开云体育

Where did you download the calibration procedure from? The downloaded manual I have reads like aChinese Fortune Cookie. It makes no sense and gives me a headache to try to figure it out.

The problem here is that we don't know parameters of cal-kit which is supplied with nanoVNA... So, just adding ability to setup cal-kit parameters won't help. Because we're needs to know what

you're needs to perform RESET before calibration. If you don't do that, you will get strange results.

if your antenna has VSWR other than 1:1 at resonant frequency, it means that you have poor impedance match with your antenna. Before measure Q factor, you're needs to improve impedance match between

Yes, but NanoVNA-saver doesn’t give one a *stand-alone, self contained unit* like an Agilent FieldFox. Personally I don’t want to have to use an external computer with the NanoVNA. I obtained a

In short, if you have VSWR not equal to 1.00 at resonant frequency, it means that you have poor impedance match between signal source and antenna.

minimum VSWR at antenna resonance is always 1:1. Because you should match your feeding line with antenna impedance at resonant frequency. If you write your antenna impedance as R+jX, and your feeding

Yes, makes sense. The condition for this Q equation is unique. Requires a perfectly matched antenna. This would be analogous to the case of an R-L-C network perfectly matched to its measurement

You can find it school book at physics section about LC circuit. That is basic thing in the radio: Q = Fc / BW If you use fractional bandwidth BWF ( fractional bandwidth = bandwidth / Fc ) it turns

Hi David I think you should read my response to this question. You negative conclusion is not valid. Pragmatic solution are still useable and in addition using the NanoVNA-saver you got it all to

Alan, thank you very much for mentioning the HP app note! I've taken a look at its figure 8-13 as well as another S11 plot of a resonant circuit, and I now believe that the earlier-mentioned SWR

wrote: Kurt is right. Moving the reference plane in software is going to be better than doing the trick I suggested. I don’t know why I didn’t think of this - I regularly use port extensions to

Yes, Kurt is right, you can compensate this in software by moving the reference plane. It is far from ideal - it would be better if the data on the calibration standards could be properly entered. --

Ken Boswoth reported error in calibrating on a cable with a male SMA on it. Here’s a way to improve on that, despite the fact that the firmware doesn’t allow one to do it properly. Here are few

Hi Ken Shure you can calibrate at the end of cable. You have noted when CH0 left open you see an open after a full calibration with Short nothing as open and laod. It has been compensated internally

[email protected]> wrote: But it is currently *totally impossible to get a valid calibration on a cable with a male SMA on the end. *The firmware doesn’t permit one to enter any characteristics

Ken, As delivered, the NanoVNA default calibration, Location 0, is apparently set up with the S11 reference plane at the on-board connector. You can run another calibration at the end of your cable

drkirkby@...> wrote: I should have been clearer here. There are two issues 1) The firmware prevents you getting a proper calibration at the reference plane. 2) Even if the firmware

You are doing nothing wrong - it is a limitation of the firmware in the NanoVNA. The calibration standards supplied are male. When you add a female-female thru on, you are adding a bit of transission

I reported a few days ago that I had measured the return loss of one of the female-female thrus supplied with my NanoVNAs when open at one end. Measurements were made with an HP 8720D VNA with an HP