开云体育

Hello,

Thank you for your anwer

Ok, please find below the same test but done without any cables on port 1
and only a through cable to connect to port 1 and port 2. I have also used
400 points to get a clean accurate trace with as little noise as reasonably
possible.


=> At 1.5 Ghz; the return loss on port 2 is still significantly too low
(15.5 dB vs 20dB) expected, *so no changes*

=> At 3 Ghz, the return loss has improved significantly, *it is now 14.7 dB
which is a bit better than the 13dB specified officially.*

=> At 2.33 Ghz, the return loss is 11.7 dB is which is much too low, it
should be minimum 13dB according to the specifications


[image: image.png]


*Conclusion*: my measurements and yours simply confirm that the return loss
on port 2 of my nanovna 2 clone is unfortunately not as good as the one
of your genuine nanovna V2 model <> .
This is the confirmation that I wanted to have (thanks for your help). I am
not saying all the nanovana V2 clones systematically under perform on port
2 the return loss, but on the other hand, if I have the issue then other
clown owners may have it too (quite common sense really). It will not
prevent me from sleeping at night, but at least I know....

Kindly note that the quality of the calibration loads and of the SS405
cables that I used for this test are perfectly OK.

Thanks
Regards
Peter