Re: The scroll button change the Start frequency
You select Start frequency change from leveler (click on start frequency at bottom) START at bottom Click on M: xxxxx Hz at top for select marker move mode
|
The scroll button change the Start frequency
Hi All
I have H4 + 1.2.40 , after some use without problems , i have a serious bug with the scroll button , it does no more change marker frequency but start frequency , is it normal ? may be i am missing some setting ??
73's Nizar
|
Re: Adapting the LiteVNA for SAR?
Thanks, Kent. I'm more interested in using signals through air. The front-end of the LiteVNA was described here: /g/liteVNA/topic/99749985#msg1054I see I made a mistake in my 1st post. The liteVNA doesn't use a similar DSP to the nanoVNA but uses the uP's internal DSP and several switches. However, all the switches can be statically set: reflect=open, Rx/tx synth set to ADF4350, rcv & ecal connected to ports. Then control Tx & Rx from external controller.
|
Re: Starting trouble for NanoVNA!
I have the same problem. Nanovna-H, Firmware V. 1.2.40. Had it for several years.
Also the menu seems to start by itself, and go into whatever setting it feels like. Maybe case is interfering with the touch screen. sometimes I can press lightly on case and the menu acts randomly.
|
Re: Adapting the LiteVNA for SAR?
Hi Larry
I have worked on several GPR projects.? One is currently looking for land mines in SE Asia.
A LOT of loss going though dirt.??? And a big impedance bump at the air/dirt interface.?
They really need much more power than the Nano puts out.?? And since the same port is Tx and Rec, an amp will not be simple.????? But lots of neat stuff down there.?? Kent
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Monday, February 17, 2025 at 10:17:28 AM CST, Larry Rothman via groups.io <nlroth@...> wrote:
Folks,
Using the NanoVNA as a signal source for Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was discussed a couple of years ago. Today on Hacker News, there is an article about a home-built Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) unit using a freq around 6GHz.
The article discusses theory and the problem of finding a suitable Rcv A/D. The LiteVNA has the freq range, is capable of resolving nS time (to a certain amount), can measure phase and is programmable.
The big issue is probably the switching time of the generator/reflection ICs in the front-end of the LiteVNA. As for the A/D spec, would the heterodyne method and DSP used be a limiting factor?
So - might it be feasible to make use of the LiteVNA in a simplified radar setup using an external controller and appropriate antennas?
Could the TDR routines be adapted?
Could the LiteVNA be used with a TinSA-Ultra and a controller for something?
Just thinking out of the box here. In my 60+ years of Tech, I have always looked at repurposing stuff. So, instead of "not possible" answers, I would rather hear what might need to be changed (electronics /software) to achieve a minimal proof of concept. Thinking caps on....
... Larry
|
Adapting the LiteVNA for SAR?
Folks,
Using the NanoVNA as a signal source for Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was discussed a couple of years ago. Today on Hacker News, there is an article about a home-built Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) unit using a freq around 6GHz.
The article discusses theory and the problem of finding a suitable Rcv A/D. The LiteVNA has the freq range, is capable of resolving nS time (to a certain amount), can measure phase and is programmable.
The big issue is probably the switching time of the generator/reflection ICs in the front-end of the LiteVNA. As for the A/D spec, would the heterodyne method and DSP used be a limiting factor?
So - might it be feasible to make use of the LiteVNA in a simplified radar setup using an external controller and appropriate antennas?
Could the TDR routines be adapted?
Could the LiteVNA be used with a TinSA-Ultra and a controller for something?
Just thinking out of the box here. In my 60+ years of Tech, I have always looked at repurposing stuff. So, instead of "not possible" answers, I would rather hear what might need to be changed (electronics /software) to achieve a minimal proof of concept. Thinking caps on....
... Larry
|
Upgraded GOOZEEZOO 7in NanoVNA SV4401A
Has anyone used the SV4401A nanoVNA ?
Thinking of getting one off Amazon, but most of the reviews are for other
models of nanoVNA.
Orrin WN1Z
|
Roger, we will need a little more info to help you effectively.
Which OS and version are you using on your PC? Win10/11? Win7? Win8? some flavor of Linux?
But a couple of first notes:
1. Don't use an OTG cable (those are for the USB micro-B connectors). A normal USB-A to C data (not charging) cable is required. For USB-C, OTG is normally a software function, but if your cable somehow does force OTG, it is the wrong mode for nanoVNA.
2. Assuming you are using some version of Windows, open Device Manager. Then expand the line that says "Ports (COM & LPT)" so you can see the individual devices. Plug in the USB cable and turn on your nanoVNA. You should see a new COM device appear. Note its identifier (e.g. COM6, COM10). When you turn on/off the nanoVNA, this device should appear then disappear. When you see this happening, you know that your cable and nanoVNA are correctly communicating with the computer. Only after that should you try to connect with a software program, and you need to select in that software program the identifier of this COM port and tell it to connect.
I hope that is helpful.
Stan KC7XE
|
On a PC, go into Device Manager and verify if the PC is detecting the NanoVNA port when the connected NanoVNA is powered on.
You should see something like ¡°USB Serial Device (COMx)¡± where x will be the COM port number.
If you do not see a the above message, try another USB port and also another USB cable.
--
Bernie Murphy, VE3FWF
*Real* radios glow in the dark
|
Not able to connect to any apps. PC, Web, and Android. Used OTG Cable, USB a to c on PC
Version 1.1
What am I missing
Tks,
RogerC
|
Starting trouble for NanoVNA!
