¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
Date

Re: First PCB pictures of the V2

 

Hi,
I agree with Jean and Larry - keep going with this discussion - as for me it already helped much in my pcb design ;)
Mel: THANK YOU for the tips and explanation, this is going to be very neat analyzer!

--
Slawek/SP9BSL


Re: First PCB pictures of the V2

 

Wow, Fantastic discussion. I, and I'm sure may others, enjoy reading these "RF" design topics. A lot of first hand experience and know how from practical designs feed back.
Thanks a lot for sharing this.
Jean


Re: New book on the NanoVNA

 

David,

as far as the NanoVNA-F is concerned, I'm sorry but I have to disappoint you. We do not own an F-model and have no intentions to buy one, so chances are very low that we will extend our book there. However, as a member of this forum you will be aware of the talk concerning the NanoVNA-H V2. Depending on the final outcome of this model (features and pricing) we might extend the book accordingly.

I haven't been aware of Lulu up to now, but will check into that.

Vy 73,
Chris, OE1CGS


Re: New book on the NanoVNA

 

Thanks for this book. I bought the NanoVNA some months ago, but never had the time to dig through all the forum information about it. The authors of the book have now done it for me. Based on their book, and in an hour or so, I have been able to add the battery diode, update the firmware to the large letter AA-version, and started to use it.


Sverre
LA3ZA


Re: errors of "error" models

 

Happy New Year GIN&PEZ et al who follow this thread.

Post #9070

#101 : A Mechanical Proof of the Invariability of the Cross-Ratio
Under the Moebius Transformation of G to g of a Two-Port

Is this simply a missed observation until now?

The Smith Chart itself is a graphical mapping of a bilateral Moebius transform of G to Z.



I¡¯m learning that there¡¯s a lot I did not completely understand about this tool (the Smith Chart) to benefit from its utility during my career.

A nicely done animated graphical presentation:



I also discovered that there remains ample material to cover on this topic to span my retirement. :-)






--
73

Gary, N3GO


SMITH CHART TUTORIAL

 



--

*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*


Re: Impedance , C and L measurements with PC software

 

Hi Chuck. Yes I understand. Then you are correct, forget about navigating around the little vna screen. Although you will have to do an initial calibration and setup on the hardware first. There after you can use the SAVER PC software to achieve any desired data format you want as well as calibration from the pc software.

Alan


Re: Copy results to clipboard from NanoVnaSaver? #nanovna-saver #improvement

 

Snipping shortcut in Win 10 is Windows-Symbol + Caps-Key + S

-----Urspr¨¹ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Clyde Spencer
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Januar 2020 15:20
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [nanovna-users] Copy results to clipboard from NanoVnaSaver? #nanovna-saver #improvement

Also, If you are using Windows 7/8/10 there is a built in program called "Snipping Tool". Search for this in windows. It not only captures the screen but also allows cropping in the process.
*Clyde K. Spencer*

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:56 AM David J Taylor via Groups.Io <david-taylor= [email protected]> wrote:

If you are doing a sequence of screen-shots, the well-known, free
IrfanView software allows screen-capture with the Ctrl-F11 keystroke.
It can save in PNG (and many other) formats to keep the captured file
size to a minimum, and names the files using date and time in a format
you specify. Include the cursor or not.



Having said that, a right-click, copy to clipboard over the graphs
would be a helpful addition to NanoVNA-saver.

Cheers,
David
--
SatSignal Software - Quality software for you
Web:
Email: david-taylor@...
Twitter: @gm8arv





Re: First PCB pictures of the V2

 

Hey Pablo and Hey Larry,

It¡¯s really cool that you two have an eye on our conversation ?
And thanks for your opinions! I wish you both a Happy New Year~

Hey Gabriel,

Thanks for giving me your development data! It¡¯s always exciting to see someone else¡¯s design style. ?

As a common advice (to everyone ?): If you want to filter your power supply, I highly recommend to not use those standard 100nF Caps! Yes, it looks like everyone is using them (and unfortunately those still get recommended in the datasheets). But at a RF-view they far from optimum.
The purpose of those Caps is to filter noise thus acting like a pass through at low frequency (DC) and shorting higher frequencies to GND as much as possible. At most frequencies these Caps are above their self-resonance frequency (SRF). That¡¯s why you should use a SMD ceramic capacitor with as many internal layers as possible at your desired size to lower parasitics like ESR and ESL, for example, a 4u7 at 0402 or 10u at 0603. In plain theory they are not recommended at high frequencies due to their SRF. But if you measure them with a precise VNA you¡¯ll find out that due to the internal layer stacking the parasitic inductance (ESL) is very low as many layers connected in parallel. Therefore, the capacitors impedance (even as it acts as an inductor) stays quite low at higher frequencies (several GHz) and obtain a very neat noise filter characteristic!
Oh, and please put those bypass caps as near as possible to the desired IC supply pin. In fact, not all ICs need to have the bypass cap directly next to their power supply pin, but for some especially RF-ICs this is essential!

