On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 07:36 PM, Larry Rothman wrote:
For you to say this and that is a waste of time belittles the accomplishments
of many Amateurs.
You're don't understand what I say. I don't say that TDR is waste of time. I say that attempt to integrate it into firmware is waste of controller memory in the detriment of more useful functions.
TDR is very interesting feature. But NanoVNA is unable to handle it self (with no PC) with a good resolution due to low memory resources in the cheap controller. It doesn't means that you cannot use TDR with NanoVNA. You can do it on PC.
It just means that it's better to not make NanoVNA measurement more worse and to cut-off very useful functions just to get TDR inside firmware with a low and not usable resolution.
I think the better way is to use controller memory for more measurement points, to use more precise calibration and to add more useful measurements instead of DEMO version of TDR inside firmware with low resolution. The better way is to implement TDR feature on PC side and use controller resources for more useful features.
There is no question if TDR needed or not. It is definitely must have. The question if it worth to make measurement more worse, cut-off useful measurements just to add low-res TDR on firmware side? Or if it's better to make NanoVNA more precise, more stable and more useful with more measurements, but with TDR implementation on PC software side (with much better resolution and more usable)?
I would be happy to see TDR inside firmware, but not in the detriment of precision and more needed features. Unfortunately NanoVNA controller cannot handle all things simultaneously, there is needs to make decision if we needs more precise measurement, or DEMO TDR inside firmware. Any case doesn't prevent to use NanoVNA for TDR. The question is where to implement it - on firmware side or on PC software side. That's what I'm talking about.
