NanoVNA Custom Software

[joeqsmith]

Sweeping from 1.5GHz to 3GHz, the noise is comparable.    The V2Plus4 seems to have better dynamic range.

One obvious difference with the V2plus4 is the addition of a metal case which should reduce external noise floor somewhat, but would also increase internal reflection of noise from components within the VNA. The V2plus4 combats this by adding a layer of Radio Absorbing Material (RAM) to the entire back of the unit. In researching possible improvements in the LiteVNA to achieve system dynamic range parity with the V2plus4, I found this paper detailing the use of very common carbon fiber-filled 3D printer FFF filament for absorbing energy but at much higher frequencies that present in our VNAs, namely 63GHz-215GHz and observed in the neighborhood of -20db difference:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.00820.pdf

Does anyone have a 3D printable case design that they would consider modifying with treatment similar to the paper (they used an open Hilbert curve infill, but I suspect even no infill but just using a 3D printable case with the appropriate CF-filled FFF filament should be enough to vet the idea).

Thoughts ?  If this is not on topic, I can start a new thread, but I'm really most interested in finding out if the LiteVNA can be made as good as the V2plus4 in the ranges the V2plus4 supports.

Thanks !

-=dave

OWO had thought the performance of the LiteVNA would be worse in this region.  While I agree that the LiteVNA should have performed at least as well as the V2Plus4,  I thought that the V2Plus4 should have at least performed as well as the original NanoVNA.   They had asked for a few photos as well and eventually I plan to pull both apart for them.  As of today, I have not had them apart outside of inserting a battery in the V2Plus4.   

[joeqsmith]

The LiteVNA is boxed up and heading to 18C.   SOL cal with Open inserted.  I'll let it set for an hour at each temperature (18 & 28). 

***
The meat packing box has added insulation and an RTD that I use for feedback.  Temperatures are fairly stable.   

[joeqsmith]

The LiteVNA, swept from 18 to 28C.  Looking at S11 after SOL with open attached.   

[joeqsmith]

Data for the V2Plus4 zoomed in to get some idea how the drift looks.    The LiteVNA appears much more stable as we get above 3GHz. 

[joeqsmith]

I had also captured a Touchstone file for each VNA at the both temperatures just prior to changing temperatures.   No cables were used during this test.  The open was attached directly to the VNA's port1.

[joeqsmith]

OWO had suggested that the USB cable supplied with my V2P4 may have enough loss to be causing the increased noise I see when not running off the internal battery.

I took the unit apart and attached some leads to the large bulk cap they have across the USB power leads.  I wanted to know what it measures inside the unit.  With my extension cable plus the supplied blue one, I measure 4.61V.    With the supplied cable plugged directly into the USB port, I measured 4.865V.   

Again to be clear, I had made a test cable to try and identify the problem as well.   My last attempt had used a linear power supply driving a linear regulator powering the V2Plus4.   This also caused the increased noise.  Basically, as I had said, if don't run it from the internal battery, the noise goes up.   Measuring the voltage with this cable, I get 5.014V   

[OwO]

Testing in the 3-4GHz range is not the most fair comparison because the V2 Plus4 only has guaranteed performance specifications up to 3GHz.

Your custom cable has too much resistance, and operating at 4.6V is way too low for the mixer.

The LiteVNA copies my design without permission and only substituted some parts to extend the frequency range.

[OwO]

I suggest reviewing the Arinst VNA-DL or VNA-PR1. Both reach 6GHz at low cost, have better performance, and are designed from scratch by people that know what they are doing who don't need to rip off other's designs.

[Alextsu]

I suggest reviewing the Arinst VNA-DL or VNA-PR1. Both reach 6GHz at low cost, have better performance, and are designed from scratch by people that know what they are doing who don't need to rip off other's designs.

Hi Owo,
Just a short comment about the design of the
 Arinst VNAs You've mentioned.
In their manuals, they show a functional block diagram for both VNAs, which seems to replicate the classical NanoVNA design from Eddy555 with some modifications for frequency band expansion.
Basically, the core of the design is the same audio-codec chip with build-in high-resolution -sigma-delta ADC, which helps to get high DR.
Both VNA are not cheap, though.

