Hi Mike.
I did extensive measurements on narrow as well wide band filters. Also a number of antenna out in the field. I have compared results with VNA big box, Vector Z Meters and the results at HF are essentially spot on. At the price and with 101 data points... This little box is a GREAT value. I bought 2 and I may buy a third just to mess with in the lab.
Alan Victor, Ph.D.
W4AMV
________________________________
From:
[email protected] <
[email protected]> on behalf of Mike Brown <mbmail@...>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 9:30 PM
To:
[email protected] <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] Semi-bad clone?
Hi Alan
Agreed that comparison with a big VNA would be v interesting. I'm not aware
that any of my friends have one of those though. Mind you at this price I
wouldn't expect too much. The frequency steps seem quite large to me, so
who knows what compromises have been made in calibration measurements?
I'm beginning to think we need a Wiki to pull all the information we're
gleaning about these VNAs into the same place.
73
Mike
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, 20:25 alan victor, <avictor73@...> wrote:
Hi John, Mike,
Several folks have done various measurements including myself.
Measurements and records between big box VNA and the nanoVNA would be of
interest. However, that said, my best guess is that the agreement below a
few hundred MHz will be excellent. For the most part that is what I have
found although I did not bother with making recordings of the sweeps
between instruments. I expect as you approach 900 MHz that the deviation
between measured on big box vna and the nanoVNA will be larger. The simple
fact is due to the accuracy and records stored for the calibration pieces.
The SMA short, open and 50 ohm load, I SUSPECT are treated as ideal
elements. They are certainly not ideal. I am in the process of finding out
from the developer how these calibration pieces are handled. Regards, Alan
