NanoVNA Custom Software

[purpose]

Just grabbing some data.
Here's the attenuation..

[joeqsmith]

Hit that record and let's see if the firmware had any effect.

If it does, what version was previously loaded?

[purpose]

You want me to do the exact same as my previous? With the 0.8.0 firmware, or with the old?

[joeqsmith]

Oh wait, that was the 3D with the span set correctly!!   Let's see the C0 with 100pF installed in that fixture of yours.  A few caps wouldn't hurt if you have them.   

If you have an RLC meter, you could measure one of your crystals with it and plug it in and try it.   I would expect something below 10pF.   

****

Looking at some of the data I collected for various brands and frequencies, the HC49 package seems to give me between 4 and 6pF.    It looked like that was what you were using so if you don't have any caps, just plug one in and lets see what it comes up with.     

Then clear the graph, and let it collect until the part is stable. 

[joeqsmith]

When you tried the 100 and 33 in the de-5000, what does it show?   

I wonder are we pushing your RLC meter.   Another thing you could do is remove the capacitor from your jig and just run it with nothing and see what you get for C0.  I would expect it to read around 600fF to 900fF.       If you keep selecting C0, I would expect roughly 100fF of variance. 

My old BK meters compare very close to the Nano and the old HP3589A.  I have some tighter tolerance parts from ATC that are very stable which also come out.   But you're getting close now to where I ended up.  I could get all my instruments to basically agree but I was wanting to try and procure a reference crystal that had baby papers to get a handle on the absolute accuracy.   

[purpose]

100pF in the de is 105.7pF, in fixture was 106.181pF
5pf in the de is 5.14pF, in the fixture was 5.59pF
33pf in the de is 32.54pF, in the fixture was 33.356

remove the capacitor from your jig and just run it with nothing and see what you get for C0.
Varies between 500 and 850f.

procure a reference crystal
Best of luck with that, Mr. Smith. Should I ever spot one in the wild, I'll let you know.

[joeqsmith]

In the future, I may change the test frequency to 500KHz (seems like it was a bit more stable). 

Try it with a crystal and let's see what numbers it comes up with.   

Also, I am still curious what firmware you had loaded that caused the glitches.

[purpose]

Glitchy firmware was hugen79 1.0.45 NanoVNA-H_20210130.dfu.

Try it with a crystal and let's see what numbers it comes up with. 
The DE?  2.93pF @100kHz

[joeqsmith]

   Yeah, I meant run it for real with the Nano and lets see what numbers you get.  Don't run a bunch of them just yet.  I want to have a look as see if I can improve this measurement first. 

Just an FYI.   The following mentions some of the problems with the firmware in the past.  It's simple enough to test the firmware for headless operation.  Odd after a year it's still a problem.   Hopefully it helps you start to understand why I chose not to release the code to the public.   On one side we have people not smart enough to not plug them into their transmitters and the other unstable firmware.  Icing on the cake was people demanding it.  What a shit show.  You should feel privileged  .     
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/msg2710524/#msg2710524

Saunder's standard crystal.  They never responded to any of my attempts to contact them. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/fun-with-crystal-filters/msg3060008/#msg306000

[purpose]

I meant run it for real with the Nano and lets see what numbers you get.
Slight wobble to it, but no glitches.



What a shit show.
I'm a delicate soul. Do I have to?

Saunder's standard crystal.
I shall have a word in their shell like.

peter

[joeqsmith]

Shit show refers to the whole nanoism of it all, nothing to do with you specifically.  Again, had you not been trying to use it to measure filters, I doubt I would have uploaded it.  Good to see someone doing something besides trying to measure SWR.
 
TrC units "(pF)" were removed from the UI.   The TrC test frequency was changed from 1MHz to 300KHz to allow for lower values crystals to be characterized.  TrC measurement now uses an average of 4X sweeps (404 data points).   This improves the calculations variance.   To speed this measurement up, channel 0 is no longer collected during this time.  Overall, it may actually be a little faster.  You may also notice the open circuit capacitance being slightly lower (approx 100-200fF)  as well due to the lower test frequency.   

I tested it with a few different crystals as well as running through my test capacitors.  It seems fine.   No other changes were made. 

