开云体育

Hello Erik and Group,

Erik, thanks for the info regarding the DSP code.

And thanks to the other posters on this subject. It is good to know there is an active EMC testing cohort out there.
I guess I need to remember that it is PRE-COMPLIANCE testing and that the RBW errors are indeed small.
When I was in the industry developing product, we always aimed for a minimum 6-10dB headroom at the development stage.
That way, we generally managed first pass testing during manufacturing.
I have been out of the game for many years now but still like to follow what is happening.

The TinySA and the new Ultra are amazing pieces of kit. Thank you so much for these great little gems Erik.

73...Bob VK2ZRE

OK, missed your next message!!

OK for AM; for 100% mod you have to set the output to less than -19dbm. Thank you for that.

So the FM query remains.......

On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 07:13 AM, NigelP wrote:

The spec says it should go to 6KHz.

My mistake editing the wiki, it should be 1kHz
?
--

Can you try to reduce the output level and see if the warning disappears?
For 100% AM depth you have to be able to increase the output level at the maxima so the average should be lowered
--

tinySA-App uses scanraw thus ensuring no gaps and 50% overlap.
This displayed step size is for information only
--

I have also noted that AM depth cannot be set beyond 50% without the screen showing a "depth error" message.

开云体育

Well, counterfeiting Cisco routers is more profitable than doing it with TinySA's? given the market size involved.

In other way, the case of the guy selling them to U.S. DoD shows how stupid these guys can be.

Ignacio

I don't know.
But I have a guess:
These people are moonlighters who, in their day jobs, they do similar jobs that are bigger, harder, and more even more evil.

_._,_._,_

---

I have received my Ultra a few days ago and was just looking at the Signal Generator function. It seems not possible to set the modulation frequency greater than 1KHz on FM (OK on AM). Whatever I try, nothing will increase the frequency, only decrease it? I have the latest FW build installed (as delivered). The spec says it should go to 6KHz.

Regards

Nigel

I don't know.
But I have a guess:
These people are moonlighters who, in their day jobs, they do similar jobs that are bigger, harder, and more even more evil.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 05:57 AM, Erik Kaashoek wrote:

On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 03:11 AM, hwalker wrote:

Also, ensure you have enough measurement points that your tinySA step size is at least half your RBW.

This is always guaranteed in the tinySA
If you choose a any amount of measurement points and span the tinySA will insert hidden measurement points to ensure step size <= RBW/2 if needed.?

Erik,
? Is that also true when using tinySA-App? I notice step-size is calculated in the app status panel based on frequency span and number of points selected.

Herb

I can’t fathom how anyone can produce clones of something so soon after the release of a product like this. Case tooling, pcb layout, parts acquisition, reverse engineering the firmware, testing, etc. Can anyone enlighten me how this is possible, or even worth the effort?

On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 03:11 AM, hwalker wrote:

Also, ensure you have enough measurement points that your tinySA step size is at least half your RBW.

This is always guaranteed in the tinySA
If you choose a any amount of measurement points and span the tinySA will insert hidden measurement points to ensure step size <= RBW/2 if needed.?
?
--

On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 10:13 PM, Bob Ecclestone wrote:

Hello Eric,

The CISPR 16 RBW requirements are quite specific.
Since RBW is implemented in software, it would be relatively easy to implement on the the TinySA and/or the ULTRA.
You and Hugen a probably flat out satisfying demand already, but the inclusion of the 9KHz and 120KHz RBWs would certainly make the instruments highly desirable for EMC pre-compliance testing.

Unfortunately, RBW modifications can't be implemented in post processing later.

Don't know if you would be interested in running a poll.

Bob,
? For final compliance testing using the specified CISPR-16 RBW is mandatory but for pre-compliance testing, when using a spectrum analyzer versus an EMC receiver, you can get away with a 10k or 100k RBW versus a 9k or 120k RBW.? You definitely want to try to give yourself a 6-10dB margin to the limit during pre-compliance testing and you can also add a bandwidth correction factor to your measured value to get a more accurate measurement.

? I wouldn't trust the Quasi-peak measurement function until it has been verified by an EMC expert. Also, ensure you have enough measurement points that your tinySA step size is at least half your RBW.

? There is an opportunity for an enterprising software developer to create a pre-compliance EMC software app for the tinySA Ultra that adds in transducer (i.e. antennas, LISN's) factors, correction (i.e cable loss, pre-amp) factors, and implements plotting functions.

Herb

All stores with "tool" in their name have been either selling clones or buy and resell at a profit.
Please only buy the tinySA Ultra from listed stores.
--

开云体育

Hey,

What do you think about these following sellers ?

Are they safe places ?

??? (Geek Selected Tools Store)

??? (eTool Store)

They are not listed in the "black-list" as illegal clone on the wiki pages

and they claim to have a lot of stock.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 10:13 PM, Bob Ecclestone wrote:

Since RBW is implemented in software, it would be relatively easy to implement on the the TinySA and/or the ULTRA.

Bob,
The RBW is implemented by the chip manufacturer in embedded DSP code that can not be modified and there? is only a limited set of parameters you can modify to steer this code.
I will have a look but I'm afraid it will not be possible to have exactly the specified RBW.
Even with approximated RBW I know many people are successfully using the tinySA in EMC pre-compliance as the differences are small. Try to calculated the difference in dB when measuring a wide band source
--