开云体育

On 2022-05-04 17:39:+0100, you wrote:

You're missing the resistor.
73 Andy, G4KNO

Very useful link. Thanks!

~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua

You're missing the resistor.
73 Andy, G4KNO.

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:07 PM Torbj?rn Toreson <torbjorn.toreson@...>
wrote:

Hello,

I intend to use the same antenna for two RX-radios. I will lose 3 dB, but
for the sake of the radios RX-input I intended to present each with roughly
50 ohms.

The frequency is about 90 MHz (not HAM-use). I made two 1/4 wave
transformers with RG59 coax, taking VF of 0,66 in consideration. Measuring
each one with the Nano and 50 on the outer side I get as anticipated about
110 ohm. Now the idea is to parallell the two 110 ohm sides and get around
55 ohm, this is where the antenna should be connected. Imagine the
cable-setup as a V, with the vertex (bottom on the V) labeled A and the two
upper parts labeled B and C.

When I connect 50 ohm dummies to B and C then I can measure about 50 ohm
at A for 90 MHz. Now I wanted to see what one of the radios would feel so I
connected 50 ohm dummies (actually 50 ohm pieces from calibration kits) at
A and C. Now measuring at B I was expecting to see about 50 ohm. That was
not the case, the result was about 140 ohm (X about 0) and SWR about 3 (of
course). At about 150 MHz I got a SWR minimum.

Please help me to understand why the setup works one way (as e.g. to
connect two phased antennas) but not the other way to connect one antenna
to two radios.

73/Torbjorn/SM6AYM

The TV splitters to connect two TV's to the same antenna are very cheap and work just fine at that frequency.? ? They are a simple transformer, they have no impedance of their own.? So splitting 75 Ohms or 50 Ohms is no difference.? ? Don't like the PAL or F connectors, take out the little transformer and put it in your own box.? Kent

Hello,

I intend to use the same antenna for two RX-radios. I will lose 3 dB, but for the sake of the radios RX-input I intended to present each with roughly 50 ohms.

The frequency is about 90 MHz (not HAM-use). I made two 1/4 wave transformers with RG59 coax, taking VF of 0,66 in consideration. Measuring each one with the Nano and 50 on the outer side I get as anticipated about 110 ohm. Now the idea is to parallell the two 110 ohm sides and get around 55 ohm, this is where the antenna should be connected. Imagine the cable-setup as a V, with the vertex (bottom on the V) labeled A and the two upper parts labeled B and C.

When I connect 50 ohm dummies to B and C then I can measure about 50 ohm at A for 90 MHz. Now I wanted to see what one of the radios would feel so I connected 50 ohm dummies (actually 50 ohm pieces from calibration kits) at A and C. Now measuring at B I was expecting to see about 50 ohm. That was not the case, the result was about 140 ohm (X about 0) and SWR about 3 (of course). At about 150 MHz I got a SWR minimum.

Please help me to understand why the setup works one way (as e.g. to connect two phased antennas) but not the other way to connect one antenna to two radios.

73/Torbjorn/SM6AYM

On 5/3/22 8:40 AM, Rich NE1EE wrote:

On 2022-05-03 06:45:-0700, you wrote:

This kind of gets to a point - there *are* people who know the answers on this list, but in general, they also have other things to do, so their time is limited. It's great that you're taking on the challenge of writing a book to explain it, but as you know, it's time consuming.

To be honest, a threaded list isn't the best way to explain this kind of thing. The person who wrote the software generally has a good understanding of the theory, but doesn't necessarily have the time to answer it in a 20 questions form, and, it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such a great explainer.

This gets to the heart of the matter.

there *are* people who know the answers on this list, but in general, they also have other things to do

Good for them. So do I.

It's great that you're taking on the challenge of writing a book to explain it, but as you know, it's time consuming.

All I set out to do is write a user manual for the nVNAs (-H and -H4, though it generally applies to other nVNAs). I figure that if I write down each feature as I learn it, then that will benefit hundreds? thousands? of those to come. Oh, wait, there are already people who know all this, and could have taken 30 minutes to think about the device and jot down some useful things that they know.

