1. Nanovna-Users
  2. Теми

Effective Comparisons?

 

I am looking for an effective Comparison between the various models, and another for the versions of firmware. Differences, and advantages etc.

I have read, but not tested that firmware can be applied as desired without consequence. I have not tried to apply same firmware from the F series to the H or reverse.

My employer has the DG8SAQ VNA 3, NANO F, NANO F2, and NANO H4. We use then for testing on Antenna and Cables.

However it is clear that the 3 nano devices are not the same and cannot be identically calibrated. I wont even mention the DS8SAQ as it's a whole other breed.
What I do know is the H4 has two clock chips, an entirely different way to report or calibrate output power and is activated slightly different, its in a plastic shell (no shield) and the biggest issue for us is that that we cannot track multiple points at the same time. (Ohh sure you can have 4 active Markers, but only one specific data point (trace). ) We learned all this only after the purchase and could not line up results. This actually lead to arguments and finger pointing. Since it was generally assumed one of us had no idea what they were doing and thus everything done until that point was now in question.

With the firmware on the F series, I can activate 4 Markers each showing specifics of their frequency relative to the Trace active. However, 4 traces can be on screen too. I know the traces are all reactive to the active Marker. We we use a frequency sweep so the center band is usually the setting for Marker 2, and it is the active marker. Traces are configured to Log, Smith, SWR, and Phase. With SWR active, so the 4 markers will each show Smith and SWR values.

At this time we only use S11 functions.

I have personally assembled a basic quick start guide for my coworkers, to use on the F and F2 models. I have assembled one for the H4, but for the most part, it sits in it's box since it's results never line up. So there are likely important details I might add to that guide I am currently unaware.

I have attached sample Screen shots of how we configure the F series. Oddly I don't seem to have any of the H4, and I am not sure why.

VNA F img2.png
VNA F img1.png

 

You might find that controlling the various VNAs via the same software (nanoVNA saver, nanoVNA App, etc.) you might be able to get the marker and display functionality you desire.
This of course assumes that all of your analyzers can be used with the software.

I will say that getting even identical-model instruments to very closely track each other can be challenging. I think that a lot of the current instruments do not have well-characterized calibration components; using "ideal" cal kit open-short-load definitions is not going to be adequate.
You need clean standards and mating connectors and to properly torque the connections for best repeatability. I even mark the ports and standards and align them the same way each time; every variable you can eliminate will help.

All of the setups would ideally use the same physical calibration kit and have that kit's calibration kit definitions entered into all of the instruments.
Perhaps investing in a good calibration kit with individual standards' definitions, to be used across the analyzer fleet, would be a wise expenditure for your employer. I have had good luck with Kirkby Microwave: https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/

73, Don N2VGU
 

It is the first Law of Test equipment that once you have two of something you will know that *you will never know for sure*
The second law is that only having one doesn't help accuracy much - but it instills a great confidence
 

On the H4, when displaying markers, it only displays values from the active trace -- but you only have to 'tap' on another trace marker to set it as active, and see the corresponding values. As already mentioned, using Nanovna-saver or Nanovna-app software (on a connected computer) will give lots of flexibility in graphing and display, allowing you to see many values for all markers set. Many of the nanovna models use a compatible command set, so the software works with several models. But as far as I know, nobody has made a single document comparing models/features, etc.
As far as firmware goes, in general each model has its own firmware build and they are not interchangeable. But some firmware authors build their firmware with target binaries for several different models, so you can have the same basic firmware. DiSlord has made the most recent firmware updates that apply to a range of devices, particularly the -H, -H4, V2, and LiteVNAxx. A couple of nanovna models have firmware proprietary to the device, which you must get from the creator/vendor.
 

Hello Ray,

I agree with what others have said regarding this thread.
All the "NanoVNAs" you mention use the same BASIC architecture based on the original open source design by "edy555", but they are not the same.
Be aware the Deepelec NanoVNA-F uses a different display and FW update circuit.
So you can't load the NanoVNA-H/H4 firmware onto the NanoVNA-F and visa versa.

I would make sure you have all devices upgraded to latest firmware. The Deepelec FW is at v1.0.5. Note the FW files for the -F and -F2 are different. Refer to the Deepelec website.
Similarly, download the latest -H4 firmware. Most folk use the DiSlord FW. Search this forum for details. (I have a Deepelec NanoVNA-F V3.1) Note as above that the -H and -H4 FW files are different as well.

I note in your photos you are using the default -F 101 point sweep. This can be increased to 301 points on the instrument. You can go even more points using the PC software. I think Nano Saver will talk to both the -H/H4 and -F devices.

