Another modified nanoVNA software
Testing a U/V Baofeng HT antenna with my modified nanoVNA software.
|
Re: Calibration bug in newer firmwares?
Last edy555 firmware DFU. 27-09-2019.
|
Re: Calibration bug in newer firmwares?
Larry,
I deleted the un-edited user guide I uploaded in favor of your version. We appreciate the effort you spent cleaning the user guide up. Props to ch045 for authoring the original guide.
Herb
|
Hi Rune Measuring phase is much used by me. It you e.g. want to measure using the port extension (in ps) to the end of an adaptor to which you solder leaded components then you check the S11 phase being 0 with e.g. 1 degree / division. That can of course be done with the native NanoVNA and then further measure with the NanoVNA-saver. A continuous trca facility woul not be bad either Kind regards Kurt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [email protected] < [email protected]> P? vegne af Rune Broberg Sendt: 27. september 2019 21:43 Til: [email protected]Emne: Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA-Saver 0.0.12 Hi Kurt, thanks for all your help with the calibration! I'm still working on it, and as you say, I need some better functions for saving the resulting calibration, that it may be used later. You are right that I haven't implemented scaling for the Y-axis of the phase display: I'm not entirely sure if it makes sense, so I disabled it for now. If it's requested and wanted, I'll add it in. :-) The R+jX scaling is getting another look, as it's clearly not entirely functional at the moment. There's also some rounding taking place in some of the charts where the software attempts to show "nice" values for the tick marks. This might be interfering with the user settings. The scaling is, clearly, a first attempt. :-) Thanks again for your help, and for your feedback on the software! I hope it proves useful for you! -- Rune / 5Q5R
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 17:33, Kurt Poulsen <kurt@...> wrote: Hi Rune
Version 0.0.12 great news.
I have tested your calibration using the Delay and L/C coefficients
together with my HP83033C female calibration standards and tested the
calculated data for equivalent L and C and at 100MHz they are OK.
The scaling of the Data Axis is super but some problem still exist.
The
R+jx is if setting to + - 11 is showing 10. I suppose it will come but
R+the
Dara Axis for any of the phase displays are greyed out. That was what
I stumbled over.
I did a T-Check manipulation where I copied the S11 to S22 and S21 to
S12 after I subtracted the Thru adaptor delay (42ps) from S21/S11.
Result attached but is not nice simply because there is no 12term
error correction performed. Adding a 10 or 20dB attenuator in front of
Port1 would help as linearizing the port1 input impedance to be closer
to 50ohm Keep up the good work very much appreciated.
Kind regards
Kurt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: [email protected] <[email protected]> P? vegne af
Rune Broberg
Sendt: 27. september 2019 13:05
Til: [email protected]
Emne: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA-Saver 0.0.12
I just released 0.0.12:
This release of NanoVNA-Saver offers a number of new features, all of
which have been widely requested.
First of all, there's now the option of scaling the plots: right click
them for a menu, where it's possible to set the maximum and minimum
values for the frequency and data axes. Sadly not yet ready for the
polar plots, and mouse control of zoom is also pushed to a future release.
Second, it's not possible to have "bands" displayed in the frequency
based
plots: Select "Display setup" to find the option for this. The default
data is for amateur radio bands - or you can put in your own.
Thirdly, the calibration procedure has received a new "calibration
assistant": A series of popup messages prompting you to switch between
calibration standards, and code to automatically sweep them for you
and store the results.
Finally, there's as always a number of bugfixes and stability improvements.
With more than 800 downloads of the 0.0.11 version, I can't wait to
hear what you all think of it this time - and I can't thank this
community and mailing list enough for the support, encouragement,
suggestions and testing you have provided!
I am interested in knowing what platforms you are getting this
software running on, *particularly* if you had had to jump through
hoops or do anything unexpected to get it to run: Do email me at
mihtjel@... if you can tell me what you had to do to make it
work, so that I may update the documentation, or make things easier to install in the future.
Thank you!