Indeed, but sometimes, (and this is particularly so on a forum like this), one doesn't know the desired level of the answer, audience it's intended for.? As an example, we've had a lot of discussions about calibration standards, and simple questions like "should I calibrate with or without the 6" jumper".? Some folks have a background in RF metrology, and want to make sure that we understand that a simple time offset may not be a good model. Others might be looking at an antenna between 5-10 MHz, for which it makes almost no difference.? Others, though, might be measuring phasing jumpers, so that extra 6-12" makes a difference.

This aspect of "finding the right level" is tricky, especially in a forum which is sort of asynchronous.? A person might pose a question and get 2 or 3 answers, all partially answering it, with different levels of rigor or formality. And then, 3 or 4 more others might respond with different aspects.? If we were all standing in a room doing this in real time, you'd pick up on some of the body language to manage the conversation. Likewise in a one-on-one phone call or remote presence - there would be cues to guide the questions, and followups.

I have long history with software engineering. That means writing requirements, a design, then software and software testing. We don't seem to have much of this.

This is definitely true, and it is characteristic of software that is produced to "scratch an itch", as opposed to "develop a product", particularly when it's done by one person. That's sort of a feature, not a bug. The author writes the software to meet some self derived requirements, which evolve based on time available, inclination, etc.? And if they understand it, that is sufficient for them.? In a lot of cases (e.g. NanoVNA and similar products) someone might push their software out for people to use, on a Use As Is basis, and if bugs are reported or features requested, then they may or may not do it, depending on their other desires.

This isn't unusual in volunteer activities - It's easy to find hams for a one time antenna raising party, less easy to find someone willing to drive up a twisty road, through locked gates, to clean the filters and check the battery water every 3 months.

I created the menu map in yEd because it is readily accessible, and anyone can update it from here out. So we have a Russian hacker who creates this stuff. I'm impressed with the talent. I don't speak Russian as well as he speaks English, and that is not very well. What I set out to do is write down what I think will help others new to the technology know what will happen when they press a button. That's why I posted that excerpt, to show what my intent was. I say was, because it didn't take long to exhaust resources. So, since I don't intend to spend hundreds of hours learning all this stuff, and there is not much feedback besides "look it up on the web", I figure /this/ part of the project is stalled.

And that's fine - you've made a contribution, others will extend or revise it, or you'll do it, or it will be like it is.? That's the way it is. The documentation on console commands is about 2 1/2 years old now (at least the version I have), as the result of Larry's significant effort. Unfortunately, it's a pdf, which is universally readable, but also makes it hard for someone to update.

So we fall back on the classic open source technique "read the code" and "rely on background information" - I use Scikit-RF at work, so does some of the NanoVNA software, so even without much in the way of comments, I can figure out what's going on.

I've created lots of requirement docs in the past. Lots of design docs in the past. Lots of programming and software testing. So it's not that I don't get it...I do.

it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such a great explainer.

This is a good point. But for me, it's a show-stopper. Because when I ask a question, and there is no answer, there is nothing to write down. I assume that no one actually understands what the answer is.

Or, perhaps you can reframe your question, or maybe synthesize all the responses you got, and repose the question in that context.? It's a conversation, after all. This is, for good or ill, a largely text medium, which doesn't help when trying to describe how things are hooked up, especially when there are significant differences in terminology (not including bikeshed stuff like "is return loss negative?").? A lot depends on the background of the specific person. Someone who comes from a precision metrology background might use different terms than someone from a circuit design, or user background.? Little stuff like "uncertainty", "accuracy", "precision.

I've put the user manual aside. Maybe all that I want to know is there in Russian, but that does me no good. I certainly don't fault a Russian for writing in Russian. I actually started learning Russian years ago, because I thought of them as major players in the science field. But then most of the people I worked with spoke pretty good English...not great, but we could have a conversation, and I could connect the dots. So I stopped learning Russian. Rats. Well, too late to start now...

BTW, this discussion is not limited to this device. I spent 10 years working with PhDs who had the same lazy attitude. Too busy getting ahead of the next PhD to write down what they were doing. Before I left that group, they had hired //another// PhD to work in the lab ///// to reconstruct what had happened 10 years earlier /// because they were too lazy to write it down, and then had the misfortune to need it.