And definitely use a common set of Cal Standards. This also includes cables if these are used on different devices. Otherwise, keep any cables specific to a particular device so marked and dedicated to that particular instrument. I mark my individual S11 and S21 port cables as well.

HTH...Bob VK2ZRE

On 23/09/2024 2:03 am, ray@... wrote:
I am looking for an effective Comparison between the various models, and another for the versions of firmware. Differences, and advantages etc.

I have read, but not tested that firmware can be applied as desired without consequence. I have not tried to apply same firmware from the F series to the H or reverse.

My employer has the DG8SAQ VNA 3, NANO F, NANO F2, and NANO H4. We use then for testing on Antenna and Cables.

However it is clear that the 3 nano devices are not the same and cannot be identically calibrated. I wont even mention the DS8SAQ as it's a whole other breed.
What I do know is the H4 has two clock chips, an entirely different way to report or calibrate output power and is activated slightly different, its in a plastic shell (no shield) and the biggest issue for us is that that we cannot track multiple points at the same time. (Ohh sure you can have 4 active Markers, but only one specific data point (trace). ) We learned all this only after the purchase and could not line up results. This actually lead to arguments and finger pointing. Since it was generally assumed one of us had no idea what they were doing and thus everything done until that point was now in question.

With the firmware on the F series, I can activate 4 Markers each showing specifics of their frequency relative to the Trace active. However, 4 traces can be on screen too. I know the traces are all reactive to the active Marker. We we use a frequency sweep so the center band is usually the setting for Marker 2, and it is the active marker. Traces are configured to Log, Smith, SWR, and Phase. With SWR active, so the 4 markers will each show Smith and SWR values.

At this time we only use S11 functions.

I have personally assembled a basic quick start guide for my coworkers, to use on the F and F2 models. I have assembled one for the H4, but for the most part, it sits in it's box since it's results never line up. So there are likely important details I might add to that guide I am currently unaware.

I have attached sample Screen shots of how we configure the F series. Oddly I don't seem to have any of the H4, and I am not sure why.
 

Re: Donald S Brant Jr
"All of the setups would ideally use the same physical calibration kit"

Yes we are doing this. This every one has been trained on and for the most part they might argue I do not know what I am doing, they are generally unwilling to do calibration or VNA setup.
We have one person who is for now doing dedicated cables and antenna testing. The kit consists of the loads, shorts, open, a leash and the couplers needed for the testing. The calibration is defined for a standard antenna. Thus everything including the cables and other antenna are more or less tested against that standard. Long term we should have one calibration per antenna and per cable. Though we do not really require that level of accuracy.

Note: It is a shame there is no way to add notes, or labels to a set up that might allow us to indicate a particular kit or set of parts to recreate the setup, kit or calibration. Although I well aware of whats needed, and what was used and all parts are kept together, most have no idea.

Where this all went side ways was purchasing a H4 and comparing it to the F.
Suddenly results don't match regardless of calibration, and office staff start arguing they cannot trust anything.

Thankfully the addition of the F2 calmed the chaos. And the H4 is locked away.
 

Re: Bob Ecclestone VK2ZRE

Hello Bob,
Yes at one point or another both have been updated to the most recent. I feel like the H4 lost features when it was updated. But that's another topic.

If I call now setting to 101 was one of the few configurations where they both lined up settings. I tried very hard to get every one running as identical as possible. There was always something altering the results just a little. My boss will simply say its accurate or it's not and if it's not accurate we should get rid of it. Even just to day we are arguing how devices might intentionally alter the originating signal and what conditions are needed to cause it to read differently by a VNA or SA. Why even though they look different, the results don't agree they might still be ok

As I replied to "73, Don N2VGU", we do use a set of calibrated Standards. Although I have managed to build up couplers and dummy loads for almost any condition. The ones included with the DG8 were Amphenol, and they remain the base of the kit used for all calibration in the 902-928mhz range. Calibration is also performed at 915 on each device, with the same leash. That leash is required to be connected any time that calibration file is loaded. My internal notes specify that if a leash is changed the calibration file needs to be recreated. Ideal we have one file and one leash for every setup.
 

H4 has one clock. If you are comparing results, the first thing you
have to do is to eliminate the firmware as much as possible
(extrapolation is the biggest issue if you are not hitting the same
points) and you will not be able to do that using the device only.
Leave the devices uncalibrated, connect to them using NanoVNA Saver,
and calibrate using the same standards (characterized if possible).


