Dislord, someone had wrote me about using your firmware to increase the number of data points from 101 to 401.  They are wanting to use some software I wrote with it.  Do you have any documentation for your firmware?   Have you added a remote command to allow changing this parameter remotely?   Or, can it only be set from the Nano's GUI?  Your release note mentions some high speed binary format.  Do you support sending data to the PC using a new format?   If so, does it help or is the update still limited by the sweep rates?    Thanks for any information you can provide.

371 pts is maximum (without interpolation)

401 is a testversion from him but it can not save calibration

he also had a 511pt version but that uses interpolation (so that are not
"real" 511 pts)

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 07.05.2021 um 23:55 schrieb Joe Smith via groups.io:

> Dislord, someone had wrote me about using your firmware to increase
> the number of data points from 101 to 401.  They are wanting to use
> some software I wrote with it.  Do you have any documentation for your
> firmware?   Have you added a remote command to allow changing this
> parameter remotely?   Or, can it only be set from the Nano's GUI? 
> Your release note mentions some high speed binary format.  Do you
> support sending data to the PC using a new format?   If so, does it
> help or is the update still limited by the sweep rates?    Thanks for
> any information you can provide.
>
>

371 pts is maximum (without interpolation)

401 is a testversion from him but it can not save calibration

he also had a 511pt version but that uses interpolation (so that are not
"real" 511 pts)

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 07.05.2021 um 23:55 schrieb Joe Smith via groups.io:

> Dislord, someone had wrote me about using your firmware to increase
> the number of data points from 101 to 401.  They are wanting to use
> some software I wrote with it.  Do you have any documentation for your
> firmware?   Have you added a remote command to allow changing this
> parameter remotely?   Or, can it only be set from the Nano's GUI? 
> Your release note mentions some high speed binary format.  Do you
> support sending data to the PC using a new format?   If so, does it
> help or is the update still limited by the sweep rates?    Thanks for
> any information you can provide.
>
>

Ask about V2 or NanoVNA H/H4?

I not change V2 protocol
Original fw use some as my fw for H/H4 protocol (only max points allowed 101 for H and 401 for H4)
Also possible get uncalibrated data if need:
>scan {start(Hz)} {stop(Hz)} [points] [outmask]
outmask can be

>
> #define SCAN_MASK_OUT_FREQ       0b00000001
> #define SCAN_MASK_OUT_DATA0      0b00000010
> #define SCAN_MASK_OUT_DATA1      0b00000100
> #define SCAN_MASK_NO_CALIBRATION 0b00001000
> #define SCAN_MASK_BINARY         0b10000000
>

Added:
SCAN_MASK_NO_CALIBRATION - no calibration apply to data
SCAN_MASK_BINARY         - send data in binary format (more faster, not need convert)
Data send as float array:

>
> streamWrite(shell_stream, (void *)&mask, sizeof(uint16_t));
> streamWrite(shell_stream, (void *)&points, sizeof(uint16_t));
> for (i = 0; i < points; i++) {
> if (mask & SCAN_MASK_OUT_FREQ ) streamWrite(shell_stream, (void
> *)&frequencies[i],    sizeof(freq_t));    // 4 bytes .. frequency
> if (mask & SCAN_MASK_OUT_DATA0) streamWrite(shell_stream, (void
> *)&measured[0][i][0], sizeof(float)* 2);  // 4+4 bytes .. S11 real/imag
> if (mask & SCAN_MASK_OUT_DATA1) streamWrite(shell_stream, (void
> *)&measured[1][i][0], sizeof(float)* 2);  // 4+4 bytes .. S21 real/imag
> }
>

uint16_t mask
uint16_t points
data {
uint32_t freq
float s11_real, s11_ imag
float s21_real, s21_ imag
}[points]

Dislord, thanks for the response.

I understand they are using an H4 and for the most part, my software for the original NanoVNA will work with your new firmware.   I currently use the frequency command to determine the number of data points but I would like to use something more how the V2Plus works.

This was before I was told about them running your firmware with the 401 data points.  I now have an H4 on order and will use it to try and sort out the best way to more forward with it.  It's still about a week out so I am just trying to get some idea how your firmware works.   Ideally, I was looking for a high level software interface spec.

When using the old Nano, I just clear the calibration and store that so it defaults to no calibration on power up.

Any insight you could provide may be helpful.

