I have often thought that there should be a law that all portable devices have a hard off switch or battery disconnect. Both issues can be fixed by the clever tinkerer. For the NVNA, add a battery disconnect jumper. For the Wouxon, move the voltage divider tap. 73 -Jim NU0C On Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:41:55 -0800 Ismo V??n?nen OH2FTG <ismo.vaananen@...> wrote: On my nanovna clone the battery was slightly bulged from the factory.
It's mad that the known wouxun fault from 2010 still persists (they put the battery voltage measurement voltage divider BEFORE the power switch. So the 1600mAh battery lasts almost exactly a week in storage with that drain). Baofengs have been a bit hit & miss, one holds charge for months easily, while the other only for a few weeks.
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 02:44 PM, Ron Bussiere wrote:
" I made a simple tool to install the board side connectors, but also doubt they will survive very long. .."
=========================================================
Ron,
Thanks for the suggestions. Both boards have been donated to students for their own use. I relegate this to the same pile as the other cheap Asian electronics I've purchased that didn't live up to their promise. The success of the NanoVNA and its derivatives caused me to let my usual guard down. I generally wait for user reviews from the first wave of buyers before recommending a purchase.
- Herb
|
Re: test fixture - how bad can it be? A non-rhetorical question
Hi Brian,
Unfortunate but a 100 pF will NOT remain a 100 pF C independent of frequency. And in fact the C value will increase with an increase in frequency. In your case with the values you provided, the result you present is due to the presence of series inductance of ~ 67 nH. Part of this are leads on the mica C as well as L from the fixture. In any case ALL passive RLC components have a parasitic component and at the vary least, a C as well as L will show an increase in value with increased frequency as you have shown in your chart. Eventually the C will obtain series resonance and an L will obtain anti resonance or parallel resonate frequency.
Alan
|
Re: test fixture - how bad can it be? A non-rhetorical question
Brian,
How much different are your results if you clip to the capacitor 0.25" away from the cap body vs 0.5" away from the cap body? The inductance of the leads in series with the capacitor will form a resonator. The measured capacitance will increase as the resonance is approached from below.
--John Gord
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 03:43 PM, Brian wrote:
I have also been looking to answer how accurate should the NanoVNA be at HF.
Most components I want to measure are wire ended so my test jig is a 60cm
RG316 with SMA on each end cut in half. Each cut end has 1cm of inner exposed
and an alligator clip put on. This is calibrated with open, short and a 50 ohm
made from 2 100ohm resistors with short wires soldered on. A 100pF silver mica
then gives the attached which indicates 105pF at 7MHz, 109pF at 14MHz and
126pF at 28MHz. I remove the alligator clips and repeat soldering the
connections (inconvenient but worth trying). This gives the same results.
Should the NanoVNA do better than this? Are there firmware versions which will
produce more accurate results? Is it my VNA hardware(made in China somewhere)
or test jig or test method?
I have found the VNA gives good results using S21 on filters but using a
single cable and S11, capacitors and inductors are difficult to measure. I
expect ferrite cored inductors to show a frequency variation but a 100pF
capacitor should still be 100pF at 30MHz. I've repeated calibration, tried
different leads but I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of reactance
measurement. From what I have read, I could manually add "fudge factors" to
the calibration and remove what looks like a systematic error but that is not
so easy for the mathematically challenged (like me).
My conclusion is that the accuracy depends on the accuracy of the standards
you have and the amount of effort you put into "improving" the calibration.
Some test jigs might be easier to get a good calibration but up to 30MHz the
test jig is not the most important factor.
I have done what Erik suggests and measured a 100 ohm resistor. It shows no
significant reactance at 30MHz. I don't have a record of it but certainly not
26pF.
73 Brian.
|
On the nanoVNA(H) the spec on the IP5303 says its standby is less than 100 uA, assuming it's 'Smart load detector' detects the unit has been turned off and puts the chip in standby. For a 450 mAH battery that should be upwards of six months.
LiIon's have very low self discharge and should not be the issue. If the cell is physically puffing up like a party balloon it is being over discharged and the battery will go bad within several months unless you keep up on recharging it every.four or five days. The nanoVNA(H) has a diode from battery in series feeding the Vbat input to the STM processor. Firmware could be causing too much draw on the Vbatt line. I do suspect the IP5305 is charging the battery at too high a rate for the small 450 mAH battery.
The nanoVNA-F is a different animal. It has two 10k resistor divider across the battery providing half supply to one of STM's ADC input for battery voltage monitor. Having 20K across the battery all the time is not good. -F covers some of its problems by its brute force 5 AH battery. .
