Can you check if the high output is still working?
--

--

Thanks,

What's the difference betrween tinySA.exe and tinySA-App.exe?

Mark

开云体育

--

Hi Erik, thanks for the quick response.

>Did you check if there was still a very much reduced (30dB less) output signal?

Attached is a photo of the scope screen, showing the NanoVNA CW Output on the top trace,
and the TinySA output on the bottom trace.?

Another photo shows the TinySA Low Output parameters.

>Can you post a picture of the failing selftest 3?

Attached is a screenshot of the Self Test 3 Error message, and a snapshot of the Level Cal Error message.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 09:16 AM, Mark Erbaugh wrote:

Is this a false positive?

Yes

I tried downloading TinySA-App.exe from?



And my McAfee reported a virus. Is anyone else seeing this.? According to virustotal.com



The problem is W32.AIDecectVM.malware1 which was only detected by 1 (Bkav) scanner out of the 72 it checks.

Is this a false positive?

Thanks,
Mark

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:04 PM, stefan baartman wrote:

Recently, I was trying to see if I could get it to display a swept frequency on my scope, and could get no output.

Did you check if there was still a very much reduced (30dB less) output signal?

I ran the Level Cal, and it said Cal Failed. I tried all the other SMA jumper cables I have (5) and all gave the same result.
Then I tried the Self Test, and it failed tests 3, 4, 7 and 10.

Can you post a picture of the failing selftest 3?
This will help me understand what may cause the reduced sensitivity

I got it a few months ago and it worked fine. It would pass all the self tests without a problem.

Recently, I was trying to see if I could get it to display a swept frequency on my scope, and could get no output.

I ran the Level Cal, and it said Cal Failed. I tried all the other SMA jumper cables I have (5) and all gave the same result.
Then I tried the Self Test, and it failed tests 3, 4, 7 and 10.

I tried updating to Ver 1.1-59, but it just changes the error message on the Level Cal to "Signal level too low, Check Cable . . ."
And when I run the Self Test it stops at #3 with the same error message as for the Level Cal, and when I touch the screen
as instructed it jumps out of the Self Test mode.

I checked the unit for evidence that it is a clone, but it passes all the features mentioned for not being one.

Label on the back has no spelling errors, and the HW Version shows to be V0.3, with the Ser No SA-20080659
Inside it has the RF screens in place.

It does still work in SA mode, such that if I connect the telescopic antenna and hold it close to my HF antenna
whilst transmitting, it will show a small peak (-80dBm) at the correct frequency.

Any advice would be appreciated!

Stefan K8SEB

When my tinySA arrives I'll bring it into the lab and try to do as close to a comparative test as I can (vs one of our development chamber SAs). Won't happen until January due to the holiday shutdown. It will be interesting how close I can tweak it ...

Erik (and all who have contributed to TinySA),

big thanks for the best Xmas present I've ever received...?? MERRY CHRISTMAS and keep safe!

lm

Herb,

You are probably right, but I could not prevent myself from trying to get as close as possible.
You can set an attack time of 1ms and a decay of 160ms (conducted requirement) or a decay of 550ms (radiated requirement) and you can use the 10kHz for the 9kHz conducted emission BW requirement and the 100kHz for the 120kHz radiated emission BW requirement.
The most important limitation is you can only do this in zero span mode. Otherwise the detector is not fast enough for the 1ms attack.
So first scan 0-30MHz? for conducted or 0-960MHZ (should be 1000MHz) for radiated emission and then use zero span? quasi-peak to assess the level of emission.
The band shape is of course something I can not improve. But i'd like to hear how much it is impacting the measurement.

And your previous comment to focus on peak levels instead of quasi-peak is very much true.

Is repaired in updated beta v1.1-70
--

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:11 PM, Erik Kaashoek wrote:

Attack and decay are the attack and decay time for pseudo peak measurements when in zero span mode. If you set the right values and use the right RBW you can do EMI compliant measurements.

Erik,
? Since I'm retired I no longer have access to receivers or spectrum analyzers with built-in quasi-peak detectors.? My experience is telling me that your method of approximating quasi-peak measurement will fall short of EMI compliant measurements.

? It might be best to ask users who have access to receivers with a quasi-peak detector to contribute some comparative testing with the tinySA to ascertain if the tinySA can perform EMI compliant quasi-peak measurements.

? In addition to the detector, I'm also not sure if the band-shape of the tinySA matches the requirements of an EMI receiver for performing EMI compliant measurements, both peak and quasi-peak.??

? - Herb

Hi
Does not 'store' configurations.

Attack and decay are the attack and decay time for pseudo peak measurements when in zero span mode. If you set the right values and use the right RBW you can do EMI compliant measurements.
COR NFM and COR WFM should be removed as these were used during development of the FM modulation.
--

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 01:02 PM, Brian Donaldson wrote:

is there a particular SpecAm that was used as the model for the TinySA?

No, the only spectrum analyzers I ever used (apart from an RTL-SDR) where those I build myself. But various users have provided excellent feedback and requested certain functions.
?
--