You can launch NanoVNA-App and see how it command Nano in console

My firmware support all commnds as original (need for work, i disable some debug commands), have additional
One difference - bandwidth command
>bandwidth N
N - repeat count
or
>bandwidth freq Hz
bandwidth frequency

You can see sources in
https://github.com/DiSlord/NanoVNA-D/blob/master/main.c
Array contain commands:
VNAShellCommand commands

Also possible use 'help' - for see all commands list.
Commands:
scan
scan_bin
data
frequencies
freq
sweep
power
offset
bandwidth
time
saveconfig
clearconfig
touchcal
touchtest
pause
resume
cal
save
recall
trace
marker
edelay
capture
vbat
reset
smooth
usart_cfg
usart
vbat_offset
transform
threshold
help
info
version
color

PS about NanoVNA H/H4 better go to https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/topics

I currently don't have the H4 hardware to run your firmware on.   From your Help, it does not appear to have any sort of Point or Size command and I assume it can only be changed then though the GUI.  Once the user sets the number of points, does this setting remain through a power cycle?  Maybe stored with the other cal settings?

I run the Nano headless and don't use the LCD, touchscreen or buttons.  When I run a SOLT, the software stores all the settings with the coefficients.  When I load the cal file, the software properly sets up the VNA.  Having to manually change the number of points opens the door for the user to make a mistake.

Its possible for me to reverse engineer the undocumented firmware but would require a fair amount of time, which is why I was looking for an interface spec.

I unsubscribed to the larger group early on but can rejoin if you would rather continue the discussion there.

Don't remember what the command was but there is one,
NanoVNA-Saver has support for 401 points on H4 and when
it is set, the device shows at the bottom of the screen the new setting.
Command should be the same as on H version so you could use that
to verify ...

On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 01:31, Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> I currently don't have the H4 hardware to run your firmware on. From
> your Help, it does not appear to have any sort of Point or Size command and
> I assume it can only be changed then though the GUI. Once the user sets
> the number of points, does this setting remain through a power cycle?
> Maybe stored with the other cal settings?
>
> I run the Nano headless and don't use the LCD, touchscreen or buttons.
> When I run a SOLT, the software stores all the settings with the
> coefficients. When I load the cal file, the software properly sets up the
> VNA. Having to manually change the number of points opens the door for the
> user to make a mistake.
>
> Its possible for me to reverse engineer the undocumented firmware but
> would require a fair amount of time, which is why I was looking for an
> interface spec.
>
>
>

As I mentioned, determining the number of points can be done with the existing commands.  Does the software you mention allow you to change it, or it just displays what it is set to?

I have not followed the hardware development but assume from your last comment that your suggesting the firmware we are discussing will run on the original hardware and bring it to 401 data points.  Seems unlikely but I have not spent any time looking into it.  Instead I was going to attempt to replicate this persons setup and ordered what I hope is the same hardware.

NanoVNA-Saver sets the points.
401 points is available (with Dislords firmware) on the H4.
Original H is limited to 201 (different microcontroller).
There are other hardware differences like microsd slot etc.

If you ordered an H4 in the last few weeks you should get
an updated version with new voltage regulators and new
better calibration standards (same ones supplied with LibreVNA).

On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 02:32, Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> As I mentioned, determining the number of points can be done with the
> existing commands. Does the software you mention allow you to change it,
> or it just displays what it is set to?
>
> I have not followed the hardware development but assume from your last
> comment that your suggesting the firmware we are discussing will run on the
> original hardware and bring it to 401 data points. Seems unlikely but I
> have not spent any time looking into it. Instead I was going to attempt to
> replicate this persons setup and ordered what I hope is the same hardware.
>
>
>

Are there any developers currently working on the advancement of the NanoVNA 2N version?

Thanks!

Hugo

________________________________

________________________________

>
> As I mentioned, determining the number of points can be done with the
> existing commands.  Does the software you mention allow you to change it,
> or it just displays what it is set to?

You an ask any points up to 401 for H4 (101 for H)
Example command 'swep':
>sweep 1000000 50000000 401 0b111
Return list of 401 points in text format:
frequency s11_re s11_im s21_re s21_im
.....

I recommend use fis exchange format (you can also use old protocol commands 'sweep', 'data' and 'frequencies' for set and get lists)
>sweep {start(Hz)} [stop(Hz)] [points]
>frequencies
>data

You can always install on NanoVNA my firmware (for H) and control it, after get H4 just change max points limit

>
> As I mentioned, determining the number of points can be done with the
> existing commands.  Does the software you mention allow you to change it,
> or it just displays what it is set to?