One thing I can add about STM ADC input Z. The STM spec claims a 100K ADC input Z with wide variation. This is not truly correct and gives designers the impression they need to have low enough divider resistor to prevent the 100k input Z from effecting reading. What the ADC input is really loading the input with is a switched capacitor of 10's of pF. You can fix the loading due to the switching SAR ADC load by placing about a 500 pF cap from ADC input to ground so you can then use higher value resistors in the battery monitor divider network and reduce the off drain loss through the resistors.
|
Re: test fixture - how bad can it be? A non-rhetorical question
For flying wires and alligator clips to work, everything must be in the *exact
same position* as when the calibration was done. I use a couple of BNC
female connectors mounted on a piece of double sided FT-4 board. I've then
soldered alligator clips to the BNC teat which I use to mount the component
under test. This keeps everything in the same position as the cal.
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:43 PM Brian <vk4bap@...> wrote: I have also been looking to answer how accurate should the NanoVNA be at
HF. Most components I want to measure are wire ended so my test jig is a
60cm RG316 with SMA on each end cut in half. Each cut end has 1cm of inner
exposed and an alligator clip put on. This is calibrated with open, short
and a 50 ohm made from 2 100ohm resistors with short wires soldered on. A
100pF silver mica then gives the attached which indicates 105pF at 7MHz,
109pF at 14MHz and 126pF at 28MHz. I remove the alligator clips and repeat
soldering the connections (inconvenient but worth trying). This gives the
same results. Should the NanoVNA do better than this? Are there firmware
versions which will produce more accurate results? Is it my VNA
hardware(made in China somewhere) or test jig or test method?
I have found the VNA gives good results using S21 on filters but using a
single cable and S11, capacitors and inductors are difficult to measure. I
expect ferrite cored inductors to show a frequency variation but a 100pF
capacitor should still be 100pF at 30MHz. I've repeated calibration, tried
different leads but I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of
reactance measurement. From what I have read, I could manually add "fudge
factors" to the calibration and remove what looks like a systematic error
but that is not so easy for the mathematically challenged (like me).
My conclusion is that the accuracy depends on the accuracy of the
standards you have and the amount of effort you put into "improving" the
calibration. Some test jigs might be easier to get a good calibration but
up to 30MHz the test jig is not the most important factor.
I have done what Erik suggests and measured a 100 ohm resistor. It shows
no significant reactance at 30MHz. I don't have a record of it but
certainly not 26pF.
73 Brian.
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Hi Gary,
Great questions. I have no idea what the answers are. But Erik¡¯s and John¡¯s replies seem reasonable.
Perhaps Dr. Kirby might know.
Best regards,
Jeff
|
Re: test fixture - how bad can it be? A non-rhetorical question
I have also been looking to answer how accurate should the NanoVNA be at HF. Most components I want to measure are wire ended so my test jig is a 60cm RG316 with SMA on each end cut in half. Each cut end has 1cm of inner exposed and an alligator clip put on. This is calibrated with open, short and a 50 ohm made from 2 100ohm resistors with short wires soldered on. A 100pF silver mica then gives the attached which indicates 105pF at 7MHz, 109pF at 14MHz and 126pF at 28MHz. I remove the alligator clips and repeat soldering the connections (inconvenient but worth trying). This gives the same results. Should the NanoVNA do better than this? Are there firmware versions which will produce more accurate results? Is it my VNA hardware(made in China somewhere) or test jig or test method?
I have found the VNA gives good results using S21 on filters but using a single cable and S11, capacitors and inductors are difficult to measure. I expect ferrite cored inductors to show a frequency variation but a 100pF capacitor should still be 100pF at 30MHz. I've repeated calibration, tried different leads but I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of reactance measurement. From what I have read, I could manually add "fudge factors" to the calibration and remove what looks like a systematic error but that is not so easy for the mathematically challenged (like me).
My conclusion is that the accuracy depends on the accuracy of the standards you have and the amount of effort you put into "improving" the calibration. Some test jigs might be easier to get a good calibration but up to 30MHz the test jig is not the most important factor.
I have done what Erik suggests and measured a 100 ohm resistor. It shows no significant reactance at 30MHz. I don't have a record of it but certainly not 26pF.
73 Brian.
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
Hi Herb. I made a simple tool to install the board side connectors, but also doubt they will survive very long. My first thought was to solder them onto the board, but that would probably cause the small connector to lift off.
