1. PHSNA@groups.io
  2. Messages
   Date   
Re: Testing the Measurement Rcvr

Nigel Maund
 

Tony,
Can you send me an email, off this list

maund.n@...

I'd like to exchange ideas, on the Ashar Farhan specan. I am about 30% progressed.

Rgds,
Nigel
Va2nm
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

EB4APL
 

Another good option for a Poor Ham Spectrum Analyzer is using a SDR receiver. You have many choices, for example if you want V-UHF, there is the RTL Digital TV dongle that is being sold for $10 and it is supported by the most popular free software. The spectrum display con resolve 1 Hz so you can see the modulation sidebands fairly well; the amplitude absolute calibration is not easy to do, but the relative is good so you can measure sideband to carrier ratios, sideband asymmetry and suppression and splatter. Using the waterfall display you see off the air how bad some "linear amplifiers" are. Even I have seen a professional CW station whose key clicks invaded an aeronautical station.

If you want HF coverage the hardware is more expensive, but not too much. I successfully installed one of these TV dongles as a panadapter in a HF transceiver. This doubles as an HF spectrum analyzer with its limitations, but is adequate to check modulations, carrier hum and so.

I even sent several receiving reports to a big HF station, informing them of power supply hum without obtaining an acknowledge. Later I realized that it was not just hum, they were sending 100 Hz encrypted data on their carrier.

73 de Ignacio EB4APL

El 27/05/2020 a las 4:20, wb6ogd escribió:
Hi Nick,
They might be the ones working on the tinySA, they have a prototype tinySA that looks
just like a nanoVNA, screen included.  I stopped working on my PCB version since I can wait
to just buy theirs  ;-)
I don't think the tinySA has enough RBW to look at the sidebands but don't know for sure.
I have used it to look at harmonics and search for spurs.  It displays in real time on the PC
screen or you can add a small display.
73,
Gary
WB6GOD


On 5/26/2020 6:12 PM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
That’s very interesting, Gary.  I’ll check it out.

Some of the brains behind nanoVNA are supposed to be working on an
inexpensive SA. That sounds interesting. And then there are people using
those DSP wideband dongles to do SA as well. I just wonder how well they
work and if their resolution allows you do look at different side bands and
so on.

Yes, the Measurement Receiver does function as a kind of simple SA. I’d
used it before to look at harmonics coming out of some of my boat anchors
and homebrew QRP transmitters. It did well for that. This application of
comparing the amplitudes of sideband and carrier is nice to have, but
there’s no fast sweep type functionality.

73-

Nick, WA5BDU


On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:27 PM wb6ogd <garywinblad@...> wrote:

If you guys haven't built your receiver yet...
The main purpose of the receiver is just to be a simple spectrum
analyzer, if I am not mistaken.
You may want to join the HBTE HomeBrewTestEquipment group.
Subscribe: HBTE+subscribe@groups.io <mailto:HBTE+subscribe@groups.io>

Erik, PD0EK, has a great simple design for a 0-200MHz spectrum analyzer,
built with ebay modules
for about $35.  Mine is still in the proto stage but works amazingly
well.  Goes right there along
with my PHSNA as most used test equipment.
His project is called tinySA.  It uses an Arduino(or similar) to control
two Si4432 modules.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD

On 5/26/2020 3:10 PM, William R Maxwell wrote:
I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still
awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement
receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it,
I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an
SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for
analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency
down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal
filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for
something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like
you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts
to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM





--
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

wb6ogd
 

Hi Nick,
They might be the ones working on the tinySA, they have a prototype tinySA that looks
just like a nanoVNA, screen included.  I stopped working on my PCB version since I can wait
to just buy theirs  ;-)
I don't think the tinySA has enough RBW to look at the sidebands but don't know for sure.
I have used it to look at harmonics and search for spurs.  It displays in real time on the PC
screen or you can add a small display.
73,
Gary
WB6GOD

On 5/26/2020 6:12 PM, Nick Kennedy wrote:
That’s very interesting, Gary. I’ll check it out.

