The NanoVNA is a new low cost community developed VNA with assembled units coming out of China for <$50.
I have long held the view that these things are most useful when accompanied by a capable PC client that performs flexible text book presentations of data.
Considering buying one, my first step was to perform a desk evaluation of a popular PC client, which seems to be nanovna-saver.
Before downloading it, I examined the first screenshot on the github page.
It gives evidence that the author does not follow industry standard convention for transmission line terms and theory.
In the results shown above (s11) impedance is 39.105+j39.292Ω and some transformations of that value. Continue reading nanovna-saver – a first look
Recently I have had difficult reaching the local DMR repeater on 70cm, and needed to check that the antenna system had not deteriorated.
I took a baseline measurement with an AA-600 after some refurbishment work in Jan 2018, and was able to compare a current sweep to that baseline.
Above, a wide Return Loss sweep of the Diamond X-50N with feed line compared to the baseline (the thin blue line). Continue reading Diagnosing a possible antenna problem by comparison with a baseline
A chap seeking details for a matching inductor for his 5/8λ vertical on 20m reported “my AA54 RigExpert analyser gives the following reading (SWR 8,2). (R 81,5). (X -158) ” measured looking into a “length of rg58 about 15-20 cm” and asked “is the inductor coil going to be enough or will I need an L match to bring the real resistance to 50 ohms”. Continue reading Matching a 5/8λ ground plane – a single stub tuner example
I am asked about my use of the term
Distortionless Lines from time to time, often in the vein of
they don’t exist, so why discuss them?
The concept derives from the work of Heaviside and others in seeking a solution to distortion in long telegraph lines.
The problem was that digital telegraph pulses were distorted due to different attenuation and propagation time for different components of the square waves.
Heaviside proposed that transmission lines could be modelled as distributed resistance (R), inductance (L), conductance (G) and capacitance (C) elements.
In each incremental length Δx, there is incremental R, L, G and C. Continue reading Do Distortionless Lines exist?
The article On the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev discussed the question of the validity of the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev, exploring an example of a common nominally 50Ω coaxial cable at 100kHz. The relatively low frequency was used to accentuate the departure from ideal.
This article digs a little further with analyses at both 100kHz and 10MHz.
A plot was given of the components and sum of terms of the expression for power at a point along the line.
Lets look at the power calculated from voltages and currents for the example at 100kHz where Zo=50.71-j8.35Ω and Zload=5+j50Ω.
Above, the four component terms are plotted along with the sum of the terms. Continue reading Transmission lines: departure from ideal Zo
On the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev discussed the expression for power at a point on a line in terms of the travelling wave voltage and current components.
The expansion of P=real((Vf+Vr)*conjugate(If+Ir)) gives rise to four terms.
This article looks at the components of that expansion for a mismatched line for a range of scenarios.
- Lossless Line;
- Distortionless Line; and
- practical line.
We will override the imaginary part of Zo and the real part of γ (the complex propagation coefficient) to create those scenarios. The practical line is nominally 50Ω and has a load of 10+j0Ω, and models are at 100kHz.
A Lossless Line is a special case of a Distortionless Line, we will deal with it first.
A Lossless Line has imaginary part of Zo equal to zero and the real part of γ equal to zero.
Above is a plot of the four components of power and their sum at distances along the line (+ve towards the load). Continue reading From lossless transmission line to practical – Zo and γ
A reader of On the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev asked if / how the scenario discussed could be modelled in SimSmith.
SimSmith uses different transmission line modelling to what was used in that article, but a SimSmith model of RG58A/U allows illustration of the principles and it will deliver similar results.
Let’s explore the voltage maximum and minimum nearest the load to show that VSWR calculated from the magnitude of reflection coefficient is pretty meaningless in this scenario.
Above is the basic model. I have created two line sections, one from the load to the first voltage maximum, and another to the first voltage minimum where I have placed the source. I have set Zo to the actual Zo of the line as calculated by SimSmith (56.952373-j8.8572664Ω), effZ as SimSmith calls it, so the Smith chart relates to the real transmission line. Continue reading SimSmith example of VSWR assessment
Some recent articles discussed some effects that in part are a result of Zo having a complex value (ie a non-zero imaginary part). Continue reading On working with complex Zo
The article On negative VSWR – Return Loss implications raised the question of the validity of the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev.
The Superposition Theorem is an important tool in linear circuit analysis, and is used to find the combined response of independent sources. Superposition applies to voltages and currents, but not power. Continue reading On the concept of that P=Pfwd-Prev
On negative VSWR (read it first) discussed the case of negative VSWR results from some calculating tools and formulas, and more generally that simple formulas that depend on lossless line assumptions produce errors on practical lossy line scenarios.
Return Loss is defined as the ratio Pfwd/Prev, often given in dB.
Return Loss is usually calculated as 20*log(1/ρ), it yields negative calculated Return Loss for ρ>1. It would be a mistake to doctor the result to hide the negative return loss as it is a strong hint that the results may be invalid.
An important consideration here is the validity of the concept of Pfwd and Prev. Continue reading On negative VSWR – Return Loss implications