--
Rune / 5Q5R
|
Re: Calibration bug in newer firmwares?
Paul, I uploaded a manual in the files section that has the answer to that. It is authored by cho45. My version has live links.
Hope this helps
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
Solving d = a*exp(j*2*pi*f*t) with 256 measurements will give better accuracy than the 32k point FFT with far less computation. The sole limitation to the accuracy from computing a linear fit to the phase is the accuracy of the velocity factor and the angular accuracy of the phase measurements. A nanoVNA should be able to measure the length of an airline to 4.4 mm or less using 101 frequency magnitude and phase measurements. That's assuming a 3.6 degree phase accuracy based on a 40 dB SNR at 900 MHz.
One can do better than that by restricting the sweep to a range with higher SNR.
In summary, the number of points in the FFT is a red herring. The error cited is only an issue if the calculation is done incorrectly. One could also interpolate the sinc(t) in the time domain using 8 points to any desired sampling from a 256 point FFT. However, that would still be the wrong way to determine the delay time. Solving the equation in the first sentence is how it is properly done.
Have Fun!
Reg
|
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 04:13 PM, Rune Broberg wrote:
Oristo,
thank you! Exactly what I need!
Now, to find time to implement all the things I want to do .. oh, and fix
all the bugs... ;-)
--
No such thing as bugs... they're all undocumented features.?
|
Hello Rune,
I have just uploaded V0.0.12, and it works superbly on my Win10 64Bit machine! I did have it shut down inexplicably shortly after I had first started the program, however I powered down the nanoVNA, restarted 'nanoVNA-Saver, then repowered the VNA and everything has worked normally since doing that. I also noted that your software immediately recognised com4 from the nanoVNA immediately!
I haven¡¯t done a remote Calibrate yet, but I will do that later in the day. Thank you so much for your continuing efforts with nanoVNA-Saver! We all very much appreciate your expertise!
Regards & 73's
Pete
ZL2iK
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rune Broberg Sent: Friday, 27 September 2019 23:05 To: [email protected]Subject: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA-Saver 0.0.12 I just released 0.0.12: This release of NanoVNA-Saver offers a number of new features, all of which have been widely requested. First of all, there's now the option of scaling the plots: right click them for a menu, where it's possible to set the maximum and minimum values for the frequency and data axes. Sadly not yet ready for the polar plots, and mouse control of zoom is also pushed to a future release. Second, it's not possible to have "bands" displayed in the frequency based plots: Select "Display setup" to find the option for this. The default data is for amateur radio bands - or you can put in your own. Thirdly, the calibration procedure has received a new "calibration assistant": A series of popup messages prompting you to switch between calibration standards, and code to automatically sweep them for you and store the results. Finally, there's as always a number of bugfixes and stability improvements. With more than 800 downloads of the 0.0.11 version, I can't wait to hear what you all think of it this time - and I can't thank this community and mailing list enough for the support, encouragement, suggestions and testing you have provided! I am interested in knowing what platforms you are getting this software running on, *particularly* if you had had to jump through hoops or do anything unexpected to get it to run: Do email me at mihtjel@... if you can tell me what you had to do to make it work, so that I may update the documentation, or make things easier to install in the future. Thank you! -- Rune / 5Q5R
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
I'm talking about polyethylene dielectric cable. It has velocity
coefficient of 0.659. Its temperature coefficient is negligible.
If you cant identify polyethylene in the cable you are purchasing, then
that's not my problem.
A
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, 23:01 , <qrp.ddc@...> wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:09 AM, Alan Lloyd wrote:
I think polyethylene dielectric coax has a pretty reliable velocity
factor of
0. 66.
No, it depends on environment temperature and used frequency.
Also, different cables uses different dielectric and VF may be
significantly different.
For example:
- PE: solid polyethylene, VF=0.659
- PTFE: solid polytetrafluoroethylene, VF=0.695
- ST: solid teflon, VF=0.694
- FE: foam polyethylene, VF=0.79 - 0.88
- FS: foam polystyrene, VF=0.91,
- etc.