Perhaps some epoxy or super glue? I could make a 'dam' around the outside of the board and fill it 1/8" or so with clear fiberglass resin.....
ron
N4UE
|
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 03:06 PM, BruceN wrote: Lithium chemistry battery charges have a setting called "Storage Charge". Interesting, I'd never seen that parameter on data sheets before. That'll give me something new to study ;-) 73 de Andy
|
Re: First PCB pictures of the V2
Mel, thanks for the great help with this project (and to Gabriel-san, of course).
You should change your username on groups.io to Vignette Tsukinose April.
Sorry about the inside joke, at least you can google it :)
73, Mike AF7KR
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 01:47 PM, Phil Royce wrote:
" looks like 23 more cables to order and fix them permanently on to sma patch panel, I don't want to take on and off these, knowing in the past these connectors are not continuous use parts."
====================================================================
I bought a couple of demo boards for classroom teaching and they didn't even last out the day with my students. A lifted trace on one board and intermittent cable connections on both boards after use by my better students. For a teaching environment, I would suggest something sturdier like the SDR-Kits Testboard Kit, or as you suggested permanently attached and fixed in place demo board cables.
- Herb
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Gary, just a guess (I'm not a VNA designer) but it might be because it's
easier to design and characterize an "absolute" (open or short) with
nominally infinite impedance than something that needs to match some
arbitrary value. And how would you choose the arbitrary values?
Different users have different requirements.
I think, but am not sure, that using arbitrary values also would prevent
any pretense at corrected measurements beyond those arbitrary values.
When your limits are infinity, nothing stands in your way. :-)
73,
John
----
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/7/20 2:48 PM, Gary O'Neil wrote: Hi again Jeff;
I believe I now sufficiently understand the technical aspects of the discussions in this thread to forego the wizardry behind the pursuit of high accuracy. it appears sufficiently sound.
On that happy note¡ I will state my one remaining question succinctly. Why the obsession over accuracy at the the two most unstable phase regions of highest Q and unreachable limits of infinity and zero?
A reasonable and credible answer will be a bounded tolerance of impedance or phase in those regions, and an estimate of the consequence of exceeding the tolerance boundaries.
I will reiterate¡ There is nothing wrong with how this is treated what is being done or the rationale behind the obsession. The only question is simply... Why?
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
|
Re: errors of "error" models
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
Found a better price here for bulk. I'm use to lab prices so these are pretty cheap but not going to use constantly just for demo and test theories.
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
looks like 23 more cables to order and fix them permanently on to sma patch panel, I don't want to take on and off these, knowing in the past these connectors are not continuous use parts. Thanks for the part number.
|
Measuring resonance from coax far end.
Hi folks,
This is more a generic VNA question, but thought i'd ask.
I've seen a trick to "eliminate" the coax by calibrating via the OSL on the
far end of the coax, rather than having OSL connected directly to the VNA.
Essentially it's re-calibrated with the coax factored into the equation,
virtually moving the feedpoint to inside the shack for accurate antenna
feedpoint measurement.
If i calibrate the far end, take resonance readings, then recalibrate with
the OSL connected directly to the VNA, re-take resonance readings, would it
be safe to assume if there is common-mode current interference on the coax
it would account for differing results (if there are any)?
If there's no common-mode currents, the coax-length should be invisible.
Just want to make sure i've got my theory correct. :)
Thanks & 73s,
Chris.
|
Re: Part Number for the Demokit Cable
30 mating cycles ?? That gets you through the Demo Board only twice !! Where can one get extra cables, I think I may need them if I am to use the Demo Board to show off what the NanoVNA can do. 73, Dick, W1KSZ ________________________________ From: [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of reuterr@... <reuterr@...> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 12:42 PM To: [email protected] < [email protected]> Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] Part Number for the Demokit Cable ebay.com, eBay item number: 352840116109, $2.29 free shipping Please see my documentation at: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/RF-Demo-Kit-use73, Rudi DL5FA
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Hi again Jeff;
I believe I now sufficiently understand the technical aspects of the discussions in this thread to forego the wizardry behind the pursuit of high accuracy. it appears sufficiently sound.
On that happy note¡ I will state my one remaining question succinctly. Why the obsession over accuracy at the the two most unstable phase regions of highest Q and unreachable limits of infinity and zero?
A reasonable and credible answer will be a bounded tolerance of impedance or phase in those regions, and an estimate of the consequence of exceeding the tolerance boundaries.
I will reiterate¡ There is nothing wrong with how this is treated what is being done or the rationale behind the obsession. The only question is simply... Why?
--
73
Gary, N3GO
|
Jim Shorney
Phil Royce
Dick