You an ask any points up to 401 for H4 (101 for H)
Example command 'swep':
>sweep 1000000 50000000 401 0b111
Return list of 401 points in text format:
frequency s11_re s11_im s21_re s21_im
.....
if need get uncalibrated data set flag (0b1000)
>sweep 1000000 50000000 401 0b *1* 111
In this case on result not apply internal calibration

I recommend use this exchange format (you can also use old protocol commands 'sweep', 'data' and 'frequencies' for set and get lists)
>sweep {start(Hz)} [stop(Hz)] [points]
>frequencies
>data

You can always install on NanoVNA my firmware (for H) and control it, after get H4 just change max points limit

Thank you both for the information.  This has been very helpful and should save me some time.

I ordered the H4 the last week of April.  I'm more interested in getting the exact same hardware as the person attempting to run my software rather than the latest.  One less variable to juggle.

Interesting comment about the cal standards.  The return loss for loads included with the V2Plus/4  were much better than what I had received with the original NanoVNA.  They are not as good as a couple of Mini-Circuits terminators I had sorted.  While my software supports the basic models,  I've never characterized the shorts or opens and just use the ideal model for these low cost VNAs.

AFAIR the changes to the hardware are only in the
voltage regulation area, in effort to lower the noise,
you can compare the schematics between the revisions.
New standards should be good up to 6GHz, Kurt Poulsen did
a report on them: https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/19372

I'm preparing a report on how the ideal vs characterized standards
influence the measurements but work, life ...

On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 18:01, Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Thank you both for the information. This has been very helpful and should
> save me some time.
>
> I ordered the H4 the last week of April. I'm more interested in getting
> the exact same hardware as the person attempting to run my software rather
> than the latest. One less variable to juggle.
>
> Interesting comment about the cal standards. The return loss for loads
> included with the V2Plus/4 were much better than what I had received with
> the original NanoVNA. They are not as good as a couple of Mini-Circuits
> terminators I had sorted. While my software supports the basic models,
> I've never characterized the shorts or opens and just use the ideal model
> for these low cost VNAs.
>
>
>

Once I have the hardware, I'll have a look.

To characterize a set of unknown standards, I would use a set of metrology grade standards and adapters.  It's certainly possible and how I derived the coefficients for some of my own standards.  From your post, it sounds like someone has done this with their specific H4 standards and obtained good results.  The plating on the standards supplied with my original Nano wore pretty fast.  I have not used the V2Plus enough to say if they are any better.   For the cost, I am not expecting much.  That said, I am pretty impressed with V2Plus4.  For the hobbyist wanting to work above 300MHz, its a nice setup.

That study you want to do seems like a lot of work.  It will be interesting to see how you decide to constrain the problem.   Let me know if you start a blog about it.  I would like to follow your progress.

> To characterize a set of unknown standards, I would use a set of metrology
> grade standards and adapters. It's certainly possible and how I derived
> the coefficients for some of my own standards. From your post, it sounds
> like someone has done this with their specific H4 standards and obtained
> good results.


That is exactly what Kurt did, he has quite a formidable lab and has been
doing this for quite some time.
I'm counting on using these as a poor man's transfer standard (betting on
consistent manufacturing capability of Hugen, a big if)


> The plating on the standards supplied with my original Nano wore pretty
> fast. I have not used the V2Plus enough to say if they are any better.
> For the cost, I am not expecting much. That said, I am pretty impressed
> with V2Plus4. For the hobbyist wanting to work above 300MHz, its a nice
> setup.
>
>
I believe that you got your first Nano from an unknown source (longtime
subscriber to your Youtube channel).
The ones supplied by Hugen held up ok, except for the FF adapter, tarnished
in a matter of days.


> That study you want to do seems like a lot of work. It will be
> interesting to see how you decide to constrain the problem. Let me know
> if you start a blog about it. I would like to follow your progress.


Study is an overstatement, no gear or knowledge to do it. Just a bunch of
measurements of a few common DUT, showing the difference in results
when using the ideal vs characterized standards.

A link to his characterization of them would have been of interest.   For my own, I borrowed two sets of standards.  I discovered Mario Hellmich's site where he had created a Matlab script.  I ended up working with him to sort it out.  I doubt you will find the same variance with these low cost standards as a set of metrology grade and would need to derive the coefficients for each set.   Then again, I doubt you will find many people willing to insert these low cost standards onto a metrology grade adapter.  I assume for your transfer standards, this is what you are planning on doing.