I got several cables from aliexpress, some of them doesn't have marking,
but these which have marking has different VF than claimed in
specification. Some RG58 cable from aliexpress have large deviation for VF
and Z.
So, there is no way to identify dielectric with no special equipment. And
there is no way to 100% know exact VF of the cable, even if it has marking.
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:09 AM, Alan Lloyd wrote:
I think polyethylene dielectric coax has a pretty reliable velocity
factor of
0. 66.
No, it depends on environment temperature and used frequency. Also, different cables uses different dielectric and VF may be significantly different. For example: - PE: solid polyethylene, VF=0.659 - PTFE: solid polytetrafluoroethylene, VF=0.695 - ST: solid teflon, VF=0.694 - FE: foam polyethylene, VF=0.79 - 0.88 - FS: foam polystyrene, VF=0.91, - etc. I got several cables from aliexpress, some of them doesn't have marking, but these which have marking has different VF than claimed in specification. Some RG58 cable from aliexpress have large deviation for VF and Z. So, there is no way to identify dielectric with no special equipment. And there is no way to 100% know exact VF of the cable, even if it has marking.
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
qrp.ddc,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Ham's such as myself are generally looking to purchase specific types of 50 ohm cable such as RG-58, RG-223, RG-6 etc. The cables are all marked by the manufacturer according to type and we pretty much know the velocity factors by heart, so entering that info into the nanoVNA is a no-brainer. I don't really use the nanoVNA's TDR function for purchasing specific lengths, but rather to ensure for instance that a 10 meter length of cable being offered for sell doesn't have damage at say 4 meters to its inner conductor. One cable I measured before purchasing had very strange peaks and valleys on the nanoVNA's TDR function (wish I could have saved the screenshot), when I examined it more closely I could see slight equally spaced pits on its outer insulation. I'm guessing the cable was used in a mismatched power transmitting application and the spacing of the insulation pit marks was associated with the transmit frequency. So I use the TDR function as more of a sanity check to help sort the chaff from the wheat.
Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you had access to a professional level TDR to not appreciate how, even with its limits, the TDR function on the nanoVNA is a godsend to hobbyists, students, and radio amateurs as essentially a throw-in to its vector network analyzer capabilities. Let's hope in nanoVNA V2 that Hugen increases the number of measurement points and gives you some of the other things on your wish list.
Herb
|
Re: Calibration bug in newer firmwares?
Where can I find the later, bug free firmware? Paul
|
Re: nanovna Battery Specifications
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 06:59 PM, Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote:
When I buy very small lithium batteries from Farnell, it will come in a box
with hazardous labels on the outside, and say it should not be shipped if
damaged.
Probably this is the reason why NanoVNA shipped within plastic box. When I buy Li-Ion batteries on aliexpress, they are also shipped in plastic box. It seems that shipping Li-Ion battery requires plastic box.
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Respectfully Dr¡¯s Yin and Pez;
Perhaps much of the frustration you must share with Dr. Kirby and myself, and perhaps a few others who might be following for want of discovery of what these exchanges are all about; results from distorted translation.
To wit...
Early in your entry into this forum, and repeatedly in your responses to those who have reached out to engage technically with you; your posts translate with many judgmental and condescending overtones. In the English speaking world, such overtones can be interpreted as unwelcoming and an invitation to terminate ones gesture of willingness to support.
By example...
I did not anticipate a reprimand as a result of my request for executable code. While the technical content in your response answered my query clearly by identifying a need to compile multiple modules locally, and thus moved my understanding in a progressive direction; it was immediately followed by an invitation to terminate our discussion, based upon your judgement of the time I might feel obliged to bear focus on your efforts.
Those of us who may or may not be attempting to understand you lack neither intellect, nor motivation. We also participate in this forum as equals, and maintain decorum by agreeing to disagree, and occasionally sparring with one another philosophically, when our differences are slight or of limited consequence.
