On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:04 PM, <norbert.kohns@...> wrote:
Hi George,
that's a very good Idea! If I have some time tomorrow I will redo the test by
using the same setup on both analyzers. One thing that we have to consider,
the VNWA has much better calibration features than the Nanovna.
We shall see!
73, Norbert, DG1KPN
Hi Norbert,
That is a great idea. I'm looking forward to the results!
You probably are aware of this, but I can't help mentioning that the H-probe must be in exactly the same position for both tests. Its proximity to objects may influence the measurement. Also I underestimated the nanoVNA step size. For your study the range is 220 MHz which yields about 2.18 MHz per step. So, being off by one step can be significant when comparing two units.
Good luck with the test.