Some of the brains behind nanoVNA are supposed to be working on an
inexpensive SA. That sounds interesting. And then there are people using
those DSP wideband dongles to do SA as well. I just wonder how well they
work and if their resolution allows you do look at different side bands and
so on.

Yes, the Measurement Receiver does function as a kind of simple SA. I’d
used it before to look at harmonics coming out of some of my boat anchors
and homebrew QRP transmitters. It did well for that. This application of
comparing the amplitudes of sideband and carrier is nice to have, but
there’s no fast sweep type functionality.

73-

Nick, WA5BDU


On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:27 PM wb6ogd <garywinblad@...> wrote:

If you guys haven't built your receiver yet...
The main purpose of the receiver is just to be a simple spectrum
analyzer, if I am not mistaken.
You may want to join the HBTE HomeBrewTestEquipment group.
Subscribe: HBTE+subscribe@groups.io <mailto:HBTE+subscribe@groups.io>

Erik, PD0EK, has a great simple design for a 0-200MHz spectrum analyzer,
built with ebay modules
for about $35. Mine is still in the proto stage but works amazingly
well. Goes right there along
with my PHSNA as most used test equipment.
His project is called tinySA. It uses an Arduino(or similar) to control
two Si4432 modules.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD

On 5/26/2020 3:10 PM, William R Maxwell wrote:
I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still
awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement
receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it,
I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an
SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for
analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency
down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal
filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for
something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like
you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts
to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

Nick Kennedy
 

That’s very interesting, Gary. I’ll check it out.

Some of the brains behind nanoVNA are supposed to be working on an
inexpensive SA. That sounds interesting. And then there are people using
those DSP wideband dongles to do SA as well. I just wonder how well they
work and if their resolution allows you do look at different side bands and
so on.

Yes, the Measurement Receiver does function as a kind of simple SA. I’d
used it before to look at harmonics coming out of some of my boat anchors
and homebrew QRP transmitters. It did well for that. This application of
comparing the amplitudes of sideband and carrier is nice to have, but
there’s no fast sweep type functionality.

73-

Nick, WA5BDU

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:27 PM wb6ogd <garywinblad@...> wrote:

If you guys haven't built your receiver yet...
The main purpose of the receiver is just to be a simple spectrum
analyzer, if I am not mistaken.
You may want to join the HBTE HomeBrewTestEquipment group.
Subscribe: HBTE+subscribe@groups.io <mailto:HBTE+subscribe@groups.io>

Erik, PD0EK, has a great simple design for a 0-200MHz spectrum analyzer,
built with ebay modules
for about $35. Mine is still in the proto stage but works amazingly
well. Goes right there along
with my PHSNA as most used test equipment.
His project is called tinySA. It uses an Arduino(or similar) to control
two Si4432 modules.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD

On 5/26/2020 3:10 PM, William R Maxwell wrote:
I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still
awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement
receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it,
I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an
SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for
analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency
down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal
filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for
something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like
you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts
to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

William R Maxwell
 

Thanks for that suggestion, Gary. I actually joined that group at the weekend but as yet, haven't had the time to read into the tinySA project.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 9:27 am, wb6ogd wrote:
If you guys haven't built your receiver yet...
The main purpose of the receiver is just to be a simple spectrum analyzer, if I am not mistaken.
You may want to join the HBTE HomeBrewTestEquipment group.
Subscribe: HBTE+subscribe@groups.io <mailto:HBTE+subscribe@groups.io>

Erik, PD0EK, has a great simple design for a 0-200MHz spectrum analyzer, built with ebay modules
for about $35.  Mine is still in the proto stage but works amazingly well.  Goes right there along
with my PHSNA as most used test equipment.
His project is called tinySA.  It uses an Arduino(or similar) to control two Si4432 modules.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD

On 5/26/2020 3:10 PM, William R Maxwell wrote:
I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it, I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

wb6ogd
 

If you guys haven't built your receiver yet...
The main purpose of the receiver is just to be a simple spectrum analyzer, if I am not mistaken.
You may want to join the HBTE HomeBrewTestEquipment group.
Subscribe: HBTE+subscribe@groups.io <mailto:HBTE+subscribe@groups.io>

Erik, PD0EK, has a great simple design for a 0-200MHz spectrum analyzer, built with ebay modules
for about $35.  Mine is still in the proto stage but works amazingly well.  Goes right there along
with my PHSNA as most used test equipment.
His project is called tinySA.  It uses an Arduino(or similar) to control two Si4432 modules.
73,
Gary
WB6OGD

On 5/26/2020 3:10 PM, William R Maxwell wrote:
I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it, I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

William R Maxwell
 

I agree with ted, please keep working on this. My receiver is still awaiting assembly but it is on the task list.

Bill, VK7MX

On 27/5/20 6:56 am, Ted KX4OM wrote:
Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it, I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
Re: PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

Ted KX4OM
 

Nick,

Keep it up! I think those of us who have built the measurement receiver are starved for working ideas to play with. When I built it, I assumed the initial use would to inject an LO to a mixer such as an SBL-1 to move an RF signal down to the measurement receiver for analysis. Sort of like the idea from old QSTs to mix an RF frequency down to a limited bandwidth scope. I would think that the IF crystal filtering in the measurement receiver would do a pretty good job for something like that, and we would be able to see the frequencies like you have done with your experiment. I need a bit more of the concepts to work with, but I am interested in what you are doing.

Ted, KX4OM
PHSNA & Measurement Receiver

Nick Kennedy
 

I've been working on an SSB exciter using my Si5351a programmed as an I/Q VFO and some circuits from EMRFD. I finally got my two boards all wired up. Hooked up an audio generator and my Si5351a I/Q VFO and took a listen on the K3. It sounded awful and I couldn't make heads or tails of the mass of carriers and/or spurs I was hearing. But that often happens when trying to use your receiver to evaluate something on the bench.

I remembered I had this Measurement Receiver thing - inspired by Hayward, I think and designed by W5JH and N5IB and I wrote the code for PHSNA to take and show the data. It can be kind of a poor man's spectrum analyzer and it seems to have enough resolution to separate carrier and sidebands when the modulation signal is 1000 Hz.

When I looked at the data in Excel it still seemed like a mess, but when I looked at the relative amplitudes maybe it's not all that bad. The harmonics of 1000 Hz may come from my audio generator or might come from my circuit but they're not too bad except I don't know why the 3000 Hz one on the USB side is so large.

I haven't tried adjusting my sideband balance control yet, because I'm not sure how to assess the effect in real time.

That Measurement Receiver function in PHSNA hasn't gotten a lot of work due to the small number of users. (Am I the only one?) It doesn't do real time plotting, so I had to take the CSV and plot it in Excel. Not difficult though.

An image of the plot is attached.

73-

Nick, WA5BDU
Re: Rev 1.40 vs 1.42 results

Ted KX4OM
 

Hi Ignacio,

I had forgotten Nick's warning in the 1.40 version manual to sweep the shorted fixture before measuring crystals. I had -12.3 in the parameters.txt file from a couple of years ago. I measured -9.6 dBm compensated today, and I put that in the 1.40 parameters.txt file. I ran the same 5 crystals I had measured a couple of days ago through 1.40 and 1.42 back to back, a few minutes apart. The results came out very close. In fact, the 1.42 measurements came out much higher that what I had measured for my previous post. I can't explain that, but I had too many changes going on with the different versions and the parameters.txt files. I really appreciate you help with this. It looks like I won't have to sweep about 100 crystals after all :)

Ted, KX4OM
Re: Rev 1.40 vs 1.42 results

EB4APL
 

Hi Ted,

The crystal measurement coefficients were added in version 1.42 (or maybe in 1.41, I can not check it now) after realizing that the "normal" set of calibration coefficients accounted for the frequency response of the Generator - Detector combination used for sweeping filters and so, but when measuring crystals there is another thing in the play that have its own frequency response: the Crystal Measurement Fixture. This new set of parameters account for the frequency response of the Generator - Detector - Fixture combination and it is used only when measuring crystals. Before this, the attenuation of the set, that had its own value stored in the configuration file, was valid for a small frequency range, requiring to be recalibrated each time the fixture was used for a new frequency, so there was a box in the program for entering the shorted fixture dBm.

