NanoVNA Custom Software

[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.     

[purpose]

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.

It was done within the (r11) pdf, with highlighted text and pop-up notes.
Let me run through the r12 changes and I'll report back.

Peter

[purpose]

Mr. Smith,
Firstly, the improvements made work well.
The quick tips correspond nicely with the buttons.
The zoom function had a glitch one time, where it got stuck on (I think) 300Hz, but a quick hit on the centering button unstuck it. Hasn't happened since and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I left it running for several hours gathering data and was still doing so when checked.

So far I've only characterised crystals and the few filters that I have. Not one hiccup.
Other functions will have to wait until I understand the instrument better.

The manual could certainly use the addition of link/s to your youtube videos on the nano.
I've read the manual a few times now, yet when I then watch your vids, a great deal more sinks in.

That's about as much as I can say at the moment, but I'm not going to post the grammar and punctuation errors on here... far too many... cough.

Send me an email with a throwaway address, that way I can send you the pdf and you can still be incognito.

Peter

[joeqsmith]

The zoom function had a glitch one time, where it got stuck on (I think) 300Hz, but a quick hit on the centering button unstuck it. Hasn't happened since and doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I assume you were running at 10MHz as usual, the software had set the span to 300Hz.   The peak was still visible and centered once it completed but the span was set to 300Hz rather than 500Hz. 

If it happens again, try and supply as much detail as possible and then I'll see if I can address it.  Center frequency, span, is it continuing to hunt or the Zoom completed.

****
When we did that last round of review on the manual, the had tried to send the file be email but it was too large.   They had set up some MicroSoft shared area but sadly, after changing to Windows 10, I have every IP for MS blocked at the router to prevent them from doing anything to my system while I am trying to work.   This is why I was suggesting if there are a limited number of update, can you just paste them in ASCII from here?   If that would be a lot of work, could you maybe setup a Github or GoogleDocs account and load it there.  Github would be the better solution as the file could be stored without any formatting changes.   If you really want to use email, I think you will need to use the span option to limit the file size.  What a pain....       

[purpose]

I assume you were running at 10MHz as usual, the software had set the span to 300Hz.   The peak was still visible and centered once it completed but the span was set to 300Hz rather than 500Hz. 

If it happens again, try and supply as much detail as possible and then I'll see if I can address it.  Center frequency, span, is it continuing to hunt or the Zoom completed.

The usual 10MHz, yep. What seems to happen (every zoom press) is that it overshoots the 500Hz to an arbitrary number 160Hz/300Hz/400Hz, then back up to 500.

Peter

[purpose]

I'll sort something.
I gave up my website last week, because the greedy bastards wanted 4 times as much as last year.
Beginning to think I should have paid them.

[joeqsmith]

The usual 10MHz, yep. What seems to happen (every zoom press) is that it overshoots the 500Hz to an arbitrary number 160Hz/300Hz/400Hz, then back up to 500.

It makes sense to change the check so it doesn't overshoot the span but regardless it shouldn't get stuck.  You can try that new version if you like.   I am attempting to get the it to hang right now but not having any luck.  I wonder if I am still just asking too much from the firmware and overran its message buffer.   

***
I should mention that assuming the crystals are the same, you shouldn't have to zoom in but once for the very first part you characterize.  Of course, I never numbered the steps in section 14.4 so you may not know that.     

[purpose]

It makes sense to change the check so it doesn't overshoot the span but regardless it shouldn't get stuck.  You can try that new version if you like.   I am attempting to get the it to hang right now but not having any luck.  I wonder if I am still just asking too much from the firmware and overran its message buffer.
 

***
I should mention that assuming the crystals are the same, you shouldn't have to zoom in but once for the very first part you characterize.  Of course, I never numbered the steps in section 14.4 so you may not know that.   

There's another new version? So there is. Didn't overshoot.
Same crystals and I'm not zooming like a madman.
Numbering is for people that can't count.

[joeqsmith]

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll go over it for the next revision.   At some point, I will also release an update to the V2+ software that rolls all of these changes in as well. 

I wasn't able to get it to hang and would hate to further cripple the software if we don't have to.   Let me know if it continues to be a problem.   

[purpose]

Let me know if it continues to be a problem.
It was never a problem. One click and it was gone.

At some point, I will also release an update to the V2+ software that rolls all of these changes in as well.
If they ever re-release the V2 Plus 4 (doesn't look hopeful) I could see that being rather handy.

Cheers
Peter

[purpose]

One thing that I forgot to mention was that upon start-up and in Xmsn Rect, the phase waveform is displayed without the tick box activated. Ticking and unticking sees the wave gone.
While I'm at it... SetupDiag page, change Responce to Response.

Peter

Feel free to take some time off.

[joeqsmith]

Done.

LabView is a very powerful tool when it comes to putting together simple test software like this.   It has a feature that allows you to take whatever you have shown as the defaults.  I will often use this feature rather then initialize everything to a known state manually.   In the case of the phase being active, this is what happened.  I had it active and saved it as a default.  You select the checkbox the first time and it does nothing because it is already active.  You press it again and now it turns off.   This is a case where I have added it to the initialize sequence as I can see myself turning it back on and saving it again as the default.    Spelling was also corrected.   

Let me know if it continues to be a problem.
It was never a problem. One click and it was gone.

At some point, I will also release an update to the V2+ software that rolls all of these changes in as well.
If they ever re-release the V2 Plus 4 (doesn't look hopeful) I could see that being rather handy.

If the software is not behaving as expected, I consider it a problem.  In this case you found a workaround that you were happy with but it still should be addressed.