[Mechatrommer]

I suggest reviewing the Arinst VNA-DL or VNA-PR1. Both reach 6GHz at low cost, have better performance, and are designed from scratch by people that know what they are doing who don't need to rip off other's designs.

yes apart from higher price as Alex mentioned, i suspect they have different protocol that made them incompatible to NanoVNA-Qt, and also possibly NanoVNA-App and Joe's LabView App here. they have their own SWs. i know Hugen did copy your design illegally through our PM, and now you publicly mentioned it here, but few days ago i made order LiteVNA from AliExpress @ $126 incl shipping, not because i have personal problem with you, but because i desperately need it in quick time ASAP. your upcoming version will be the next interesting upgrade, if the figure you showed me in PM is true, your VNA will be very close to professional grade VNA anyone should be looking for... but since its ETA unknown, thats the problem i cant consider for the time being.. member Dislord informed me in PM that the LiteVNA can be used with NanoVNA-QT only up to 4.4GHz, and i suspect its the NVNA-QT limitation in the code. so i asked Zeenko Store to forward my request to Hugen to recompile NVNA-QT to increase limit to 6.3GHz because i dont have linux to make compilation, and surprisingly he did it for me after few days of PM back and forth.. so i lose in shame and have to make the order. cheers.

[joeqsmith]

Testing in the 3-4GHz range is not the most fair comparison because the V2 Plus4 only has guaranteed performance specifications up to 3GHz.

Limit the design if you don't want customers to run beyond 3GHz. 

Again to be clear, I had made a test cable to try and identify the problem as well.   My last attempt had used a linear power supply driving a linear regulator powering the V2Plus4.   This also caused the increased noise.  Basically, as I had said, if don't run it from the internal battery, the noise goes up.   Measuring the voltage with this cable, I get 5.014V   

Your custom cable has too much resistance, and operating at 4.6V is way too low for the mixer.

I don't have the standards in front of me but first hit from Google:

According to the USB spec, and illustrated in Figure 1, the minimum available voltage from a USB host or powered hub at the peripheral end of the cable is 4.5V, while the minimum voltage from a USB bus-powered hub is 4.35V.

I would have assumed you would design the product to meet the USB minimum voltage requirements.   You mention my cables high resistance.    The cable drops 21.5mV @ 398mA or 8.6mOhm or so.  Even with the 5.014V measured internal of the V2Plus4, the noise is poor.  Blame the cable if you like.     

I suggest reviewing the Arinst VNA-DL or VNA-PR1. Both reach 6GHz at low cost, have better performance, and are designed from scratch by people that know what they are doing who don't need to rip off other's designs.

I would not waste my time with that device.  Similar to Jan's, they did not document the communications requiring the use of their software.  The hardware could rival the best VNAs on the market today but without good firmware and software, they have little value to me.   Of course, you are welcome to procure what ever VNAs you like to create your own reviews.  You could even cherry pick the parameters to skew the data.   

The LiteVNA copies my design without permission and only substituted some parts to extend the frequency range.

I've asked you several times for proof that any laws were broken in your country, so far all I have received is a constant stream of lecturing from you.  It comes across rather rude, childish and unprofessional.  And while you may feel you have some say in how I conduct my reviews, you don't. 

If I wanted to create something novel and planned to turn it into a product to capitalize on it, I may patent the IP or I may hold it as a trade secrete.  I would NEVER make it open source!     

Once the product is designed, social media seems like a good choice for advertising to the hobbyist market.  I setup a mail group to attract potential customers.  I would never consider is locking the group to potential customers!  You have stated that was a mistake.  That is what Jan stated as well.  Really bad choices.

I decide to reinvest some of my earnings into my next product and make an announcement to stir up some interest.    The one thing I would never do is make a public announcement that I am walking away from it unless I plan to walk away from it!  It's the story of the boy and his ball walking off the playground.  It shows a lack of maturity on your part.   

It's just a hobby project at this point since all I've seen indicates the market is so small that you shouldn't take it too seriously. Or I may just go and take the 6 figure job at a big technology company doing cutting edge R&D and be gone with this race to the bottom crap, maybe I'll decide that's where I want to be in life instead.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/nanovna-v3-(6ghz)/msg3847775/#msg3847775

Let's assume I had placed my design in the public domain and someone improves the idea and capitalizes on it.  These changes were obvious to one skilled in the art.   I would ask myself, I had the design done and all I needed to do was make these simple changes to obsolete my own product or add to my product line and increase my market share.  Why didn't I? 

From my perspective the problems you are having are a reflection of the poor choices you have made.   I'm responsible for the choices I make.   If there is something I don't like, I change and move on.  You seem unable to learn from your mistakes and change course.   It's not the competition you need to be concerned with.