[purpose]

Mr. Smith,
I read all of that stuff a few days ago. The gimme generation are a constant source of disappointment.
Just downloaded the latest and about to give her a go.
Anything specific you'd like me to do?

Peter

[purpose]

Mr. Smith,

open circuit capacitance
Much the same @ 500fF-1pF.
The fixture is on a really thick (3.5mm) double sided pcb (with no vias). I'm thinking I need to address the pcb's capacitance.

5pF measures 4.5pF in new software, 5.59pF in old.
33pF measures 32.26 in new, 33.356pF in old.
100pF measures 106.25pF in new, 106.181pF in old.

I'll get back to it.

Many thanks
Peter

[joeqsmith]

If you remeasure the same part several times in a row it should be more stable now.   Attached shows my open circuited jig running at 400KHz.  I ran 130 C0 measurements and the peak to peak variance was 5fF.    I compared it with my two BK RLC meters and also tried a few 5% tolerance caps and it seems to be in the ballpark.   I'm pretty much at the limit of what I have available to to validate it.   

Assuming you are getting stable readings, based on the numbers you're seeing I would just go ahead and try it.   

You may consider building a pull test oscillator and compare the results with it vs your VNA.  I tried a few different methods and the errors were fairly small. 

Let me know how it works out. 

[purpose]

Let me know how it works out.

Will do.

Many thanks
Peter

[joeqsmith]

In order to speed up Zoom, it now works similar to the C0 measurement where Port1 data is not collected.   Also to handle more error in the peak location when Zooming, I now center the peak before changing the span the first time.    No other changes were made.     

[purpose]

Mr. Smith,
You're going to tell me I'm doing it wrong, but I've been shorting the fixture, punching 10kHz into the span and ref/chn ref, loading the crystal, then centering the peak. Span to 500 Hz and centering again. Then off to advanced for the fun stuff. Pressing zoom a dozen times wasn't working for me.

BTW, I was playing with the bandwidth in the glitchy firmware and discovered that it defaults to 4000Hz. Tried it at the more standard 1000Hz and far less glitchy in the xtal data gathering. going down to 330Hz pretty much eradicated it.
Either way, the glitches didn't seem to show up in the 3D graphs.

Nevertheless, I'm back to eddy 0.8.0.

Peter

[purpose]

OK... It's now a single click... very nicely done sir.

Ooops... it always was. Cough.

Mr. Smith,
Re. manual proof read...
I've made a few suggestions.
I couldn't find much at fault.

Doesn't look like I can attach the pdf.
OK if i email it to you?

peter

[joeqsmith]

You're going to tell me I'm doing it wrong, but I've been shorting the fixture, punching 10kHz into the span and ref/chn ref, loading the crystal, then centering the peak. Span to 500 Hz and centering again. Then off to advanced for the fun stuff. Pressing zoom a dozen times wasn't working for me.

That method should work fine, maybe even a little better than the method I describe in the manual.   It comes down to how flat the Nano's response is in the range we are working over a small span.   Again, we are normalizing the data (subtracting off the error).  I show using a 1MHz span which is much different than a 500Hz span.   Zooming into 500Hz, then taking the baseline with the short, then reinstalling the DUT gains us very little (from my testing) as the Nano is fairly flat.  Still, 100K is going to be much better than 1MHz.  I will change the manual to reflect this. 
 

Using the term "ported" VERY loosely,  because of how this software has evolved, starting with the old HP8754A, ported to Nano, ported to my other VNAs, then ported to the Plus, restructured to a common code base, then ported back to the Nano.... ....  it's not a well thought out, polished bit of software by any means.  To make things easier to maintain and keep more code common, some features work better on different products.  The old Nano is very slow compared to the V2+4. Treating the old system like the new, then doing something simple like Zoom took a lot of time.   I am starting to diverge from the common code for some functions to improve their performance.    Really, that new V2+4 would have been the best solution for all of this had they considered the measurements you are trying to make.    Seeing spikes in the lastest Hugen firmware tells me that the old Nano will continue to be a problem. 

The button that starts the Zoom process is released when it completes.  You could push it 1000 times and if you don't wait for it to finish, you won't get there. 

