Re: NanoVNA-V2 from Tindie
Hi Gabriel, I can only say they respond in a very correct way to emails. I asked if I could buy another one and get it sent by an express service like DHL or Fedex. Their answer:
The typical total delivery time for ePacket is 30 to 40 days. It may stay in the left origin country state for a few weeks as it goes through customs. If you don¡¯t receive your order within 60 days we can ship another one or give you a refund.
Currently we are unable to ship DHL because our location is outside the coverage area of all major couriers. I will look into it further.
I ordered them March 6, I'll just wait a little longer for my 2 units to arrive. I will write an honest review when I get them.
Op 24-4-2020 om 20:54 schreef Gabriel Tenma White:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I got message from the seller that they are frustrated with selling direct. One user for example wrote a negative review saying it didn't arrive only 24 days after buying, while it clearly says on the website that the expected shipping time is 25 to 45 days and probably longer due to covid-19, with a promise to refund or reship if it's not delivered in 60 days. They reply to all messages on time and yet there are reviews saying they don't reply to emails. There are other manufacturers coming to me about the V2 design, but most of them said they won't sell it at this price. Oh well, it's a good thing I designed this to be easy to build at home for hobbyists.
If you have already received your V2 I guess you can help them by writing a review.
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
Ok, it not i2c bus
Now try not use 96kHz DAC, revert back to 48kHz
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
Ok, I installed firmware 0.8.4.3 "stability test variant" with config clear. This did not resolve the problem but I made an observation. The effective error increases with each sweep iteration, growing larger over time. See the attached video showing CH0 LOGMAG and SMITH for the first 20 seconds of a continuous sweep from 140-160MHz using a shorted connector. I also attached a console log with various command outputs in case it may help.
So far, looks like my NanoNVA-H4 is the only one having issues with this firmware (outside of the heavily discussed threshold crossover anomaly). My NVA was purchased from R&L Electronics. I am unclear how many entities are actually producing H4s. I have successfully analyzed several antennas and duplexers without incident and testing after reverting back to the original firmware version is all good.
Peter
|
Thank you for your input.?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------From: hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> Date: 4/24/20 21:32 (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] VNA On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:14 PM, David Eckhardt wrote: ... Personally, I prefer the -F as it has a metal case better at keeping ambient RF fields out of the electronics of the instrument...======================================================David,? The shielding of a case is only as good as the minimum apertures in it and the opening for the -F's 4" display is like a wide open door for ambient RF fields.? The sensitive RF areas of the -F, -H v3.4, and -H4 all have shields on-board to protect them from ambient fields.? The-F's metal case is more durable, it has a larger capacity battery, and the resolution of the 4" display is superior to the other NanoVNA variants.? The virtual drive for upgrading the firmware is also more user friendly. All are much more of a reason than shielding to prefer the -F.? The other variants also have their plus and minuses.- Herb
|
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:14 PM, David Eckhardt wrote:
... Personally, I prefer the -F as it has a metal case better at keeping ambient RF fields out of the electronics of the instrument...
======================================================
David,
The shielding of a case is only as good as the minimum apertures in it and the opening for the -F's 4" display is like a wide open door for ambient RF fields. The sensitive RF areas of the -F, -H v3.4, and -H4 all have shields on-board to protect them from ambient fields. The-F's metal case is more durable, it has a larger capacity battery, and the resolution of the 4" display is superior to the other NanoVNA variants. The virtual drive for upgrading the firmware is also more user friendly. All are much more of a reason than shielding to prefer the -F.
The other variants also have their plus and minuses.
- Herb
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
Yes. Sample attached. I adjusted threshold from 295-305MHz by 1MHz with no change. Then, as noted above, I swept ranges below 300MHz (no harmonics) with similar results.
Peter
|
Personally, I prefer the -F as it has a metal case better at keeping
ambient RF fields out of the electronics of the instrument. The small
screen of the original is spiff, but just a bit too small for my senior
eyes.