Well, perhaps it's not lazy (which is sort of perjorative) - perhaps it's that their requirements and incentives were not aligned with the others.? As a PhD candidate your *job* is to "get that dissertation completed".? It is generally not evaluated on the quality of the software and documentation you leave behind. That's sort of gravy. This is a typical complaint about new PhDs entering the industrial workforce. As a Phd Candidate, you're expected to do your own work. As an employee on a team, you're expected to share the work. As a PhD candidate, you're expected to be rigorous in derivations and references. As an employee in a team in a frenzy to get the "minimum viable product" out the door, you probably don't care as much about making sure the docs cite the seminal paper in the field.

On 5/3/22 8:10 AM, Rich NE1EE wrote:

On 2022-05-03 06:29:-0700, you wrote:

If you're writing a tutorial manual,

I'm not. I'm writing a user manual for the nVNA. I think we could all benefit from tutorials of some sort, but we all have different interests. To me, that means that many people would prepare tutorials, each in their own area of interest or knowledge.

To a certain extent, though, a user manual is tutorial in nature, if you're giving step by step procedures for how to execute some measurement.? Perhaps not to explain the background, but surely we want something more than a "man file" which lists the available options with no information on why you might want to use it.

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 06:41 PM, Rich NE1EE wrote:

it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such
a great explainer.

This is a good point. But for me, it's a show-stopper. Because when I ask a
question, and there is no answer, there is nothing to write down. I assume
that no one actually understands what the answer is. I've put the user manual
aside. Maybe all that I want to know is there in Russian, but that does me no
good. I certainly don't fault a Russian for writing in Russian. I actually
started learning Russian years ago, because I thought of them as major players
in the science field. But then most of the people I worked with spoke pretty
good English...not great, but we could have a conversation, and I could
connect the dots. So I stopped learning Russian. Rats. Well, too late to start
now...

BTW, this discussion is not limited to this device. I spent 10 years working
with PhDs who had the same lazy attitude. Too busy getting ahead of the next
PhD to write down what they were doing. Before I left that group, they had
hired //another// PhD to work in the lab ///// to reconstruct what had
happened 10 years earlier /// because they were too lazy to write it down, and
then had the misfortune to need it.

I agree that we all get to choose how we spend our time. The scarcity of
information is actually a time-saver for me.

May I say that explaining somethings is very hard. There is an optimum length of explanations, but there will always be questions. I have some 20 years of experience in explaining things, and what ever I said, there was always some one who had questions.

On 2022-05-03 06:45:-0700, you wrote:

This kind of gets to a point - there *are* people who know the answers on this list, but in general, they also have other things to do, so their time is limited. It's great that you're taking on the challenge of writing a book to explain it, but as you know, it's time consuming.

To be honest, a threaded list isn't the best way to explain this kind of thing. The person who wrote the software generally has a good understanding of the theory, but doesn't necessarily have the time to answer it in a 20 questions form, and, it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such a great explainer.

This gets to the heart of the matter.

there *are* people who know the answers on this list, but in general, they also have other things to do

Good for them. So do I.

It's great that you're taking on the challenge of writing a book to explain it, but as you know, it's time consuming.

All I set out to do is write a user manual for the nVNAs (-H and -H4, though it generally applies to other nVNAs). I figure that if I write down each feature as I learn it, then that will benefit hundreds? thousands? of those to come. Oh, wait, there are already people who know all this, and could have taken 30 minutes to think about the device and jot down some useful things that they know.

I have long history with software engineering. That means writing requirements, a design, then software and software testing. We don't seem to have much of this. I created the menu map in yEd because it is readily accessible, and anyone can update it from here out. So we have a Russian hacker who creates this stuff. I'm impressed with the talent. I don't speak Russian as well as he speaks English, and that is not very well. What I set out to do is write down what I think will help others new to the technology know what will happen when they press a button. That's why I posted that excerpt, to show what my intent was. I say was, because it didn't take long to exhaust resources. So, since I don't intend to spend hundreds of hours learning all this stuff, and there is not much feedback besides "look it up on the web", I figure /this/ part of the project is stalled.

I've created lots of requirement docs in the past. Lots of design docs in the past. Lots of programming and software testing. So it's not that I don't get it...I do.

it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such a great explainer.

This is a good point. But for me, it's a show-stopper. Because when I ask a question, and there is no answer, there is nothing to write down. I assume that no one actually understands what the answer is. I've put the user manual aside. Maybe all that I want to know is there in Russian, but that does me no good. I certainly don't fault a Russian for writing in Russian. I actually started learning Russian years ago, because I thought of them as major players in the science field. But then most of the people I worked with spoke pretty good English...not great, but we could have a conversation, and I could connect the dots. So I stopped learning Russian. Rats. Well, too late to start now...