1) Absolutely! This SMA connector style you are using has a really bad performance at higher frequencies. It¡¯s not just the stub giving you a parasitic inductivity also the discontinuity inside the bended connector affects the port match (at least if you don¡¯t want to pay some extra to have a perfectly matched bending)¡­ But unfortunately, it¡¯s the only connector type you can use as you need to maintain a really (really!) good mechanical resilience and a long bulkhead. (But just between the two of us: most of the high end VNAs do not even reach a 20dB return loss at their ports either¡­)

Concerning the RF input cap: Your DGS seems to be fine (just by looking at it). Am I right assuming the Cap can endure 6.3V (max 10V?)

2) Yeah, I already thought this might be the reason why. As JLC is not able to put those IC on the PCB you need to do it on your own. But even so you should put critical passive components at the same side as the ICs. (e.g. some bypass caps or this 50Ohm E-Cal match!) ? It nearly adds no extra time to the population process

RF-switches: That¡¯s why those Infineon switches produce a negative voltage level internally~ Please check them out as you can also use them easily up to several GHz, which might come handy in further versions/designs ;D

3) Don¡¯t you think the cut out might be a bit too much? :¡¯D
And I had a look again at JLC¡¯s part library. The 68Ohm 0402 is available now:

So maybe you can change the size and get rid of the DGS.

As you want to use only ¡®standard¡¯ components those 50Ohms resistors have typically a bad impedance behaviour at higher frequencies due to their high parasitic inductance¡­ At least for the E-cal and reference 50Ohm match you should think about replacing those single resistors with 2x100 Ohm resistors parallel +DGS. (At high end application they even try to force their 50Ohm reference to be a good match by adding attenuators in front of it, as those internal used SMD resistors are most of the time not as good as the external calibration match is ?)
And once more: I highly recommend to put at least the E-cal match resistor directly next to the switch pad, as this would improve your internal calibration and add a bit more stability to your system!
4) Oh yeah, the reference match¡­! I truly remember the same experience meanwhile I developed my directional module ?.
To obtain a good performance at (very) high frequency it is necessary to mirror the signal pathway. Not only due to the not ideal match but also due to the uncertainties within the trace (and if you want to refer the internal match to the external calibration load /DUT also due to the mismatch given by the DC-Block).
But I do admit that inside your frequency range the given mismatches/discontinuities shouldn¡¯t be to high and may just appear at higher frequencies (>2 GHz), thus the gain and phase shift might be not affecting the system so much.

5) If you catch the wrong balun type, the yield can be awful! ?
That¡¯s the reason why so many devices out there need to be tuned before they get delivered to the costumer¡­ As you can not afford this in this application a stable balun with a good yield is the rise and fall of your whole application.
Give those TC1-1-13M+ a try. As far as I know from my and others designs they should obtain a fairly good performance!
I also did a simulation with your resistor values. But instead of a 50Ohm and 0.3pF I used 2 times 50Ohm to balance the baluns and adjusted the tuning R&C! Look how good it turned out ?
6) If you use ferrites for debugging please be careful at 1GHz and above, as ferrites permeability is decreased significantly, and they start to act dielectric.
7) Having U301 switched to port 2 there is also a signal at the trace to U2 reduced by U301s isolation value. The datasheet gives an isolation between 15 to 20dB at 3GHz (with perfect termination!). The signal then gets reflected at U2 and propagates trough U301 back to your mixer with a total attenuation of roughly 25 to 30dB, whereas signals which got coupled into the trace between U301 and U2 are only attenuated by 15dB!

If you want to, I would suggest to change U2 into an low noise amplifier. For example BGA2800, as this LNA just needs 3 caps to be up and running. It is also pretty cheap and concerning your application you can surely run this amplifier up to 4GHz! ?
The amplifier can be used exactly the same way as the switch by turning it on and off. The isolation between U301 and U1 is better than 20dB when turned off. In addition, it would amplify your couplers output signal, hence improving your SNR. This comes in handy as your LO signal from mixer is just 27dB damped (Isolation between RF-IN and LO Port) and interferes with your S11-signal. Furthermore, thanks to LNA¡¯s output match with better 20dB, the mixers does not see any bad impedance match coming from the baluns!
8) To add some stability to your system it would be good, if you would add some DC-Block Caps between mixer and BB-Amplifier (like those 10u 0603) depending on your lowest IF frequency.

Hopefully this helps you to solve your problems soon~
I wish you all the best! ?

-Melanie


Cancelling out coax feeder length?

 

Hi,

Very new to the nanoVNA, still on the steepest part of the learning curve!