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:12 PM w2dwl <w2dwl@...> wrote: Question I see there's 3 of these "VNAs", one has small screen about 2.5
inches, another is VNA-4, and another VNA-F, Are the all the same or is
there a big difference in what they do?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an
AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
|
Re: NanoVNA-V2 from Tindie
When you were doing prototype runs what was the price of JLPCB assembly service per board? For ham clubs getting a few boards and soldering a few parts by hand is maybe an interesting proposition. How up to date is the gitlab repo for S-A-A? On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 20:54, Gabriel Tenma White <OwOwOwOwO123@...> wrote: I got message from the seller that they are frustrated with selling
direct. One user for example wrote a negative review saying it didn't
arrive only 24 days after buying, while it clearly says on the website that
the expected shipping time is 25 to 45 days and probably longer due to
covid-19, with a promise to refund or reship if it's not delivered in 60
days. They reply to all messages on time and yet there are reviews saying
they don't reply to emails. There are other manufacturers coming to me
about the V2 design, but most of them said they won't sell it at this
price. Oh well, it's a good thing I designed this to be easy to build at
home for hobbyists.
|
OK. It is properly normalized. Personally, I'd believe the NANOVNA.
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:52 PM KK4JOW <KK4JOW@...> wrote: Yes, Ive done the required calibration. Problem is there are times the
needle wont meet the calibration point. Im sure the settings were correct.
There are 3 separate settings for 5w, 20w and 200w. I use the 5w.
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
|
|
|
Yes, Ive done the required calibration. Problem is there are times the needle wont meet the calibration point. Im sure the settings were correct. There are 3 separate settings for 5w, 20w and 200w. I use the 5w.
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 02:24 PM, Peter Finch wrote:
It is really odd. No matter what connections I make (open, short, load, known antenna...) the charts remains pretty much the same random mess.
==========================================================
Peter,
One other question. By random mess do you mean a display like the attached?
I saw the attached when sweeping from 290 - 320 MHz. After changing the threshold setting to 301 MHz, my display became stable again. I didn't observe it in any other sweep ranges on my -H4.
- Herb
|
Question I see there's 3 of these "VNAs", one has small screen about 2.5 inches, another is VNA-4, and another VNA-F, Are the all the same or is there a big difference in what they do?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone
|
Question?I see there's 3 of these "VNAs", one has small screen about 2.5 inches, another is VNA-4, and another VNA-F, Are the all the same or is there a big difference in what they do?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message --------From: Ed Humphries <ed@...> Date: 4/24/20 15:56 (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] SWR with a NanoVNA Check the calibration for VSWR on the MFJ first.Check cables. If another (hopefully known good) external meter is available, I'd double check everything.I'll note that I've had to rethink similar situations. Once it turned out a rather expensive external analyzer had been dropped one time too many. But it was still reading and I would have thought it was good without cross-checking. I followed the calibration procedure (tedious !) and (also) re-soldered a resister and now all is well.Cheers, Ed - KT4EDOn 4/24/2020 11:59 AM, whdpc113@... wrote:> If the nanoVNA and the rig agree, issue is likely with MFJ SWR meter. Contact MFJ for service.
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
Thank you for the responses! Is it only from NanoVNA-Saver that you are having issues with the 0.8.4.3 beta or are you experiencing the same issues in the stand-alone (non-PC attached) mode?
The issue occurs standalone. I only used NanoVNASaver to get the S1 images for my post in this forum. It is version 0.2.2. I believe you meant you reverted to the hugen NanoVNA-H4_20200221 release.
You are correct. That is the original version in my H4 when received. It worked fine and again after revert. Also set default threshold to 301MHz
Yes, I tried several threshold settings between 295-305MHz. This had no effect. I also swept just a 140-160MHz range (without harmonics) and got the same chart results. Try this firmware variant (also after update try 'clearconfig 1234')
I will try with your updated firmware as soon as I can. Yes, I did the clearconfig 1234 while troubleshooting. And verified on reboot that there were no saved calibration settings. It is really odd. No matter what connections I make (open, short, load, known antenna...) the charts remains pretty much the same random mess. As soon as I revert firmware to original, the charts are as expected (for calibration not yet done) and I can calibrate properly. Peter
|
Re: NanoVNA-V2 from Tindie
I will do it right away. Did not do it before, as I didn't want to hijack
anything official...
*73 de Lu¨ªs, CT2FZI*
*QRV @ 145.300 MHz | **CQ0VMST (VHF REP Monsanto)*
<>
<>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 21:49, hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:31 PM, CT2FZI wrote:
I am sorry to mention another group here, but we already have the
/g/NanoVNA-V2/ </g/NanoVNA-V2/topics>
=======================================
Luis,
Have you to contacted the HCXQS group and suggested that they link to
/g/NanoVNA-V2 from their
page for support
questions? It would also be helpful if the HCXQS group provided a specific
technical support person on your group to help moderate firmware, hardware
and software related issues.