[joeqsmith]

The attached slide showing the worse case analysis was from a workshop I attended put on by one of the creators of the USB standards. 

[joeqsmith]

Pictures of the LiteVNA. It seems well made.

[galileo]

i know Hugen did copy your design illegally through our PM, and now you publicly mentioned it here,

Project was released under GPL license ...

[OwO]

I'd rather not start this argument on the forum again, but you misunderstand why I have a problem with Hugen's actions.

It is not simply that he is using my design, as many others have done legally (for example sysjoint with their NanoVNA-F V2, or all the other shenzhen cloners that I have no problem with). That was my original intention with open sourcing the design, which is to allow a broad range of players to get a head start and enter the market. It is that he is playing the monopoly playbook and using every possible tactic (such as dumping) to squeeze everyone else out, when he already has over 80% market share. Since it is my design that enabled him to do this, I'm the only one in any position to do anything about it. It is truly regretful that my original intentions with open source has enabled a monopoly player, and since then I have never open sourced anything.

That's why I'm urging everyone not to support this vendor, and I'm not saying support me instead. We are #2 and will do just fine, so I recommend giving more attention to the smaller players instead like Arinst, deepelec, etc.

[OwO]

This project is only a hobby for me, please don't assume I'm trying to run and grow a business just because we happen to sell stuff. I'm making enough (and if I didn't, it wouldn't be hard to find a well paying job). You are right that if I wanted to, I could use my technical advantage (and the same tactics) to overtake the #1 spot (and also use patents and design secrecy to maintain it), but I have no desire to do that. Exchanging one monopoly player for another doesn't achieve anything, and ultimately will just result in a collapse just like the PCB market in China. Like the PCB market, they are operating on unsustainable margins to try to dominate and eventually become the only player, just like some PCB vendors are now offering free PCB prototypes in China which I also view as an anticompetitive move. I simply want there to be healthy competition, not cutthroat competition or a monopoly.

If I can go back and redo, the only thing I would do different is use a revocable open source license, so that everyone else would still be allowed to use my design but anyone attempting a monopoly can have their license revoked.

[joeqsmith]

I'd rather not start this argument on the forum again, but you misunderstand why I have a problem with Hugen's actions.
..

Starts argument, proceeds to suggest they would rather not.  What were you expecting would be the end result?  Change your business practices if your are not happy with them but don't try and suggest that the problem is with everyone else.     

[OwO]

I did say I have no problem with everyone else, only one particular vendor...

[OwO]

You are still misunderstanding.

What you think my position is: I'm salty about my design being copied by everyone and that is why I'm complaining.

What my position actually is: I'm happy with what almost everyone are doing with my design, just as I intended when I open sourced it. However one vendor is now using anticompetitive tactics to corner the market, and after realizing it is my design that enabled them to do so, I no longer have any enthusiasm for open source anymore. Regardless of whether it has any legal standing, I made a gesture of revoking permission to use my design by this vendor as a symbol that the original developer denounces his products that are based on my design. I urge everyone to give more attention to the smaller players instead of this vendor.

What you assume: we are trying to grow a business and we aren't maximizing our chances and perfecting our execution because we're incompetent.

What's actually going on: this is only a hobby for us. The fact that my earlier efforts only helped a monopoly gain more power is highly demotivating, so V3 is only worked on when I have the motivation, and I don't want to get people's hopes up so I tell them the truth that they shouldn't anticipate it too much. This is not announcing that we are walking away from the project, only the reality that they should not depend on it becoming available.

The other implicit assumption you made is that people only care about maximizing their own material interests/financial interests. There are more things I can get ticked off about, such as I can feel resentment towards someone that is trying to screw me over. Therefore I may care more about stopping this monopoly than simply making maximum money myself.

[Mechatrommer]

Exchanging one monopoly player for another doesn't achieve anything, and ultimately will just result in a collapse just like the PCB market in China. Like the PCB market, they are operating on unsustainable margins to try to dominate and eventually become the only player, just like some PCB vendors are now offering free PCB prototypes in China which I also view as an anticompetitive move. I simply want there to be healthy competition, not cutthroat competition or a monopoly.

now i got your point. about Hugen tries to monopolized the market thats the problem, not that he copied your design... but i guess similar happened to outsides countries such as US with China. US businesses have become unsustainable due to competition and low production cost of China, i cant imagine how many businesses in US have to close or scaled down due to this. now the fight has become domestic within China itself how about bring this kind discussion to the NanoVNA 6GHz thread i have no problem with you over there and leave this thread to its original intention and i'm sorry to say you wont be able to stop people from buying what they want. like me for example, i need cross compatibility with NanoVNA-QT i told you, and LiteVNA is the only option for me now and no other else afaik. cheers.

