NanoVNA Custom Software

[purpose]

You can't type in the center frequency from the menu?
I could, but just centered the marker frequency. I'm slow.

So you're plugging these numbers in without the PC using just the Nano and seeing deformation?
Two different tests
Just the nano (no pc) when manually inputting the frequencies, no deformation.
In software when manually inputting the frequencies, the odd deformation.

The fact it seems to work with 1.08 and how you are seeing these odd spaced jumps when zooming,  I am leaning towards some sort of rounding problem with the Nano's firmware.   Again, 1.08 is asking for the table and working from that rather than telling the Nano what to do.   If there is a problem with the resolution 1.08 would mask it. 
I don't know if this is of any help, but the frequency jumps while zooming are the same in 1.08 and 1.12.

Sort out how to enter the set points from the menu, then maybe you can help answer this.
Are you talking about setting centre frequency on the nano? Or set the data points in software?

I might be having a stroke.

[joeqsmith]

" but the frequency jumps while zooming "

Are you referring to the center and span being the same between the two versions?  If so, that would make sense.   

Sort out how to enter the set points from the menu, then maybe you can help answer this.

Are you talking about setting centre frequency on the nano? Or set the data points in software?

Nothing to do with software.  I am interested in seeing what problems you run into when using the Nanos firmware.   

I might be having a stroke.

I'm not sure why.  You read the manual enough to provide some feedback on it.   

Those wanting to use this software with the original NanoVNA need to be aware that the poor quality of firmware and cloned hardware may cause a lot of wasted time.   You’re on your own. 

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’s 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. 

You made a choice to run unsupported hardware and firmware and then bring it up.  I made the choice not to ignore you.  And so, here we are...  Having some fun...  lol.

So you're plugging these numbers in without the PC using just the Nano and seeing deformation?

Two different tests
Just the nano (no pc) when manually inputting the frequencies, no deformation.
In software when manually inputting the frequencies, the odd deformation.

I wonder if the firmware will round when data is entered with the keypad but fails when you send it the command. 

Sadly, I think the only way to sort it out would be to try and replicate your setup.   You like playing with firmware.   Can you take that firmware and run it in old hardware?  Do you even have the old hardware to try it?    If that works, point me to where the hex or binary image can be found and I will try and load it into mine.   

[purpose]

Are you referring to the center and span being the same between the two versions?  If so, that would make sense. 
I merely observed the frequency stops when zoomng. Those six frqs are the same between versions. So, yes.

Nothing to do with software.  I am interested in seeing what problems you run into when using the Nanos firmware.
OK...

You made a choice to run unsupported hardware and firmware and then bring it up.  I made the choice not to ignore you.  And so, here we are...  Having some fun...  lol.

I'm having a blast... is that what the kids are saying today? I've never written so much, I might write a book.

[joeqsmith]

Sadly, I think the only way to sort it out would be to try and replicate your setup.   You like playing with firmware.   Can you take that firmware and run it in old hardware?  Do you even have the old hardware to try it?    If that works, point me to where the hex or binary image can be found and I will try and load it into mine.   

[purpose]

I tried an earlier version of Dislord's firmware in my first nano in the hope of upping the points count, but no joy.
My newer nano H4 has a slightly different processor that allows the 401 points.
As for sorting out my problems... I don't have any with 1.08. It's only the later versions giving me grief. I'm more than happy to stick with it.

https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/files/Dislord%27s%20Nanovna%20-H%20Firmware for all of Dislord's firmware.

[joeqsmith]

My newer nano H4 has a slightly different processor that allows the 401 points.

That makes sense. 

It's odd the frequencies would be identical but 1.08 works and 1.12 does not.  It's possible that it has nothing to do with the added number of points.  I wonder with 1.12 being faster if that is causing the problem with your new hardware.  Hard to believe a new processor and the latest firmware can't keep up over a slow serial connection but maybe.  When you select 400 data points, it pushes the timing over the edge.   1.08 was much slower.   

We could try 1.13 - 1.21  (figure it would take at least that many attempts) of trial and error.   Another option that may actually be faster would be replicate your setup.  Of course, that do nothing option is always there as well.      If you want to try some random guessing, I can upload a new version in a few minutes.


***
Go ahead and provide me with the purchasing info for your exact hardware as well.  If you have modified yours in any way, I want that information as well. 

***
1.13 is live if you want to try it.  Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency.   

[purpose]

You make em... I'll test em.

My H4 was bought from these chaps...
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001548276258.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.3cef4c4dXTxMXT

No modifications by me, but the photos I've seen online show my display is slightly different with its connection.
The only thing I have done is put it on a stand.