Probably the differences that you see between the measurements done with version 1.40 and 1.42 are due to the fixture attenuation was not measured at the frequency of the crystal and this affects to the calculated series resistance and Q.

73 de Ignacio EB4APL

El 19/05/2020 a las 18:21, Ted KX4OM escribió:
There is an error in that table. I copied the data from a test file and accidentally posted without checking it. The peak frequency of the 1.40 results is 8386.364. I also meant to add that the frequency-related data, peak frequency and bandwidth were almost identical between the 2 data sets, while the RS, Lm and Q are significantly different. Is that indicative of more loss being accounted for? Also, as to the crystal measurement coefficients, are both the sets of coefficients in parameters.txt factored into the calculations in the crystal measurement mode?

I've been going back through the messages since the release of 1.41 to try to understand what is involved with the measurements.

Ted, KX4OM

--
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: Rev 1.40 vs 1.42 results

Ted KX4OM
 

There is an error in that table. I copied the data from a test file and accidentally posted without checking it. The peak frequency of the 1.40 results is 8386.364. I also meant to add that the frequency-related data, peak frequency and bandwidth were almost identical between the 2 data sets, while the RS, Lm and Q are significantly different. Is that indicative of more loss being accounted for? Also, as to the crystal measurement coefficients, are both the sets of coefficients in parameters.txt factored into the calculations in the crystal measurement mode?

I've been going back through the messages since the release of 1.41 to try to understand what is involved with the measurements.

Ted, KX4OM
Rev 1.40 vs 1.42 results

Ted KX4OM
 

I think I've fixed the issue with Rev 1.42 not producing results in crystal measurement mode. I produced a new set of coefficients for the crystal measurement sweep. I believe the addition of the coefficients for xtal measurments is intended to make the sweeps more accurate over a shorter range.

I swept 5 crystals on 05/17/2020 using Rev 1.42 from the same batch I previously had swept on 05/11/2020. I created a table of average values for both sets.

Rev1.40 vs 1.42

Five crystals from same batch

1.40 tested 05/11/2020; 1.42 tested 05/17/2020

Peak frequency 8.386.xxx; Xtal Meas sweep 8,385.900 to 8,388.100 MHz

Average results:

1.40
Peak f BW RS Lm Q
8384.364 127.6 13.08 47.22 195,524

1.42
8386.369 123.9 16.8 53.73 168,696
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Glenn
 

Thanks Steve
I rarely make my own pcb's these days and have bought literally dozens of my designs out of China. Going back to 2007 actually.

glenn vk3pe

Hi Glenn;
I stopped making most of my boards in favor of a commercial made board. You should look at this web site for price comparisons - https://pcbshopper.com/ The cost of 3, 5, or 10 boards was way cheaper than I thought it would be. I only make a board now for a quick and dirty 1 off project. They will also quote shipping and lead times. I have not checked it lately though...

73 Steve, KM5HT

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:22 AM, Steve Arntz wrote:


Hi Glenn;
I stopped making most of my boards in favor of a commercial made board. You
should look at this web site for price comparisons - https://pcbshopper.com/
The cost of 3, 5, or 10 boards was way cheaper than I thought it would be. I
only make a board now for a quick and dirty 1 off project. They will also
quote shipping and lead times. I have not checked it lately though...

73 Steve, KM5HT
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Terry VK5TM
 

My experience with the pcbshopper site is that it is not 100% accurate.

Always double check with the actual manufacturer re pricing and don't forget to factor the shipping cost into the calculation.

As an example, JLCpcb shows up as being cheaper than PCBway, but JLCpcb's shipping cost's can be up to double the cost of PCBway's.