- Herb
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:34 PM, hwalker wrote:
Did you see my suggestion in message #12834 about adding a CONFIG-THRESHOLD
menu to allow changing the threshold frequency with using a computer terminal?
Did you see my suggestion in message #12834 about adding a CONFIG-THRESHOLD menu to allow changing the threshold frequency with using a computer terminal? Yes i see but this value need chane once and i think not need add additional menu (like vbat_offset, color and others) also bugs can see only in small 300MHz range. Better leave it in command. After change threshold need also recalibrate (or possible not correct calibration pointts around harmonic change) PS firmware variant vs slowdown i2c bus just for stability test, need check what causes this problem .... I have had no luck with 0.8.4.3 on my H4. The displayed charts are seemingly random and varying on each sweep. .....
|
Re: NanoVNA-V2 from Tindie
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:31 PM, CT2FZI wrote: I am sorry to mention another group here, but we already have the /g/NanoVNA-V2/ < /g/NanoVNA-V2/topics> ======================================= Luis, Have you to contacted the HCXQS group and suggested that they link to /g/NanoVNA-V2 from their page for support questions? It would also be helpful if the HCXQS group provided a specific technical support person on your group to help moderate firmware, hardware and software related issues. - Herb
|
Re: NanoVNA firmvare, compiled by DiSlord
#firmware
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:29 PM, DiSlord wrote:
Strange, it possible from high i2c bus speed? I try slowdown it
Also set default threshold to 301MHz
===============================================
DiSlord,
Did you see my suggestion in message #12834 about adding a CONFIG-THRESHOLD menu to allow changing the threshold frequency with using a computer terminal?
- Herb
|
Re: NanoVNA-V2 from Tindie
Hello, I fully agree. My SAA-V2 is still in transit, but I don't care, as it with today's issues (COVID) sure takes longer. I am sorry to mention another group here, but we already have the /g/NanoVNA-V2/ < /g/NanoVNA-V2/topics> if anyone would like to join us. Cheers *73 de Lu¨ªs, CT2FZI* *QRV @ 145.300 MHz | **CQ0VMST (VHF REP Monsanto)* <> <>
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 21:05, hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:54 AM, Gabriel Tenma White wrote:
... I got message from the seller that they are frustrated with selling
direct. One user for example wrote a negative review saying it didn't
arrive only 24 days after buying, while it clearly says on the website that
the expected shipping time is 25 to 45 days and probably longer due to
covid-19, with a promise to refund or reship if it's not delivered in 60
days. They reply to all messages on time and yet there are reviews saying
they don't reply to emails. ...
==========================================
Gabriel,
If I was the seller I wouldn't worry about about a few bad reviews over
shipping time. Anyone who doesn't expect long times due to the covid-19
epidemic hasn't been reading the news. I've seen the NanoVNA-V2 offered
for sale on eBay for $125-140 usd, so the same Tindie offering of $58 usd
is a great bargain even if you have to wait over a month to receive it.
I ordered my NanoVNA-V2 when the first production run was offered and it
took 45 days to arrive. I've been more than happy with its price to
performance since it arrived. The first production run was sold out in a
matter of weeks. I also ordered a couple of additional NanoVNA-V2's for my
ham club when the second production run was offered for sale on Tindie and
don't expect delivery until late May or early June. That's just the way it
is with borders being locked down and all the additional customs
restrictions in place. Tindie doesn't have a lot of control once the order
is filled and the shipment is turned over to their carrier. The second
production run sold out faster than the first run and buyers should have
already been aware of shipping delays due to covid-19 by then.
My suggestion would be for the seller to set up a S-A-A-2 manufacturer
support group on groups.io or facebook to directly address any bugs,
suggestions, complaints, firmware or software notifications. That would
enable everyone to see in writing that they are responsive, something which
private emails doesn't permit.
My second suggestion would be to offer a faster shipping option at a
higher price except currently all carriers are experiencing the same
delays, especially at the Shanghai transfer point.
- Herb
|
KK4JOW
CT2FZI