Could someone be so kind as to reproduce this measurement at his computer, on his copy of the NanoVNA-App, with his NanoVNA and his cable of several meters?
If the result is good, it means that I am doing something wrong, and if it comes out wrong, it means that there is a bug in the app.
@John - You have an interesting idea, but in NanoVNA-App there is no possibility to set parameters for calibration standards. (Or I don't know where to set it). This is the default configuration of this program. I installed this program from scratch on another computer to check this and the error was the same. Perhaps the wrong calibration set parameters are set in the program inside somewhere, but they are not accessible from the GUI, or I can't find it. In Saver, these parameters are on top of the calibration screen. I did the test in Saver by setting them as ideal.
In NanoVNA-App Edelay=0 value, but you are right, if I set Edelay=-135ps then the graph is close to the dot in the right place. I think that guessing edelay is not the right way to go, especially since if I change the "number of points" then edelay comes out different. However, this dot is still large, and the problem of the last point at 900MHz is the same as before changing Edelay.
@Richard - I don't think it's the cable's fault. It is a normal SMA cable without any adapters. Not SMA-RP. But I will check it to be sure.
@Bob - I checked the other day what frequency my SI5351 works up to, and it working out to over 322MHz, so the treshold at 300MHz seems to have quite a margin.
Besides, this would not explain the fact that in the NanoVNA-Saver and directly on the device the results are correct. I only get errors in the NanoVNA-App.
