. A return loss with a negative number could only be obtained from a negative resistance, such as a Gunn diode amplifier. A return loss of 70 dB can only found in fairyland! I measured 44 dB, but stated that the measurement would be subject to large errors as the return loss of the loads in my 85052B calibration kit were specified as 48 dB. Really, 70 dB can only be found in fairyland. Another VNA might indicate 70 dB, but the result is meaningless. Dave G8WRB -- Dr. David Kirkby, |
I responded to this 70 dB return as I was really interested in how he measured this. Reason!!!
There is a lesson to learn here... There is an uncertainty level associated with VNA architectures and I believe you are well beyond that boundary with a measurement of 70 dB. That said... HOW WAS THIS MEASURED SO WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT INTO FANTASY LAND! ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd <drkirkby@...> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 3:28 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 08:46, tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> wrote: Thanks Gary. I contacted my supplier, EBay and ask if I could get another Return loss of loads should not stated as a *positive* number as it¡¯s a loss. A return loss with a negative number could only be obtained from a negative resistance, such as a Gunn diode amplifier. A return loss of 70 dB can only found in fairyland! I measured 44 dB, but stated that the measurement would be subject to large errors as the return loss of the loads in my 85052B calibration kit were specified as 48 dB. Really, 70 dB can only be found in fairyland. Another VNA might indicate 70 dB, but the result is meaningless. Dave G8WRB -- Dr. David Kirkby, |
I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas. Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna. This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration. The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows -70 dB. It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB. I agree it should be a positive number but the NanoVna displays it as negative.
Jim K. |
That seems like it has more to do with measurement repeatability than quality of the load.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Peter On 8/4/2019 1:16 PM, jimcking@... wrote:
I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas. Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna. This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration. The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows 70 dB. It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB. |
That is good news for the VNA but doesn't prove much for the load.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Peter On 8/4/2019 1:37 PM, jimcking@... wrote:
It is repeatable. It always shows 70 dB with that same load. |
- r {\displaystyle RL(\mathrm {dB} )=10\log _{10}{P_{\mathrm {i} } \over P_{\mathrm {r} }}I
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
- I suppose we could start a fight over this, but here is what Wikipedia has to say about the sign of return loss. There is no claim made that this is "the last word" on this subject. I learned to use a negative sign a long time ago. Sign[edit] Properly, loss quantities, when expressed in decibels, should be positive numbers.[note 1] However, return loss has historically been expressed as a negative number, and this convention is still widely found in the literature.[1]The correct definition of return loss is the difference in dB between the incident power sent towards the Device Under Test (DUT) and the power reflected, resulting in a positive sign: - R L ( d B ) = 10 log 10 ? P i P r {\displaystyle RL(\mathrm {dB} )=10\log _{10}{P_{\mathrm {i} } \over P_{\mathrm {r} }}} However taking the ratio of reflected to incident power results in a negative sign for return loss; - R L ¡ä ( d B ) = 10 log 10 ? P r P i {\displaystyle RL'(\mathrm {dB} )=10\log _{10}{P_{\mathrm {r} } \over P_{\mathrm {i} }}} - where RL'(dB) is the negative of RL(dB). Return loss with a positive sign is identical to the magnitude of ¦£ when expressed in decibels but of opposite sign. That is, return loss with a negative sign is more properly called reflection coefficient.[1] The S-parameter S11 from two-port network theory is frequently also called return loss,[2] but is actually equal to ¦£.Caution is required when discussing increasing or decreasing return loss since these terms strictly have the opposite meaning when return loss is defined as a negative quantity. Stuart Landau K6YAZLos Angeles, USA -----Original Message-----
From: Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd <drkirkby@...> To: nanovna-users <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Aug 4, 2019 8:29 am Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 08:46, tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> wrote: Thanks Gary. I contacted my supplier, EBay and ask if I could get another Return loss of loads should not stated as a *positive* number as it¡¯s a loss. A return loss with a negative number could only be obtained from a negative resistance, such as a Gunn diode amplifier. A return loss of 70 dB can only found in fairyland! I measured 44 dB, but stated that the measurement would be subject to large errors as the return loss of the loads in my 85052B calibration kit were specified as 48 dB. Really, 70 dB can only be found in fairyland. Another VNA might indicate 70 dB, but the result is meaningless. Dave G8WRB -- Dr. David Kirkby, |
Yes I just use the 3 point calibration from the dummies provided. The 50 ohm load did show -70dB. I then use another sma dummy load I had and it show -40 dB or so. I am not saying I believe my results, that is why ai want to buy a few better ones to counter check. I do have a RL bridge that is good to -60dB up to 500 MHz at least. You can measure down to -78dB if you have an AD8307 power meter which I have. That chip can go down to -90dB in principle.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------From: jimcking@... Date: 04/08/2019 19:16 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers [Edited Message Follows]I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas.? Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna.? This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration.? The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows -70 dB.? It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB.Jim K.