BTW, I was playing with the bandwidth in the glitchy firmware and discovered that it defaults to 4000Hz. Tried it at the more standard 1000Hz and far less glitchy in the xtal data gathering. going down to 330Hz pretty much eradicated it.
Either way, the glitches didn't seem to show up in the 3D graphs.

I don't know what you mean by defaults to 4KHz.  The span?.   No doubt we saw in your first data that with a wide span, you may not see these glitches.   They may appear at random.   If you like collecting random data, I would run the Hugen's.  If you want something more stable and slow use eddy 0.8.0.   If you want something faster, glitch free and old, I would hunt down that last version RadioListener posted (keeping in mind that my software is now crippled to support the slower eddy firmware).   

Our host sells a hand held meter that while not open source, does have user updateible firmware.   Like the Nano, the firmware was in constant limbo.  Like the Nano, I gave up trying to track it.   Some people like to play with new releases of OSs, firmware....  I just want the thing to work well enough that I can use it  (I've given up on modern software/firmware not having problems).

[purpose]

That method should work fine.
Marvellous.

Using the term "ported" VERY loosely
The only porting with which I am familiar is taking a grinder to a cylinder head. You're well ahead of my game.
Treating the old system like the new, then doing something simple like Zoom took a lot of time
I doubt you not, but anything to get away from the wife.
Really, that new V2+4 would have been the best solution
Still has its uses, I'm sure.

The button that starts the Zoom process is released when it completes.  You could push it 1000 times and if you don't wait for it to finish, you won't get there.
I discovered this yesterday. I'm an impatient child sometimes.

I don't know what you mean by defaults to 4KHz.  The span?
In display settings, down at the bottom.

If you like collecting random data, I would run the Hugen's
I'm fine with the eddy. The hugen just has a few extra bells and whistles.
I would hunt down that last version RadioListener posted
I'll certainly try, but your wares are running fine with the eddy.
I just want the thing to work well enough that I can use it
I hear that.

Many thanks
Peter

[joeqsmith]

In this context, porting is moving the software to a different platform.    I have a bit of an addiction myself.  The ports on my motorcycle have been opened up a bit along with larger valves......



The manual has been updated to include the troubleshooting from this thread and comments about the firmware I used during testing.  The comment about the Span was also changed.

The software was also updated.  The quick tips were updated to reflect the V2+4 (which also needed some corrections).   The C0 test frequency was moved up to 500K from 300K.   The Zoom was changed from 25% to 20% of previous range.       

Page 90&91 includes some data I collected with my original NanoVNA compared with my Fluke 189 and two of my RLC meters.   

[purpose]

Very nice motorcycle. 7.85 @ 164.... That is not hanging around.
I was never much into drag racing, but with the advent of youtube I seem to have developed a mild addiction.
Squeezing a thousand horsepower out of a 4 cylinder Honda is bonkers.

Off to download the latest.

Many thanks
Peter

[joeqsmith]

If you want to make a list of your corrections and post them here, that would be great.   Otherwise, I would need to enable the private message      feature.   Also make a note of any changes you would like to see in the software as you go through it.   

[indman]

Hi joeqsmith !
Question - Is it possible to use your Nanovna program with NanoVna-H4 hardware version?
STM32F303C processor.

[joeqsmith]

Question - Is it possible to use your Nanovna program with NanoVna-H4 hardware version?

Hello.  As I have mentioned, I only have the original NanoVNA and the two versions of the V2 Plus.  I don't know anything about any other flavors of the NanoVNA but if you read the recent posts, you know that the firmware even a year after I first looked at it is still a problem.   So even if your H4 uses one of these two protocols, there is a good chance that the firmware would cause random problems.  You may be able to find some combination that is stable.   

My advice would be to stay with the open source software.  While they started that project after I did,  it looks like there are 15 people now working on it.   I would expect with that effort, it would be far more advanced and well supported.   It should also be better suited for the radio group.   

If you do decide to look at the software I have made available, I suggest you read the manual first.  You may also want to watch that video I made where I reviewed the V2 Plus 4 as that demonstrates the basics on how to use it.