BTW, this discussion is not limited to this device. I spent 10 years working with PhDs who had the same lazy attitude. Too busy getting ahead of the next PhD to write down what they were doing. Before I left that group, they had hired //another// PhD to work in the lab ///// to reconstruct what had happened 10 years earlier /// because they were too lazy to write it down, and then had the misfortune to need it.

I agree that we all get to choose how we spend our time. The scarcity of information is actually a time-saver for me.

~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua

On 2022-05-03 06:29:-0700, you wrote:

If you're writing a tutorial manual,

I'm not. I'm writing a user manual for the nVNA. I think we could all benefit from tutorials of some sort, but we all have different interests. To me, that means that many people would prepare tutorials, each in their own area of interest or knowledge.

When I first saw CABLE, I didn't know what would happen when I selected it. Now that I know, I can try to use it in different ways.

~R~

On 5/3/22 6:16 AM, Rich NE1EE wrote:

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:15 PM, Larry Rothman wrote:

Would a simple google search help?
Invoking this search yielded /this/ thread as #3 from the top! So I guess it will take some scrambling...but for me, the question falls in 2 parts: How do we do these tests from a technical POV, and how to we use them in /this/ nVNA?

The first suggests to me that each of these measurements needs its own threads, here or elsewhere. And that is for each used who wants to do those specific types of measurements. The second, however, needs some explanation here. A basic setup. What to look for, what the display will show. For example, if I measure coax, does it /need/ to be short or open? What are some restrictions? VoP must be set (usually)?

The VNA has no way to know the relationship between physical length and electrical length. So you have to enter propagation velocity.? In a tutorial, since it has come up, one might have an explanation of how to measure the propagation velocity.

Frequency concerns? (That last one is subject to mythology, as several noted writers have stated "magical" formulas that a) are magical because there is no basis explained, and b) not really correct, as my tests show.)

The effect is real, but small. The formula is the Telegrapher's Equation, which describes the propagation of a wave in a transmission line in terms of L,C,G, and R.? These all vary somewhat with frequency, most notably G and R (due to skin effect and dielectric losses, which vary with frequency).? The basis, if one needs it, is found in pretty much any textbook that covers transmission lines.? Search for "lossy transmission line" and once you get past the basics of loss, then the full equation is introduced.

Perhaps the transmission lines you have tested don't have sufficient variation in G and R with frequency to show the difference, but dispersion certainly exists.


Prof. Orfanidis at Rutgers has his textbook online, although I'm not super wild about his transmission line section, it does cover all this. One of the nice things is that he has published Matlab routines for a lot of useful stuff

What /doesn't/ need to appear here, at least for my view of a user manual, are all the different ways we can use MEASURE > CABLE, and all the conditions for them. But we could easily start putting together an /applications/ manual that has all that in it.

My HP 15C is pretty basic compared to today's powerhouse calculators, but it came with a 300 page user manual and a 200 page advanced functions manual. Could I learn how to use that effectively? You bet. It is still a staple tool on my desk, on my tablet, on my desktop, and on my phone. I use it when I am flying, because it actually does weights and balances and wind correction angle calculations. To be fair, so does the E6BX app that I run on my tablet and phone. Not the point. I see so many questions about these nVNAs simply asking how to I use this? I started a user manual and am pretty much at a standstill, because I don't have access to experts who actually can answer my questions, but rather point to the web, and say do the research.

This kind of gets to a point - there *are* people who know the answers on this list, but in general, they also have other things to do, so their time is limited. It's great that you're taking on the challenge of writing a book to explain it, but as you know, it's time consuming.

To be honest, a threaded list isn't the best way to explain this kind of thing. The person who wrote the software generally has a good understanding of the theory, but doesn't necessarily have the time to answer it in a 20 questions form, and, it's also possible to be knowledgeable for writing the code, but not such a great explainer.

When it comes to some topics, too, it is very difficult to explain the subtleties and variations without some background knowledge, which takes time to acquire. A good example is antennas. Everyone knows the "dipole length" formula, but to explain why it's not exactly a half wavelength is a MUCH more complex issue.?? Facile answers like "end effects" or "empirically discovered constants" don't really explain it.