|
Not to keep this thread going (long), I have been working in the RF field for way over 30 years. When ever we talked about loss. it is ASSUMED (you know what that means) that it is negative but I never said neg return loss, I would just state the loss (if it was gain, it would be positive) but I don't know of anyone (that I have worked with) that said "I had a positive gain of 40db. I have said I had negative gain (meaning the AMP is bad? and I get less power out then I? put in.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
My point is with a toy like this, use it for what it is (and cost) and drive on. Just my $0.02 Frank On 8/4/2019 3:02 PM, Stuart Landau via Groups.Io wrote:
- r {\displaystyle RL(\mathrm {dB} )=10\log _{10}{P_{\mathrm {i} } \over P_{\mathrm {r} }}I |
Thank you Peter for the constructive feedback.
You are correct on the covers being grounded, and I stand corrected. I didn¡¯t consider the thru hole plating when I made that comment. :-) I think it is a consequence of serendipity though. If grounding was intentional, I would have expected the metallic surfaces to be exposed and tinned, or Gold flashed. Aside from the 3-way toggle switch appendage though, I think this unit is of quite excellent quality. I suspect that if I treat it with the same care that I give my expensive equipment, I will be more than equally satisfied with my return on investment. -- 73 Gary, N3GO |
Thanks Frank; it seems reasonable to me that it, as a loss would be negative. However, if I were in sales, a loss seems like something that a customer wouldn't want to pay for.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Stuart K6YAZ -----Original Message-----
From: Frank S <ka2fwc@...> To: nanovna-users <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Aug 4, 2019 12:17 pm Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Not to keep this thread going (long), I have been working in the RF field for way over 30 years. When ever we talked about loss. it is ASSUMED (you know what that means) that it is negative but I never said neg return loss, I would just state the loss (if it was gain, it would be positive) but I don't know of anyone (that I have worked with) that said "I had a positive gain of 40db. I have said I had negative gain (meaning the AMP is bad? and I get less power out then I? put in. My point is with a toy like this, use it for what it is (and cost) and drive on. Just my $0.02 Frank On 8/4/2019 3:02 PM, Stuart Landau via Groups.Io wrote: ? ? |
I suspected that is what you did and sorry there is a problem with that measurement method.
There is measurement validation and there is measurement verification. I believe you did a verification which after correction would show an excellent return loss to the extent that removal and re insertion of the 50 ohm load is identical and no errors were made during the cal process. Validation will require an independent set of cal standards. I think you hit upon this in your reply. Not sure. In any case, those standards should be well defined and not necessarily assumed to be ideal. They should be as precise as possible, for example, built with a model definition that is defined and is then used by the VNA for correction of its own inherent errors. There is a degree of uncertainty in this so called correction. Nothing is perfectly corrected. With that said, then an independent measurement of the quality of your 50 ohm standards may occur. Again, these standards under test were NOT part of the calibration sequence. If I recall, measurement uncertainty for a typical instrument would result at best in a 50 dB return loss. Don't hold me to this number. I would have to back track through some old notes. However, my point is, you are treading on an absolute measurement that is better than the uncertainty level. That is an issue. Regards, Alan ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:00 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Yes I just use the 3 point calibration from the dummies provided. The 50 ohm load did show -70dB. I then use another sma dummy load I had and it show -40 dB or so. I am not saying I believe my results, that is why ai want to buy a few better ones to counter check. I do have a RL bridge that is good to -60dB up to 500 MHz at least. You can measure down to -78dB if you have an AD8307 power meter which I have. That chip can go down to -90dB in principle.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: jimcking@... Date: 04/08/2019 19:16 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers [Edited Message Follows]I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas. Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna. This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration. The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows -70 dB. It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB.Jim K. |
Hi Gary,
If you look at the underside of each cover you will see an area around each of the 4 mounting holes, which has been tinned with solder (looks like a washer, but is actually the lower copper surface of each Cover). Without scraping away some paint on the cover surface I can't tell if the surface is gold flashed or not, however when I look at the inside of each hole the through hole plating appears to have been gold flashed. The tinned "washer" on the underside of each mounting hole is of course in direct contact with the brass stand-offs mounted on the PC card carrying the electronics. The thru-hole plating (as well as the mounting screws) carries the earth potential through to top surface of each cover also. It would appear that it was the designer's intention to make sure the covers are at earth potential. I think that was also noted in the original design notes of edy555 the Japanese Designer, as he had problems with instability early in the design. The covers cured the problem. 73's Pete ZL2iK |
As a point of reference I looked at the Keysight 909F APC-7 50 ohm connector. The product specification is SWR DC-to-5 GHz; 1.005. Hence a return loss of 52 dB. An outstanding connector.