On occasion, I disagree with Dr. Kirby philosophically, but almost always agree with him technically; and I acknowledge with respect his sometimes short fused and quirky... slightly mean spirited... personality. In my own humble opinion, I find his response to you overwhelmingly supportive, and generous in his patience toward attempting to communicate with you in a civil and respectful manner. I also echo his comments and requests of you to provide enablement to the members of this forum who are indeed able, intellectually capable, and willing to invest their own and personal resources of time, knowledge, and skill without desire for remuneration in any form beyond advancing their own knowledge and insight. This is our hobby.
I also agree entirely with Dr. Kirby¡¯s assessment of the level of insight and understanding by the absolute beginners here who are seeking understanding and motivated by their own passions. The information you have provided thus far is nowhere near the level required to understand relevance or significance of anything that you have posted to date in the minds of anyone not skilled in the art.
It is difficult to read Dr. Kirby¡¯s closing and overtly encouraging comment: ¡°Please understand that I am trying to help you and others by bringing to your attention the fact that few, if anyone on this group is following you.¡±, has elicited such a condescending response. His ¡°subjective¡± comments were sincere recommendations on how best to get this community engaged and behind you, and knowledgeable of what you are attempting to achieve. You also appear to have cast off his technical comments by suggesting he has a closed mind. This is neither respectful, now will it gain you the respect that, you, your colleagues and you work may well deserve.
I will continue in my attempts to follow this thread until such time I experience an epiphany, or reach a conclusion that there is likely nothing of merit that will advance my understanding or the enjoyment of my hobby. Your posts thus far have not made this an easy journey.
In the meantime; I will consider the negative overtones to be artifacts of translation and not take them as personal attacks on my intellect, abilities, or my integrity. I will make no attempt to influence the decision of my colleagues on their assessment of your work, short of the aforementioned epiphany.
With my sincere respect and good wishes for success in your work. I wish you well my friends.
--
73
Gary, N3GO
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
Hmm. I think polyethylene dielectric coax has a pretty reliable velocity
factor of
0. 66. So identify the dielectric before applying the vna to measure its
length?
A
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, 21:39 , <qrp.ddc@...> wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:52 PM, hwalker wrote:
With your access to better equipment, the nanoVNA's TDR function probably does
seem like a toy, but if the user realizes its limitations and doesn't expect
laboratory quality from a $50 device, the function is still a worthwhile tool
and learning feature. Unfortunately I don't have access to better equipment. The only VNA that I
have is NanoVNA and EU1KY single port VNA.
If the TDR function tells me that a reel of cable marked
25 meters is 24.5 meters that's close enough for me to feel confident
purchasing it. Such cipher 25 "meters" or 24.5 "meters" is completely useless, because
you're just don't know the real cable velocity factor. You will not be able
to measure velocity factor of the cable at hamfests selling. When you don't
know velocity factor of the cables, you cannot compare two cables and
cannot measure it.
For example, you're want to buy the cable with specific length and needs
to select proper length from two pieces of cables A and B:
- cable A has 11 meters length (physical length), velocity factor 0.60,
but you're don't know that
- cable B has 7.4 meters length (physical length), velocity factor 0.90,
but you're don't know that
You're trying to measure cable length with NanoVNA TDR. Since you're don't
know the real velocity factor (which actually depends on manufacturer,
environment temperature and frequency) of these cables, you're using
default setup for velocity factor 0.66.
NanoVNA shows you:
- 9.1 "meters" for cable A
- 10.1 "meters" for cable B
You're needs to select 10 meters (physical length) piece.
Which one you will select, based on NanoVNA TDR readings? :)
|
Re: nanovna Battery Specifications
Thanks!??
Mike WY6K
"... somewhere in the distance, there's a tower and a light, broadcastin' the resistance, through the rain and through the night..."