[purpose]

Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Just tried it as normal. More deformed waves and ending up 30Hz to the right of centre.

Need some sleep, but expect you'll have 14 by the time I wake up.

Toodle pip.

[joeqsmith]

Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Just tried it as normal. More deformed waves and ending up 30Hz to the right of centre.

Need some sleep, but expect you'll have 14 by the time I wake up.

Toodle pip.

Explain what is meant by "normal"?   

Did you try both 101 and 401?  Does 101 still work? 

Change the Refresh time from 200 to 600 and the PgmTimeout from 1200 to 1800 and let me know if it has any effect.   There may be more than one problem.  That centering sure sounds like a resolution problem but if you say it works fine with the menus,  maybe not.   No point in wasting too much more time with it.   

You should plan on staying with 1.08 for now.   It will take some time for the VNA to show up.  I will still need the Github link for the exact same firmware image you are using. 

[purpose]

Morning,

Explain what is meant by "normal"? 
Because you didn't explain what "Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency", I didn't do it, so ran the normal test.

Did you try both 101 and 401?  Does 101 still work? 
Last night only 401, but this morning tried 101 and 101 works well.

Change the Refresh time from 200 to 600 and the PgmTimeout from 1200 to 1800 and let me know if it has any effect.
None, or at least none that I noticed. Waveform still ends up to the right of centre.

No point in wasting too much more time with it.
Agreed.

One other thing that I forgot to mention is that all versions after 1.08 (in the SetupDiagnostics page info box), only displays 'the quick brown fox', whereas previous versions have all the nano info.
Might be something.

Peter

[joeqsmith]

Morning,

Morning.

Explain what is meant by "normal"? 
Because you didn't explain what "Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency", I didn't do it, so ran the normal test.

You may have noticed that this was the same comment in the readme file for that release.  It's not instructions for you to follow, its documenting what has been changed.  More so for my own benefit.   The manual now contains a Software version section that I will maintain, at least internally, to help keep track of the development.

>>>Just tried it as normal.
>>Explain what is meant by "normal"? 
>Because you didn't explain what "Step one, turn off the data while changing the frequency", I didn't do it, so ran the normal test.
 
Ok, it's clear with your circular explanation of what normal is, you're not sure, which is normal.

Did you try both 101 and 401?  Does 101 still work? 
Last night only 401, but this morning tried 101 and 101 works well.

Good info.

Change the Refresh time from 200 to 600 and the PgmTimeout from 1200 to 1800 and let me know if it has any effect.
None, or at least none that I noticed. Waveform still ends up to the right of centre.

More good info. 

No point in wasting too much more time with it.
Agreed.

One other thing that I forgot to mention is that all versions after 1.08 (in the SetupDiagnostics page info box), only displays 'the quick brown fox', whereas previous versions have all the nano info.
Might be something.

Certainly a possible clue.  Some firmware does not report any info.  If you run the terminal menu and select the info command does it send anything back?   

No matter.  Once the hardware arrives and you provide a link for the exact firmware you are using,  I can take it from there.     

In the mean time, I suggest you get a pull test jig finished so we can start to validate some of your results. 

[purpose]

Ok, it's clear with your circular explanation of what normal is, you're not sure, which is normal.
Nothing is as it seems.

If you run the terminal menu and select the info command does it send anything back? 
It does. Fills the info box with what I would expect to see.

Tried running another crystal test, but same right of centre result.

In the mean time, I suggest you get a pull test jig finished so we can start to validate some of your results.
I'll get on it. Cough.

Peter

[purpose]

Afternoon,
I think I may have inadvertently made this...




You're going to tell me to start reading some lengthy paper now, aren't you.

[joeqsmith]

Looks good.   Do you know how to use it?  If not....

Because the person who first asked me about making this measurement had brought up the Dishal software, this is what I used.    I used version 2.0.5.2.  This has support built-in for that pull test.   There is a decent help file for it. 

In my case, I used my old HP5328A counter.  I have a GPS that runs 24/7 for the time reference.   

Running the 1.08 software and working firmware (if you can find one) you should be able to compare Lm, Cm  and Fs.   For Cp, I just used my RLC meters to compare results.   

Make sure the parts are stable before you measure them.   I noticed that the  0.8.0 firmware would still glitch which is why I went back to what I know works.   

[purpose]

Evening,

Do you know how to use it?
Of course not, but finally got some numbers out of it. Missed a couple of connections.
I don't have a counter with a reference in, so will have to make do with what I have.