I bought seven of the Mini-Circuits terminators to characterize.  I suspect their quality is much higher than what was supplied with the low cost VNAs.   Of these, one had much lower return loss than the others.

My Nano was given to me by a friend in order to help them learn how to use it. Basically, that was the whole reason for that first video.  I really don't know where they bought it.  With that entire VNA kit costing less than one good connector, I am not expecting much from it.

I was thinking you would just prove the calibration errors on paper.  Running a single set of standards may not tell you much beyond how that one set of standards behaves on one VNA.   I made a review for the V2Plus4 measuring a few different circuits.  All of that was done with the ideal model.  Early on OWO had brought to my attention the need to include the leakage term which is why in that review you will see it in use above 3GHz.

H4 more good in < 100MHz measure.
Have less noise on phase measure, and faster (can measure up to 700 points/sec for < 100MHz range for 2 channels, and up to 1200 points/sec for one).
Also allow connect SD card for store s1p/s2p/screenshots.

V2 more good if need work on > 140MHz (for this best have V2Plus or V2Plus4, this devices show very good results up to 3GHz for V2Plus and 4.4GHz for V2Plus4).
V2Plus4 - can`t made crystal measure or work in CW mode
V2/V2Plus can.

I am not sure why this person purchased the H4. They are attempting to construct a 10MHz crystal filter using your firmware set to 401 data points to characterize them.  I had released the software for the original Nano to try and help them out as it has the ability to automate some of these measurements.  They did get something working but I am not sure what combination of  hardware/firmware they had to use.

Indeed, one of the first things I did after receiving the V2Plus/4 was run through a series of tests which included some narrow band components.  IMO, an oversight but the original Nano is an inexpensive fix.

A lot of FW, SW, GUI on this platform,

Here is some HW that is useful and sometimes essential, a way to easily switch s11 s21 to s12 s22.

60 € on eBay, works at 16VDC 70mA

Erich

> Am 2021/05/10 um 13:55 schrieb Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=yahoo.com@groups.io>:
>
> I am not sure why this person purchased the H4. They are attempting to construct a 10MHz crystal filter using your firmware set to 401 data points to characterize them. I had released the software for the original Nano to try and help them out as it has the ability to automate some of these measurements. They did get something working but I am not sure what combination of hardware/firmware they had to use.
>
> Indeed, one of the first things I did after receiving the V2Plus/4 was run through a series of tests which included some narrow band components. IMO, an oversight but the original Nano is an inexpensive fix.
>

After a several weeks, my order for the H4 was cancelled.  I tried to locate one that was in stock at Amazon's distribution but no luck. While it looks like I won't be doing anything with the H4, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to help me out.

Try here for a H4, says they have 5 left, and the one I got from them
was NOT a clone... amazon says the vendor is Nooelec:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FD35LRW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources

On 5/24/21 4:41 AM, Joe Smith via groups.io wrote:

> After a several weeks, my order for the H4 was cancelled.  I tried to
> locate one that was in stock at Amazon's distribution but no luck. While
> it looks like I won't be doing anything with the H4, I wanted to thank
> you for taking the time to help me out.
>

Looking at the pictures, it doesn't appear to be the same as what the person who was asking had bought.  The reason to buy one was to sort out some compatibility problems they were having when using some version of Dislord's firmware.  To track it down, I would want to make sure we had identical hardware and firmware.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001548276258.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.3cef4c4dXTxMXT

That is not Hugens store, probably a clone.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 00:48, Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Looking at the pictures, it doesn't appear to be the same as what the
> person who was asking had bought. The reason to buy one was to sort out
> some compatibility problems they were having when using some version of
> Dislord's firmware. To track it down, I would want to make sure we had
> identical hardware and firmware.
>
>
> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001548276258.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.3cef4c4dXTxMXT
>
>
>

If I were buying something for my own use, it wouldn't matter but its only use was to support that one person.  To avoid wasting time trying to track down possible differences  I would have wanted the same hardware.  I have no plans to pursue it further.

I'm hoping that in the future we will see the 6GHz closed or open sourced hardware OWO had mentioned.  Even if they came out with new version of the V2+ that was headless and supported narrow band measurements, I would pick one up.