--
Terry VK5TM
https://www.vk5tm.com
Re: Where software is found

Alan Jamieson
 

Thanks for clarifying that NIck. Maybe the files could be renamed to something like Software - terminal version and Software - Windows version.? Also I may have overlooked seeing PHSNA board gerber files but posting them would assist future constructors, assuming that no more will be made available.
Cheers
Alan

At 00:29 17/05/2020, you wrote:

We received this message under the "New Members" topic:

"
The various versions of the software and hardware files are not always clearly identified. It would be helpful if someone who knows the project well could sort the most up to date material into a folder.
Cheers
Alan
VK5ZFj

"

First I'll talk about the software. I've had to do some reviews since it's been a while since I've done much with PHSNA.

There are two software versions. The first was the Terminal Version. This version communicated with the user via a serial terminal. Therefore it was independent of your operating system. The Windows version added a few features but if you don't use Windows, this would be the one for you.

The Arduino source code for the Terminal Version is in the folder called Current Software. This folder contains a zip file containing the Arduino source files. I'm not sure why I have Morse.ino separately, but I think it is needed so download it plus the zip file and put the contents of all into your Arduino folder.

Next comes the Windows version which is the version most used. The files are in the folder called "Windows PHSNA".

There is a Windows executable file which doesn't require installation - just copy it to your PC and run it. The folder has an archival revision or two. The latest is Windows.exe, revision 1.42.

The Windows version of PHSNA interacts with the Arduino using a much simpler Arduino program. There are two source files for the Arduino and note that we are still in the "Windows PHSNA" folder. The files are PHSNA_VB.ino and Morse.ino.

Again, there's an archival version in the folder. The one you want is PHSNA_VB.ino revision 1.7. This file is marked as being "for version 1.41" of the Windows file. But it did not change when the Windows program incremented from 1.41 to 1.42, so it's still the latest file.

There's more info in this folder, including instructions on compiling the Arduino source code, plus a User's Guide for rev. 1.42 which I recommend as containing a lot of useful info.

*******

Now, for the hardware - I won't try to provide details yet although I think there's a file done by Jim N5IB I can point to when I get it located. Things are a bit different with hardware because with software, there's just one latest version (one for terminal, one for Windows), but with the hardware there are a lot of ways of doing it. Jim designed a number of variations on the board(s), one for each of two types of DDS boards being sold on eBay at the time, and one for the Midnight Science/NJQRP DDS-60, and also different Arduino boards were accommodated. So a lot depends on which board set you got from Jim, or if you are just rolling your own.

But I do hope to come up with some pointers to summarize that info.

73-

Nick, WA5BDU
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Steve Arntz
 

Hi Glenn;
I stopped making most of my boards in favor of a commercial made board. You should look at this web site for price comparisons - https://pcbshopper.com/ The cost of 3, 5, or 10 boards was way cheaper than I thought it would be. I only make a board now for a quick and dirty 1 off project. They will also quote shipping and lead times. I have not checked it lately though...

73 Steve, KM5HT
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Terry VK5TM
 

CO6BG DDS pcb CAD file and gerbers uploaded to the file section.

Look for VK5TM folder in the files list.

WARNING - will need some changes before being sent off to be made in a pcb production house as some of the silkscreen text is outside the board outline and may need other things sorted.
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Terry VK5TM
 

I've got the CAD file for that one, it is in Sprint layout 6 format.

I can upload that to the files section and/or generate the gerbers for it if anyone is interested.
Re: AD9850 module pc board

Glenn
 

Thats pretty nice but for homebrew, has some problems. Not insurmountable, but testing patience

Very thin ground heat relief tracks. Could easily be etched away.
Tiny through hole pads, more suited to pro production than home brew. Would test alignment top/bottom to the limit. (small holes can be difficult to home drill also)
Through holes under the chip. OK for pro production but tricky for home brew
Since most home brewers can't do through hole plating, thin wires would have to be fitted in many vias and the connectors.

glenn
vk3pe
21 - 40 of 3088