Browsing the 'crystal test set' pdf you linked mentions this in regard to the G3UUR circuit...
Although this circuit is useful for general
purposes, it is terribly inaccurate for those
performing demanding design tasks such as
narrow-band crystal filters.

That, plus a probably inaccurate counter might just be a waste of your time and mine.

Talk me out of it.

Peter

[joeqsmith]

Evening,

Do you know how to use it?
Of course not, but finally got some numbers out of it. Missed a couple of connections.
I don't have a counter with a reference in, so will have to make do with what I have.

Browsing the 'crystal test set' pdf you linked mentions this in regard to the G3UUR circuit...
Although this circuit is useful for general
purposes, it is terribly inaccurate for those
performing demanding design tasks such as
narrow-band crystal filters.

That, plus a probably inaccurate counter might just be a waste of your time and mine.

Talk me out of it.

Peter

Not sure why you feel that's my job.  If you have things you would rather be doing, I am perfectly fine with that. 

[purpose]

Not sure why you feel that's my job.
You threw me into this quagmire, at least throw me a rope.

[joeqsmith]

Not sure why you feel that's my job.
You threw me into this quagmire, at least throw me a rope.

No, you make your own choices.  While I have some of my own time invested in your project (my choice) I have no problem stopping the efforts if that is what you would like to do. 

[purpose]

Good grief, Mr. Smith, ... I merely suggested that my setup was possibly inadequate.
I'm not going to let you abandon the last few weeks of interaction because of a misunderstanding.

Have a smoke if you've got em... pour yourself a whisky and I'll pop back in after I've committed my mother to the flames.

Peter

[joeqsmith]

Good grief, Mr. Smith, ... I merely suggested that my setup was possibly inadequate.
I'm not going to let you abandon the last few weeks of interaction because of a misunderstanding.

Have a smoke if you've got em... pour yourself a whisky and I'll pop back in after I've committed my mother to the flames.

Hopefully you understand that this is my choice to make.

I didn't think it was going to be such a big deal for you to run the test and post your findings.

[purpose]

Hopefully you understand that this is my choice to make
Sure, but leaving a destitute orphan to navigate the wilderness is cruel.
Besides, you've just ordered a new gizmo and you have to at least tell me I'm a bellend for even ordering it.

Peter

[purpose]

Well, accuracy aside, I did some mathematics and came up with...
Cm 9.0616fF. Software 1.08 came up with 9.6216fF.
Lm 27.98mH. Software 1.08 came up with 26.33mH.

Would this be considered a validation?

[joeqsmith]

Hopefully you understand that this is my choice to make
Sure, but leaving a destitute orphan to navigate the wilderness is cruel.
Besides, you've just ordered a new gizmo and you have to at least tell me I'm a bellend for even ordering it.

I see people buy all sorts of things for various reasons.  What you spend your money on is really your choice.   I have no use for this VNA outside of seeing why my software isn't working with what ever flavor of the day firmware you are trying to use.   I had no plans to support anything beyond the original hardware and firmware called out in the manual.

Well, accuracy aside, I did some mathematics and came up with...
Cm 9.0616fF. Software 1.08 came up with 9.6216fF.
Lm 27.98mH. Software 1.08 came up with 26.33mH.

Would this be considered a validation?

I have no way to know what you did unless you provide the details?  What did you use for CSW?  How did you derive it?   Guess?  Saw something on the internet?  Don't think it matters?  Guessing gets old.   

It does seem like what ever you are doing is causing a fair amount of error.   

[purpose]

I have no way to know what you did unless you provide the details?

Here we go...
I measured the crystal with S1 and S2 closed (crystal to ground) and got a number.
I then measured with S1 open (through Cs) and got another number.
Punched these numbers into some formulas and got some other numbers.
Mathematics is not my thing, so could easily have made a mistake.
The formulas were this lot and are not my numbers...


My numbers were...
fgnd  9997742
fopen 9998439
Cs 62pF
Co 2.99pF
Delta f 697

What did you use for CSW?  How did you derive it?
Cs was 62pF. W? Not a clue. Measured at 10M on the vna.

It does seem like what ever you are doing is causing a fair amount of error. 
Again, mathematics is not my thing.

[joeqsmith]

I thought the software made all the calculations for you.  You just had to plug in the values you read from your equipment. 
There was a pretty good help file for it and I would have assumed you read it. 

What did you use for CSW?  How did you derive it?
Cs was 62pF. W? Not a clue. Measured at 10M on the vna.

How did you connect it?  If you use your RLC meter and replicate my steps, then what do you get?