It would be good if NanoRFE (OwO) came out with their design, if nothing
else
as a competition for LibreVNA.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 14:17, Joe Smith via groups.io <joeqsmith49=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> If I were buying something for my own use, it wouldn't matter but its only
> use was to support that one person. To avoid wasting time trying to track
> down possible differences I would have wanted the same hardware. I have
> no plans to pursue it further.
>
> I'm hoping that in the future we will see the 6GHz closed or open sourced
> hardware OWO had mentioned. Even if they came out with new version of the
> V2+ that was headless and supported narrow band measurements, I would pick
> one up.
>
>
>

https://vrtp.ru/index.php?showtopic=32627

I have been following Jankae's progress off and on and wouldn't be surprised to see a third generation hardware.  The cost is too much for the privilege of helping develop it but maybe in another year or so it will be worth having a look.

I do like the idea of them going headless.  Hopefully they and the unit OWO mentioned will leave all the calculations up to the PC.   I like the simple interface of the V2+4 and wouldn't mind them staying with that.

On 5/25/21 10:23 AM, Joe Smith via groups.io wrote:
> I have been following Jankae's progress off and on and wouldn't be
> surprised to see a third generation hardware.  The cost is too much
> for the privilege of helping develop it but maybe in another year or
> so it will be worth having a look.
>
> I do like the idea of them going headless.  Hopefully they and the
> unit OWO mentioned will leave all the calculations up to the PC. I
> like the simple interface of the V2+4 and wouldn't mind them staying
> with that.

The problem with being "PC dependent" is that it makes portable use
harder - And writing the software for a mobile device is significantly
more of a pain than for PCs.  The fact that are two entire ecosystems
(iOS and Android) just makes it worse.

NanoVNA-Saver, which is in Python, is fairly platform independent, and
works well.  So you could build (someone has done this) a RPi with a
screen that runs Python. I'm not sure I'd choose that approach - a
"windowing environment" (like qt5) that works great on a full size
screen with a keyboard (even an "on-screen keyboard) is different than a
small handheld, where the hierarchical touch menu approach works better.
I can't imagine being up on a tower or rooftop holding a 3" or 4" screen
and trying to do a traditional "menubar at the top" kind of interface.

That said, I do see a lot of practical applications for NanoVNA type
devices as a "USB peripheral" - where the fact that it has a screen is
sort of incidental.

That's why I'm happy with a basic set of functionality on the bare
device - as long as it has the ability to save and export .sNp files, I
can post process to my heart's content.  A "on device" capability to
segmented high resolution sweeps (like NanoVNA-Saver does) would be
handy but I recognize the limited horsepower of the chips being used. 
Spend the time on a bulletproof interface and good RF performance.

>

My NanoVNA-H/H4 firmware allow save s1p/s2p/screenshot on SD card (H4 have installed SD card slot onboard, H need install) after possible use this files on any external software.

Some old NanoVNA-H have not soldered slot (on new need install it example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173gnsfrCbQ )
last h4 have slot onboard (old H4 need solder it)

Hi, Joe,
How do You think, would it be posible to add support for Jan's LibreVNA hardware in Your LabVIEW program in the future?
The Jan's VNA sends raw unprocessed data to the PC, as its  described in the most resent User manual, and the USB communication protocol is open and could be published in the next version.

--
Alex

I have no interest in CB or amateur radio and would have no need to be climbing a tower with a VNA.  I've never had a need for a portable VNA.

Most of my equipment sits on a shelf and is never moved.   I like the small form factors for some of the newer equipment just for the fact it takes up less space and will normally create less heat and lower audio noise.  Most of the equipment I have is on the LAN and ran from a PC using LabVIEW. Having the ability to run the equipment together allows me to setup experiments fairly quickly.

There are a few cases where I use Touchstone.  Mainly SPICE and once in a while I have used them to compare data.  If there is something I need to calculate, I will normally just add it to the software.

A good example of using the software to run a linear stage to change the length of a section of airline for TDR experiments may be seen about an 1:12:00 into this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaYBpPCo1qk

The software is constantly changing as I run other experiments.  The same basic software runs on my old network analyzers as well.  This clip shows some of the more recent changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scZ3kZ4Q2sQ

More recently I have been playing around trying to see if we can use the low cost VNAs to look at the power rails of small electronics circuits.  If you want to follow along, I've been posting about it here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/impedance-measurement-with-vna-using-series-shuntseries-through-methods/

Alex, I would say maybe.  The problem I have ran into with the original NanoVNA is the firmware was never stable enough.   I currently use a version that one of the members on EEVBlog had modified about a year ago to correct some of the basic problems.  That's been by far the most stable.  I haven't looked at Jankae's documentation but assuming they have done a decent job it and both the hardware and firmware get to a point where they are stable, then I see no reason I couldn't support it.