On 5/3/22 6:26 AM, Rich NE1EE wrote:

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 01:27 AM, DiSlord wrote:

CABLE - this cable measure util, need calibrate nanoVNA and connect cable
(there should be nothing on the other end of the cable)
NanoVNA measure cable wave impedance, length (need setup correct velocity
factor) and cable lost in marker position (this just S11 logmag / 2)
wave impedance measured - search first frequency then it rotate on 180 degree,
divide this frequency on 2 and measure reactance at this point.

1.2.5.3 CABLE S11
Choose a frequency range such that the cable length is ~1/4 of the wavelength in the middle of the range. This feature uses velocity of propagation. It automatically measures the length, characteristic impedance, and loss at the point of the active marker. Choose the range so that the Smith trace crosses near R=0 between ±j. The shorter the cable, the higher the frequency range needed for analysis. Example: Assuming the signal must go out and back on a 10 m length of coax, multiply c * VoP and divide by 4X the coax length. (3e8 m/s * 0.67) / 40m ~= 5 MHz. A range of 5-15 MHz would cover this.

This is what I am attempting to do with the user manual. There are many other ways to use this feature, but this addresses the basic requirements. Theoretically, any licensed ham will be able to adapt this description to other activities.

If you're writing a tutorial manual, then you should also address what happens if you use a cable that is, say, 3/4 wavelength.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 01:27 AM, DiSlord wrote:

CABLE - this cable measure util, need calibrate nanoVNA and connect cable
(there should be nothing on the other end of the cable)
NanoVNA measure cable wave impedance, length (need setup correct velocity
factor) and cable lost in marker position (this just S11 logmag / 2)
wave impedance measured - search first frequency then it rotate on 180 degree,
divide this frequency on 2 and measure reactance at this point.

1.2.5.3 CABLE S11
Choose a frequency range such that the cable length is ~1/4 of the wavelength in the middle of the range. This feature uses velocity of propagation. It automatically measures the length, characteristic impedance, and loss at the point of the active marker. Choose the range so that the Smith trace crosses near R=0 between ±j. The shorter the cable, the higher the frequency range needed for analysis. Example: Assuming the signal must go out and back on a 10 m length of coax, multiply c * VoP and divide by 4X the coax length. (3e8 m/s * 0.67) / 40m ~= 5 MHz. A range of 5-15 MHz would cover this.

This is what I am attempting to do with the user manual. There are many other ways to use this feature, but this addresses the basic requirements. Theoretically, any licensed ham will be able to adapt this description to other activities.
--
~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:15 PM, Larry Rothman wrote:

Would a simple google search help?
Invoking this search yielded /this/ thread as #3 from the top! So I guess it will take some scrambling...but for me, the question falls in 2 parts: How do we do these tests from a technical POV, and how to we use them in /this/ nVNA?

The first suggests to me that each of these measurements needs its own threads, here or elsewhere. And that is for each used who wants to do those specific types of measurements. The second, however, needs some explanation here. A basic setup. What to look for, what the display will show. For example, if I measure coax, does it /need/ to be short or open? What are some restrictions? VoP must be set (usually)? Frequency concerns? (That last one is subject to mythology, as several noted writers have stated "magical" formulas that a) are magical because there is no basis explained, and b) not really correct, as my tests show.) What /doesn't/ need to appear here, at least for my view of a user manual, are all the different ways we can use MEASURE > CABLE, and all the conditions for them. But we could easily start putting together an /applications/ manual that has all that in it.

My HP 15C is pretty basic compared to today's powerhouse calculators, but it came with a 300 page user manual and a 200 page advanced functions manual. Could I learn how to use that effectively? You bet. It is still a staple tool on my desk, on my tablet, on my desktop, and on my phone. I use it when I am flying, because it actually does weights and balances and wind correction angle calculations. To be fair, so does the E6BX app that I run on my tablet and phone. Not the point. I see so many questions about these nVNAs simply asking how to I use this? I started a user manual and am pretty much at a standstill, because I don't have access to experts who actually can answer my questions, but rather point to the web, and say do the research.
--
~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua

The attached diagram shows the cascade (or not) of calibrations when using the NanoVNA with internal cal (or not) and a PC app cal (or not).