I have not seen anything more on the V2 Plus 4.  I noticed they had ran out of stock of the V2 Plus as well.   I'm glad they sold out and I hope they met their goals.   If they make another batch, I think they should screen some graphics onto the case, at least advertise their company and mark the buttons.   Outside of the lack of narrow band support, that +4 is a really nice unit.   I'm looking forward to seeing them introduce a 6GHz version with narrow band, more data points, faster update rates and wider dynamic range.   

[purpose]

Sorted.

If the software is not behaving as expected, I consider it a problem.
I fully understand.

Outside of the lack of narrow band support, that +4 is a really nice unit.   I'm looking forward to seeing them introduce a 6GHz version with narrow band, more data points, faster update rates and wider dynamic range.

As you say in your videos, the original is best for narrow band stuff. It's still more than I envisage ever needing, but should I learn how to get the best out of it and find it lacking, then I shall see what you find a worthwhile upgrade.

Many thanks
Peter



 

[joeqsmith]

Peter, 

First I just want to thank you for taking the time to go over the document and provide feedback for it.  As I go over your comments, the following paragraph sums up my thoughts about the software:

This software can be viewed as an engineering tool at best. Its primary use was to extend the author's understanding of V2+. It was never intended to be used as a general tool for radio hobbyist to tune their antennas. The software is fairly buggy and not very robust. Even under normal conditions, expect to run into several problems if attempting to use this software. It’s a very poor choice for the beginner.

[/i]

Adam Savage showed us that indeed it is possible to polish a turd.   

A few comments on your feedback

Pg8) Current: The author is not an amateur radio or citizens  band hobbyist.   
Proposed: The author is not an amateur radio enthusiast, or citizens  band hobbyist.   

In general, I don't place one group above the other and consider both to be hobbyists.     

Pg8) Current: Because the software was written for my own personal use, there are many features that may be lacking or have not been completed.
Proposed:  Because the software was written for my own personal use, there are many features that may be lacking or have not been implemented.

I want to make a distinction between features that someone may feel should be included but are not and features that have been included but may not be fully functional.  Changing completed to implemented vs lacking does not make that clear. 
 
Pg 10) Current:  If we are sweeping from 1.0 to 1MHz, the first sample has an index of 0.
Proposed: Add units to left. 

When using the same units, it is common to leave off the left side.     

Pg 26) Current: Performing a full calibration or selecting standards is not necessary.   
Proposed: Performing a full calibration, or selecting standards is not necessary.   

I'm not sure about as they are both talking about how the software converts raw data into something usable.   With a comma added, MSW will flag it as a grammar warning. 

Pg 71)  Current: The software will try and zoom into the peak and set the span to 500Hz
Proposed:  remove try,  no trying about it

From what I understand the software has a bug and it does not always zoom in.      I have removed the word try as suggested but this means the problem needs to be resolved.  Of course, I have covered it in that one paragraph in the Scope where I state:  " The software is fairly buggy and not very robust."    It can't get much clearer than that! 

Pg 71)  Current:  Notice without the calibration, the original NanoVNA will display roughly 17dB.
Proposed:  Change the sign.

Interesting.  You know, I don't normally think about such things as I am considering the context.   I would expect and amplifier to have a positive gain (although, it may not) and most everything else to have a loss.  In this particular case because the document is stating what the display should be showing, I think it needs to change as well.   I wouldn't be surprised at all if you found other sections of the document that need this clarification.   


I added links to the Github and YouTube accounts to section 1.

[purpose]

Mr. Smith,
Adam Savage showed us that indeed it is possible to polish a turd.
There's video...Now I'm going to have to watch it.

Pg8) Current: The author is not an amateur radio
Neither am I. This is what I had a minor problem with.
 
Changing completed to implemented vs lacking does not make that clear.
I shall consult the Thesaurus.

When using the same units, it is common to leave off the left side.
Should it then not be 0.1 to 1Mhz? As 1.0 is the same as 1 and sweeping was mentioned.

With a comma added, MSW will flag it as a grammar warning.
I took the day off to avoid the English exam.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you found other sections of the document that need this clarification.
I'll certainly run through the next iteration. I seem to learn a little something every time. How odd.

I added links to the Github and YouTube accounts to section 1.
Top job.

Peter

[joeqsmith]

Pg8) Current: The author is not an amateur radio or citizens  band hobbyist.
Proposed: The author is not an amateur radio enthusiast, or citizens  band hobbyist.   

Pg8) Current: The author is not an amateur radio
Neither am I. This is what I had a minor problem with.

I would understand it to mean "The author is not an amateur radio hobbyist or citizens band hobbyist."  I consider both groups to be hobbyists but do not want to use the same word twice in a sentence.  Are there documents known to have been authored by any electronic equipment?  Even if we consider an electric typewriter, we still need the monkeys to write War and Peace.   

Proposing one group being enthusiasts and the other hobbyists, I don't think is valid.   Not to say that if someone obtained their license that they may feel that put them a cut above.  I would consider an enthusiasts as someone from one of these groups who went on to further their education, perhaps becoming degreed engineering professionals. 

Maybe there is a better way to convey it. 
 

When using the same units, it is common to leave off the left side.

Should it then not be 0.1 to 1Mhz? As 1.0 is the same as 1 and sweeping was mentioned.

    Now I see the problem.  Yes, 0.1.  We are not sweeping from 1MHz to 1MHz as the document suggests.        Strike this one off the list.

[joeqsmith]

From Google,  I get the following hit:
https://theeditorsblog.net/2015/08/08/one-adjective-paired-with-multiple-nouns-a-readers-question/

[purpose]

Might I suggest The author is not an amateur radio/citizens band hobbyist. That might cover it.

Now I see the problem.
I knew there was one lurking.

From Google,  I get the following hit:
I've just woken up from a lucid dreamy nap. It'll have to wait until processed.