Regards, ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of alan victor <avictor73@...> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 8:52 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers I suspected that is what you did and sorry there is a problem with that measurement method. There is measurement validation and there is measurement verification. I believe you did a verification which after correction would show an excellent return loss to the extent that removal and re insertion of the 50 ohm load is identical and no errors were made during the cal process. Validation will require an independent set of cal standards. I think you hit upon this in your reply. Not sure. In any case, those standards should be well defined and not necessarily assumed to be ideal. They should be as precise as possible, for example, built with a model definition that is defined and is then used by the VNA for correction of its own inherent errors. There is a degree of uncertainty in this so called correction. Nothing is perfectly corrected. With that said, then an independent measurement of the quality of your 50 ohm standards may occur. Again, these standards under test were NOT part of the calibration sequence. If I recall, measurement uncertainty for a typical instrument would result at best in a 50 dB return loss. Don't hold me to this number. I would have to back track through some old notes. However, my point is, you are treading on an absolute measurement that is better than the uncertainty level. That is an issue. Regards, Alan ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...> Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:00 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers Yes I just use the 3 point calibration from the dummies provided. The 50 ohm load did show -70dB. I then use another sma dummy load I had and it show -40 dB or so. I am not saying I believe my results, that is why ai want to buy a few better ones to counter check. I do have a RL bridge that is good to -60dB up to 500 MHz at least. You can measure down to -78dB if you have an AD8307 power meter which I have. That chip can go down to -90dB in principle.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message --------From: jimcking@... Date: 04/08/2019 19:16 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers [Edited Message Follows]I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas. Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna. This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration. The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows -70 dB. It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB.Jim K. |
The supplied dummy load does give a reproducible 70dB return loss. It is a problem that unless this can be verified independently it is a software problem with the 3 point calibration procedure. I do not know enough about the nano vna architecture to confirm if it has this dynamic range. I do know that I have a return loss bridge and a power meter that can read 70dB. I just need to find some quality dummy loads to confirm firstly that the supplied dummy does have such a low return loss. If it does not then it's obviously the nano vna calibration procedure or hardware that is giving this over optimistic value. If it does the the nano vna is good.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------From: alan victor <avictor73@...> Date: 04/08/2019 22:52 (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers I suspected that is what you did and sorry there is a problem with that measurement method.There is measurement validation and there is measurement verification.I believe you did a verification which after correction would show an excellent return loss to the extent that removal and re insertion of the 50 ohm load is identical and no errors were made during the cal process.Validation will require an independent set of cal standards. I think you hit upon this in your reply. Not sure. In any case, those standards should be well defined and not necessarily assumed to be ideal. They should be as precise as possible, for example,? built with a model definition that is defined and is then used by the VNA for correction of its own inherent errors. There is a degree of uncertainty in this so called correction. Nothing is perfectly corrected. With that said, then an independent measurement of the quality of your 50 ohm standards may occur. Again, these standards under test were NOT part of the calibration sequence.If I recall, measurement uncertainty for a typical instrument would result at best in a 50 dB return loss. Don't hold me to this number. I would have to back track through some old notes. However, my point is,? you are treading on an absolute measurement that is better than the uncertainty level. That is an issue.Regards, Alan________________________________From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of tuckvk3cca <tuckvk3cca@...>Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:00 PMTo: [email protected] <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The CoversYes I just use the 3 point calibration from the dummies provided. The 50 ohm load did show -70dB. I then use another sma dummy load I had and it show -40 dB or so. I am not saying I believe my results, that is why ai want to buy a few better ones to counter check. I do have a RL bridge that is good to -60dB up to 500 MHz at least. You can measure down to -78dB if you have an AD8307 power meter which I have. That chip can go down to -90dB in principle.Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From: jimcking@... Date: 04/08/2019? 19:16? (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA Under The Covers [Edited Message Follows]I read -70 dB also on two different NanoVnas.? Ch0 LogMag @ 50 KHz using the 50 Ohm load that came with the NanoVna.? This is the same 50 Ohm that was used in the calibration.? The calibration procedure assumes the load to be perfect so return loss shows -70 dB.? It goes up with Frequency but is always better than -50 dB.Jim K.
|
to navigate to use esc to dismiss