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 09:54 PM, Reinier Gerritsen wrote:

I had 3 broken units a few months ago (the first version of the SAA). Replaced
the switches and they were back to life. On one unit I installed esd
protection diodes. But since I have my V2plus4, I don't use the old analyzers
anymore. I still have to modify all the other analyzers. TVS diode part
number: ESD101B102ELE6327XTMA1, a 5.5V TVS bi-directional diode from Infineon,
0.1 pF capacitance. Diodes are cheap. Switches are also cheap at Aliexpress.
Replacing the switch is not for the faint hearted. It is a tiny package with a
ground pad under the device. Hot air soldering is your only option. A good
stereo microscope helps.

Someone should make add on cards with those protection diodes. I wont solder them myself, 0603 are hard enough and sometimes even a 1206 between two SMA connector PCB pins.

Hello,
Making a model reproducing the 45MHZ pass filter of the ubitx (but with variables capacitors) and connecting at each end a toroid transformer I managed to improve the tracing of my filter.
Or a slightly flatter shape at -2db and 16.15 khtz width at -3db with best adjust of capacitor

If I want a perfect dish, is there a manipulation to do? I was wondering if the middle point must be absolutely connected to the ground, or if there is a possibility of connecting it to the ground via a small capacitor?
your suggestions.

cdt

The following files and folders have been deleted from the Files area of the [email protected] group.

* /menu maps/nVNA-H v3.6_MS firmware 1.1.01 menu map 0101 AN14.zip

*By:* Rich NE1EE <TheDustyKey@...>



---

The following files and folders have been deleted from the Files area of the [email protected] group.

* /menu maps/nVNA-H4 v4.3_MS firmware 1.1 menu map 0107 AN14.zip

*By:* Rich NE1EE <TheDustyKey@...>



---

The following files and folders have been uploaded to the Files area of the [email protected] group.

* /menu maps/nVNA-H v3.6_MS firmware 1.1.01 menu map 0103 AN14.zip ( /g/nanovna-users/files/menu%20maps/nVNA-H%20v3.6_MS%20firmware%201.1.01%20menu%20map%200103%20AN14.zip )

*By:* Rich NE1EE <TheDustyKey@...>

*Description:*
Corrected MEASURE > Rl button label.



---

The following files and folders have been uploaded to the Files area of the [email protected] group.

* /menu maps/nVNA-H4 v4.3_MS firmware 1.1 menu map 0108 AN14.zip ( /g/nanovna-users/files/menu%20maps/nVNA-H4%20v4.3_MS%20firmware%201.1%20menu%20map%200108%20AN14.zip )

*By:* Rich NE1EE <TheDustyKey@...>

*Description:*
Corrected MEASURE > Rl button label

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 08:55 PM, Roger Need wrote:

What a gold mine!

Thanks, larry

On 2022-04-30 04:20:-0700, you wrote:

I see only Rl = 50 (not 1 and not j)

This is why I generally avoid the use of lower case "L" unless the meaning is clear, or I can use a font that makes s clear distinction. Simliar reasoning applies to the letter "O". In this case, I was hampered because I didn't know the context. I made this clear at the beginning. I don't intend to become a VNA expert. In saying this, I don't imply that anyone has any burden because of my point of view. It might be as simple as saying that I am not the person to document the features of the nVNAs. Finding an easy tool to use to make a menu map is one thing; documenting the nVNA, another.

~R~

On 2022-04-30 04:20:-0700, you wrote:

I see only Rl = 50 (not 1 and not j)

Good point. I was not expecting a lower case letter here, so I interpreted that as a 1 on both the -H and the -H4. Even in email, I can't always tell, depending on how the font is shown. In this case, I copied the text into my text editor, and saw there that it is a lower case "L".

As for the j, I made my first version of the new menu map by reading the one posted on the nanovna site, and it is not very clear. You will see that you can zoom into my menu and it will be very clear. I /guess/ that I interpreted that button as Rj, because even now it is not clear to me. Whoever manages is welcome to use the map from the files section here. When I look at my own map, that I created by reading the one on I see the Rj, so I assume that this is where I misread that. I will correct that today for both the -H and -H4 maps to use a lower case "L".

You must read how made XTAL measures and another:
/g/nanovna-users/message/25800
/g/nanovna-users/message/25801

Thanks for the link. I will read them.

~R~
72/73 de Rich NE1EE
The Dusty Key
On the banks of the Piscataqua