I believe it should be possible to set the reference plane option in such a way as to effectively cancel out the effect of a short length of coax? I have a 1GHz groundplane antenna to test, but due to it being constructed before I received my nanoVNA, the 25cm coax feeder to it cannot be removed to calibrate, and I dont have an identical patch lead spare to calibrate with.

It is my understanding in this situation that I need to enter a value into the Reference Plane setting, but I cant seem to find out what the units for this are? Is it mm, degrees, or what? Knowing what the units are will allow me to either measure or calculate what value to enter,

Cheers
Martin


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

 

Its on cardboard. One side is white the other is black, from ikea.


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

 

On 1/2/20 10:38 AM, ersoz@... wrote:
my question is this a useable antenna or is there something wrong?

???? Looks fine to me, but - what is the antenna on?? Is that laying on a table top?? Mounted on a piece of cardboard or foamboard?? White painted metal reflector? Can't tell from the pics.? Might have to build one myself.? Thanks.


Re: Impedance , C and L measurements with PC software

 

Alan -

Thanks dor your efforts to make thigs easier for me.
I think I was not clear enough. Your advice was based on the nsnoVNA menus. I cant use them as they are too small for my eyes. That's why I mentioned needing to use NanoVNA # OR vna sAVER.
I can magnify them 400% and read them.

Chuck


Re: Why rg316 ?

aparent1/kb1gmx
 

Rg316 or 316ds are far better and more rugged cables.

ITs about ability to solder and not have it melt (rg174 is polyethylene and melts!).
When I use small coax where one end is soldered PTFE (316 and related) is
far easier to use.

Its also tougher as the PTFE is less likely break and the internal wire is often
silver over steel those some are silver over copper. Most crimp connectors are
sized for RG316 and the 316DS usualy uses a slightly different connector.

For test cables the larger dual or triple braid PTFE cables are also often used.

Allison
-----------------
No direct email, it goes to bit bucket due address harvesting in groups.IO


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

 

Just a minor point on using the VNA with antennas. It's always a good idea
to dress the feedline perpendicular to the plane of the wires or elements.
Hang the antenna from the ceiling away from AC wiring and HVAC ductwork and
other conducting surfaces and drape the feedline directly downward and then
make another measurement. As it is, the feedline is close and crossing
the left set of wires.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 8:15 PM <ersoz@...> wrote:

Sorry forget the photo of the antenna.



--

*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

 

Sorry forget the photo of the antenna.


Re: errors of "error" models

 

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 05:50 PM, gin&pez@arg wrote:
@gin&pez@arg

In /g/nanovna-users/message/8763
you state:

Finally, allow us, please, to additionally emphasize that
these results are substantially independent [#96] of the
four loads we used, that is of their nominal values and
of their uncertainties,
I agree the ratio of cross-ratio's is independent of the four loads but how about the measurement error of the ratio of cross-ratio's
An unfortunate choice of loads could have a substantial "amplification" of uncertainty.
Or do you have a formulation of what you call "sufficiently independent" that eliminates this problem?
Would it be possible to formulate a mathematical criterium for independency of the 4 loads applicable to calculating that ratio of cross-ratio's?
Do the traditional SOL loads have maximum independence and thus facilitate best comparison or is there a possible better set of 3 loads given that you do have a add a 4th load to be able to calculate the ratio of cross-ratios's?

--
NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/home
NanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/files
Erik, PD0EK


Re: errors of "error" models

 

#102: The Complete "Demystification" of the "VNA Measurements" Kind - Farewell

Hello,

Well, we arrived at last at The End of a rather long Road.

The VNA gives to The Common User the Value:

(g - o)*(l - s)
- - - - - - - - - =: CR
(g - s)*(l - o)

so that the Common User has just one equation in four
Variables:

(G - O)*(L - S)
- - - - - - - - - - - = CR
(G - S)*(L - O)

from which he could compute the G if he would know the 3 values S, L, O.

* Now, stop reading, please, and think a little about it *

- Who of us knows these 3 Values ? We don't.

So, for each triple of (S, L, O) values we think, believe, accept,
or whatever else we like to be consider as "true", this equation
produces a * d i f f e r e n t * value of G.

That's all.

Farewell,

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

:102#


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

Ron Bussiere
 

Dave is correct. The SWR looks great, but a nice (short leaded) 50 ohm resistor would also look good.
There's a commercial wire (HF) antenna out there that uses a big 'ole 50 ohm resistor at the feed point. This provides a great match on a LOT of bands....

ron
N4UE


Re: Bi-Quad Antenna 430 MHz is this a good one? #calibration

 

Certainly, the SWR looks excellent. Now, does it radiate?

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 6:38 PM <ersoz@...> wrote:

Hi,

I build a Bi-Quad Antenna for 430 MHz, measurements are on the photo, my
question is this a useable antenna or is there something wrong?
Thanks in advance.

Regards ersoez



--

*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*