I am a new NanoVNA user. Mine is an H v3.6. No firmware updates have been
done. I have been using it only for a few days. Sometimes, on sliding the
switch on, the screen is blank, but the blue LED is lit. After a few on/off
cycles, the screen becomes functional and I can use it.
Does any of you have a similar problem?
Jon, VU2JO
|
Many thanks ddemos1963 for sharing your success in making NanoVNA App works with Wine in Linux.
I also use only Linux.
In Wine I ran NanoVNA-App-Setup-V1.1.209-0D18.exe and the installation went flawlessly. With your explanations (32 bits, windows 10, registry edition) I now have NanoVNA App fully working.
In my case I did not have to install gdiplus.
Here is my configuration :
Archlinux up to date
Wine 10.1
NanoVNA-H : hardware 3.4, firmware 1.2.40 ; mapped to /dev/ttyACM0
This is a great application easy to use. Congratulations to the developers.
Pascal
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
Nizar,
With only S11 and S21 measured, the renormalization depends on the symmetry of the device measured.
Most passive linear devices have S21=S12. (Isolators are an exception.)
Many filters have S11 about equal to S22, and the renormalization will succeed based on just how close to equal they are.
Filters with significantly different input and output impedances will not be properly renormalized without measurement of all 4 S-parameters.
Some ceramic filters do show noticeable S11/S22 differences when reversed, while others look pretty close.
I wouldn't depend on renormalization on the NanoVNA for something like device acceptance where good accuracy is needed.
--John
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 11:44 PM, Team-SIM SIM-Mode wrote:
Hi Brian
May be Jhon can reverse the same ceramic filter and get a comparative response
with forward curve already succesfully published here , i expect to found
almost the same response, indeed the ceramic filter is loaded with same
virtual impedance of 430 Ohm on both sides.
Thanks John for sharing your superbe Z-renormalisation experiments.
73's Nizar .
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 07:46 AM, Donald Kirk wrote:
SFE10.7MA5-A
Don, attached are the specs I have for your filter. Note that the G.D.T. entry is blank. GDT means group delay time and this filter has no spec. Murata made many special types for FM IFs where group delay variation over the passband is specified. These filter types reduce detected audio distortion. The body of these filters is usually blue. I've also attached the Murata test circuit. Note that the capacitor is specified on just one side of the filter. I assume its purpose is to account for the input capacitance of the stage the filter drives. Note that Murata specifies a tolerance of 2 pF for the 10 pF. I've attached curves that show response variation for various capacitive loads for a 230 kHz filter. Brian
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
Thanks for the test, Don. I have dozens of Murata 10.7 MHz filters from 110 to 280 kHz bandwidth. Some show little difference when reversed, but most do. Incidentally, it is probably the difference in group delay that causes the difference in audio distortion I observe when reversing a filter. FM detectors are sensitive to group delay. Try more filters if you can. If you could post forward and reverse .s2p files for 50 ohm drive, that would help me check my program.
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
Hi Brian and Nizar,
As a reference I went and tested my 10.7 MHz ceramic filter connected in both directions and see very little difference (part number SFE10.7MA5-A which is a Murata part number). See attached plot showing both directions tested (the plots are overlayed, and they really fall right on top of each other).
Also note that this ceramic filter input and output impedance is advertised as 330 ohms but it looks like my transformers are presenting an impedance of approximately 280 ohms to the ceramic filter input and output based on measurements I did with my NanoVNA-F when the transformers were connected to a 50 ohm load (should have been 313 ohms based on my transformer turns ratio but my measurements yielded 280 ohms).
Note: the Red marker in my attached plot is at 10.700 MHz and this was indeed the frequency where the response curves were peak.
Just FYI,
Don
|
Re: a little confusion in vision between 0 and 8 on the display
Hi
Still no reaction with this topic, Zero simple graphic displayed without strike should be more pleasant to read on the screen especially if you have some vision trouble to avoid confusion with 8.
73's Nizar.
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
Hi Brian
May be Jhon can reverse the same ceramic filter and get a comparative response with forward curve already succesfully published here , i expect to found almost the same response, indeed the ceramic filter is loaded with same virtual impedance of 430 Ohm on both sides.
Thanks John for sharing your superbe Z-renormalisation experiments.
73's Nizar .
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
The renormalization program is listed at the top of this page:
See the bottom of the page for downloading instructions.
I think the program works, but I don't have a NanoVNA to fully test it. I'm counting on some intrepid soul to make a forward and reverse filter measurement and let me know how it goes. I don't think this is the place to debug software. Contact me at the email address at the bottom of the page given above.
I tried an example from the source of the renormalization equations, but results were a little off. I had to manually invert a matrix to determine that the results given in the source were wrong!
Brian
|
Re: testing non-50 ohm filters was Re: [nanovna-users] NanoVNA port renormalization
I've observed that reversing just about any Murata 10.7 MHz ceramic filter alters the response and changes the measured distortion in an FM tuner. I believe this means that S11 differs from S22, or S21 differs from S12, or both. Evidently this precludes using a NanoVNA to accurately renormalize from 50 to 330 ohms since it only measures S11 and S21. But if you reverse the filter in the measurement circuit, you can measure S22 and S12. Then if you combine all four measurements, you can use the full renormalization equations for S11, S21, S12, and S22 to get the correct response.
Since the NanoVNA won't do this itself, I've written a little Windows program to do it. You feed it two 50 ohm .s2p files and it generates an .s2p file for whatever renormalization Z you specify. It seems to work. When I get it all documented, I'll post a link.
Brian
|
Barry Leonard KN4JRF
Ham Radio
Roger C