[DiSlord]

I will express my opinion:
I was doing the firmware for LiteVNA. For her, I implemented everything that I would like to see in the device (Possibility to save data to the card, external USART, brightness control, the ability to see the battery charge), everything features that was on H / H4.

I did not deal with the hardware part (there is not only replacement of the generator and switches, there is a completely redone part of the power supply, and another piping of the generators, since SI5351 was replaced by MS5351, ADF4350 by MAX2871). Different layout on the board (and this is also a significant alteration, since it does have a huge impact on the result), different CPU. There may be other changes that I do not know about. Therefore, it is impossible to say that everything is simply copied.

The firmware has been almost completely rewritten (only the protocol code remained from the original one, and a part for the ability to assemble for V2/V2Plus/V2Plus4). And in the part of the firmware, I used only board/protocol code from V2Plus / V2Plus4 and not depend from hardware H/H4, write all hardware-dependent code (you can even see this by the significantly reduced firmware size and 2 times more points (up to 401 on any V2, and up to 1001 on LiteVNA), and I note these points are not interpolation, as you indicate in your website, I just use the available processor resources more economically)

You did not develop the firmware from V2 after hardware release (and close sources), and its further development was mainly due to donations and Hugen's initiative. The firmware code is not protected from copying in any way (although I do not have plans to open it, since all manufacturers use my developments from open source code for H/H4 although it is released under the GPL3 license, they prefer to close their own). Therefore, I don’t think that your code has been illegally used in the programmatic part.

[neilhao]

I did not deal with the hardware part (there is not only replacement of the generator and switches, there is a completely redone part of the power supply, and another piping of the generators, since SI5351 was replaced by MS5351, ADF4350 by MAX2871). Different layout on the board (and this is also a significant alteration, since it does have a huge impact on the result), different CPU. There may be other changes that I do not know about. Therefore, it is impossible to say that everything is simply copied.

I also reviewed the V2 hardware. E.g. the impedance mismatch will limit the performance above GHz. Especially, the S11 will be degraded above -10db by the mismatching around SMA connectors. This problem could not be totally solved by the calibration.
According to the internal photos of LiteVNA, It seems it used a better type of connectors which may improve the performance.

[joeqsmith]

You are still misunderstanding.

Most certainly I am.   This is why I continue to ask you for proof that a law was broken and have received no evidence.  Rather you continue to claim that your design was stolen from you.   

It does seem from your comment "Your custom cable has too much resistance, and operating at 4.6V is way too low for the mixer."  that you did not design to the USB standard.   

What you think my position is: I'm salty about my design being copied by everyone and that is why I'm complaining.

I have followed  your actions, read your posts and played them back.   

What you assume: we are trying to grow a business and we aren't maximizing our chances and perfecting our execution because we're incompetent.

I have outlined choices you have made that I wouldn't.  I would say the market share is the best indicator of your performance. 

The other implicit assumption you made is that people only care about maximizing their own material interests/financial interests. There are more things I can get ticked off about, such as I can feel resentment towards someone that is trying to screw me over. Therefore I may care more about stopping this monopoly than simply making maximum money myself.

I won't attempt to speak for the masses, only myself.   When I talk of people, its based on metrics like the 80% market share you keep bringing up.  I would have no way to know what the market share is or what motivates people to buy a particular product.

As I suggested earlier, looking at the number of posts in groups as a metric, the low cost VNAs (excuse me, antenna analyzers) seem to have ran their course.   Based on some of the comments, projects and videos, I would say that the original lowcost NanoVNA did a fine job raising the general awareness and education of the masses on a fairly large scale. 

[Mechatrommer]

What you assume: we are trying to grow a business and we aren't maximizing our chances and perfecting our execution because we're incompetent.

I would say the market share is the best indicator of your performance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/21/us-china-tech-competition/

[joeqsmith]

Seems OWO was not happy with the temperature tests I ran.   I am planning to repeat the test at 1MHz to 2.9GHz.  I will again run at 18 & 28C, using the open.    The temperature is starting to settle at 18C.