On Mon, 23 Sept 2024 at 19:43, ray via groups.io
<ray@...> wrote:

Re: Bob Ecclestone VK2ZRE

Hello Bob,
Yes at one point or another both have been updated to the most recent. I feel like the H4 lost features when it was updated. But that's another topic.

If I call now setting to 101 was one of the few configurations where they both lined up settings. I tried very hard to get every one running as identical as possible. There was always something altering the results just a little. My boss will simply say its accurate or it's not and if it's not accurate we should get rid of it. Even just to day we are arguing how devices might intentionally alter the originating signal and what conditions are needed to cause it to read differently by a VNA or SA. Why even though they look different, the results don't agree they might still be ok

As I replied to "73, Don N2VGU", we do use a set of calibrated Standards. Although I have managed to build up couplers and dummy loads for almost any condition. The ones included with the DG8 were Amphenol, and they remain the base of the kit used for all calibration in the 902-928mhz range. Calibration is also performed at 915 on each device, with the same leash. That leash is required to be connected any time that calibration file is loaded. My internal notes specify that if a leash is changed the calibration file needs to be recreated. Ideal we have one file and one leash for every setup.
 

I really do not understand the differences between units. I have compared
a number of the NanoVNAs of varying descriptions and firmware with an
HP8753C with S-Parameter test set. I have detected very little significant
variation between units when properly calibrated and used. Just remember,
RF is not DC and far more care must be applied when dealing with RF
measurements, especially in the GHz range. I would suspect the differences
are more due to individual testers - the human factor - than the units,
themselves. Again, RF is not DC!!

Some training of the multiple testers may be required.

Dave - WØLEV

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:27 PM ray via groups.io <ray=
innovativetimingsystems.com@groups.io> wrote:

Re: Donald S Brant Jr
"All of the setups would ideally use the same physical calibration kit"

Yes we are doing this. This every one has been trained on and for the most
part they might argue I do not know what I am doing, they are generally
unwilling to do calibration or VNA setup.
We have one person who is for now doing dedicated cables and antenna
testing. The kit consists of the loads, shorts, open, a leash and the
couplers needed for the testing. The calibration is defined for a standard
antenna. Thus everything including the cables and other antenna are more or
less tested against that standard. Long term we should have one calibration
per antenna and per cable. Though we do not really require that level of
accuracy.

Note: It is a shame there is no way to add notes, or labels to a set up
that might allow us to indicate a particular kit or set of parts to
recreate the setup, kit or calibration. Although I well aware of whats
needed, and what was used and all parts are kept together, most have no
idea.

Where this all went side ways was purchasing a H4 and comparing it to the
F.
Suddenly results don't match regardless of calibration, and office staff
start arguing they cannot trust anything.

Thankfully the addition of the F2 calmed the chaos. And the H4 is locked
away.





--

*Dave - WØLEV*


--
Dave - WØLEV
 

This sounds like me with four different dummy loads with rf detector circuits, one of which has two diodes. The rest have one. And each one (in it’s build article) uses a slightly different math formula to determine power out for 5 watts or less. I get a different power out with each one on the same KX2 transceiver. Even with losses considered for the diodes and RMS reading meter….. like two watches……

Be the REASON someone smiles today.

Dave K8WPE

On Sep 23, 2024, at 10:09 AM, Bob Ecclestone VK2ZRE <becclest@...> wrote:

Hello Ray,

I agree with what others have said regarding this thread.
All the "NanoVNAs" you mention use the same BASIC architecture based on the original open source design by "edy555", but they are not the same.
Be aware the Deepelec NanoVNA-F uses a different display and FW update circuit.
So you can't load the NanoVNA-H/H4 firmware onto the NanoVNA-F and visa versa.

I would make sure you have all devices upgraded to latest firmware. The Deepelec FW is at v1.0.5. Note the FW files for the -F and -F2 are different. Refer to the Deepelec website.
Similarly, download the latest -H4 firmware. Most folk use the DiSlord FW. Search this forum for details. (I have a Deepelec NanoVNA-F V3.1) Note as above that the -H and -H4 FW files are different as well.

I note in your photos you are using the default -F 101 point sweep. This can be increased to 301 points on the instrument. You can go even more points using the PC software. I think Nano Saver will talk to both the -H/H4 and -F devices.

And definitely use a common set of Cal Standards. This also includes cables if these are used on different devices. Otherwise, keep any cables specific to a particular device so marked and dedicated to that particular instrument. I mark my individual S11 and S21 port cables as well.