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Friday, September 27, 2019, 03:42:37 PM CDT, Warren Allgyer <allgyer@...> wrote:
Mike,
The do indeed increase the dynamic range somewhat. The dynamic range at 600 MHz and above is rated at 40 dB and all of the units I tested , even the worst ones, met this spec. I have no uses for which I need dynamic range greater than 30 dB. For example, a return loss of 30 dB equates to a VSWR of 1.07 to 1. Trust me..... if I can achieve 1.07 to 1, even for my broadcast clients, I have no need to go further. And 30 dB return loss is easily seen with a dynamic range of 40 dB. I have never, in my broadcast or in my hobby career spanning 50 years, had the need to measure return loss greater than that number.
Some may say they want to see filter skirts down to 60 dB or below. There are such needs but I don't have them. If I can see the -3 dB point and the -40 dB point..... I have no need to know the exact frequency where the attenuation is more. And, if I did, I would use and amplifier on Port0 to expand the dynamic range as was illustrated here in an earlier post.
You have a better unit. But I would be stunned if you do anything with it that could not be done with the least of the Nanovna versions.
WA8TOD
|
Re: nanovna Battery Specifications
Mike,
The do indeed increase the dynamic range somewhat. The dynamic range at 600 MHz and above is rated at 40 dB and all of the units I tested , even the worst ones, met this spec. I have no uses for which I need dynamic range greater than 30 dB. For example, a return loss of 30 dB equates to a VSWR of 1.07 to 1. Trust me..... if I can achieve 1.07 to 1, even for my broadcast clients, I have no need to go further. And 30 dB return loss is easily seen with a dynamic range of 40 dB. I have never, in my broadcast or in my hobby career spanning 50 years, had the need to measure return loss greater than that number.
Some may say they want to see filter skirts down to 60 dB or below. There are such needs but I don't have them. If I can see the -3 dB point and the -40 dB point..... I have no need to know the exact frequency where the attenuation is more. And, if I did, I would use and amplifier on Port0 to expand the dynamic range as was illustrated here in an earlier post.
You have a better unit. But I would be stunned if you do anything with it that could not be done with the least of the Nanovna versions.
WA8TOD
|
Re: Experimental 256 point FFT Firmware
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:52 PM, hwalker wrote: With your access to better equipment, the nanoVNA's TDR function probably does
seem like a toy, but if the user realizes its limitations and doesn't expect
laboratory quality from a $50 device, the function is still a worthwhile tool
and learning feature. Unfortunately I don't have access to better equipment. The only VNA that I have is NanoVNA and EU1KY single port VNA. If the TDR function tells me that a reel of cable marked
25 meters is 24.5 meters that's close enough for me to feel confident
purchasing it. Such cipher 25 "meters" or 24.5 "meters" is completely useless, because you're just don't know the real cable velocity factor. You will not be able to measure velocity factor of the cable at hamfests selling. When you don't know velocity factor of the cables, you cannot compare two cables and cannot measure it. For example, you're want to buy the cable with specific length and needs to select proper length from two pieces of cables A and B: - cable A has 11 meters length (physical length), velocity factor 0.60, but you're don't know that - cable B has 7.4 meters length (physical length), velocity factor 0.90, but you're don't know that You're trying to measure cable length with NanoVNA TDR. Since you're don't know the real velocity factor (which actually depends on manufacturer, environment temperature and frequency) of these cables, you're using default setup for velocity factor 0.66. NanoVNA shows you: - 9.1 "meters" for cable A - 10.1 "meters" for cable B You're needs to select 10 meters (physical length) piece. Which one you will select, based on NanoVNA TDR readings? :)
|
Re: Si5351A max fundamental frequency
Hi
Thanks! I think I will change the firmware since "sounds" numbers are more important to me than the last 100 MHz.
Bo
|
Hi
The way I see the "marker points" is semi-automatic. The user will have to press e.g. the LPF button, if the DUT is a LPF. The S/W then looks from low to high frequency for the selected "marker points". They may be way off if viewing a filter in the stop band. It is at the user's discretion to understand the functionality. Otherwise the user can place the markers manually. I don't expect any AI in this matter.
Bo
|
Kurt Poulsen
Peter Mulhare
WY6K Mike Watts
Warren Allgyer
Bo, OZ2M