HTH...Bob VK2ZRE


On 23/09/2024 2:03 am, ray@... wrote:
I am looking for an effective Comparison between the various models, and another for the versions of firmware. Differences, and advantages etc.

I have read, but not tested that firmware can be applied as desired without consequence. I have not tried to apply same firmware from the F series to the H or reverse.

My employer has the DG8SAQ VNA 3, NANO F, NANO F2, and NANO H4. We use then for testing on Antenna and Cables.

However it is clear that the 3 nano devices are not the same and cannot be identically calibrated. I wont even mention the DS8SAQ as it's a whole other breed.
What I do know is the H4 has two clock chips, an entirely different way to report or calibrate output power and is activated slightly different, its in a plastic shell (no shield) and the biggest issue for us is that that we cannot track multiple points at the same time. (Ohh sure you can have 4 active Markers, but only one specific data point (trace). ) We learned all this only after the purchase and could not line up results. This actually lead to arguments and finger pointing. Since it was generally assumed one of us had no idea what they were doing and thus everything done until that point was now in question.

With the firmware on the F series, I can activate 4 Markers each showing specifics of their frequency relative to the Trace active. However, 4 traces can be on screen too. I know the traces are all reactive to the active Marker. We we use a frequency sweep so the center band is usually the setting for Marker 2, and it is the active marker. Traces are configured to Log, Smith, SWR, and Phase. With SWR active, so the 4 markers will each show Smith and SWR values.

At this time we only use S11 functions.

I have personally assembled a basic quick start guide for my coworkers, to use on the F and F2 models. I have assembled one for the H4, but for the most part, it sits in it's box since it's results never line up. So there are likely important details I might add to that guide I am currently unaware.

I have attached sample Screen shots of how we configure the F series. Oddly I don't seem to have any of the H4, and I am not sure why.
 

Hi Ray,

One other point that may be worth checking is the S11 Drive Level. I note your photos show both using "+1dBm".
Are these photos of both your -F and -F2 devices?
Was the H4 also set to ~+1dBm.
I only mention this because there may be subtle linearity differences in the detectors in all models.

Your use of "-F" and "-F2" is a bit confusing to me.
Deepelec's first release was the "NanoVNA-F V2.2". It used a thumbwheel like the -H4. It had maximum S11 drive of -13dBm.
Then came "-F V2.3" and "-F V3.1". V2.3 used the thumbwheel, but V3.1 used 3 pushbuttons instead of the thumbwheel.
I have the V3.1 and prefer the pushbuttons compared to the thumbwheel on my TinySAs.
Both the V2.3 and V3.1 had virtually the same upgraded electronics and a nominal 0dBm S11 drive level. The FW was only different due to the thumbwheel or pushbutton interface.
See the specs here: https://deepelec.com/2022/10/31/deepvna_101_nanovna-f-1_0_5/

Leon, the Deepelec developer, used to work at Sysjoint and left and went out on his own. The Deepelec and Sysjoint architectures are very similar in models bearing the "NanoVNA-F" label. Deepelec went on to further refine the basic "edy555" open source design while Sysjoint started development down a different path.
Both photos show "DEEPELEC.COM" at the bottom of the screen which made me think they are Deepelec devices. But the Deepelec FW will run on the Sysjoint "-F" models as well.
Is it possible you have a Sysjoint "NanoVNA-F"? The Deepelec logo on the front has a circle as the "bar" in the letter "A", Sysjoint have the normal bar.

HTH...Bob VK2ZRE

On 24/09/2024 3:43 am, ray@... wrote:
Re: Bob Ecclestone VK2ZRE

Hello Bob,
Yes at one point or another both have been updated to the most recent. I feel like the H4 lost features when it was updated. But that's another topic.

If I call now setting to 101 was one of the few configurations where they both lined up settings. I tried very hard to get every one running as identical as possible. There was always something altering the results just a little. My boss will simply say its accurate or it's not and if it's not accurate we should get rid of it. Even just to day we are arguing how devices might intentionally alter the originating signal and what conditions are needed to cause it to read differently by a VNA or SA. Why even though they look different, the results don't agree they might still be ok

As I replied to "73, Don N2VGU", we do use a set of calibrated Standards. Although I have managed to build up couplers and dummy loads for almost any condition. The ones included with the DG8 were Amphenol, and they remain the base of the kit used for all calibration in the 902-928mhz range. Calibration is also performed at 915 on each device, with the same leash. That leash is required to be connected any time that calibration file is loaded. My internal notes specify that if a leash is changed the calibration file needs to be recreated. Ideal we have one file and one leash for every setup.

1 - 11 з 11