开云体育

I calibrate for each frequency segment I am checking. I use mine mostly as an antenna analyzer. I calibrate at the beginning of each session to insure the best accuracy. Calibration is so quick and

I have the same issue. If you leave the nano set to 101 pts, and use Saver to increase the points to 401 or whatever, then it works fine. For some reason the code gets in a mode where it is not

Excellent use of the NANO's. I have gone to including one of the NANOVNA's in our standard (electronic) camping equipment. They are invaluable in any portable setup. Dave - W?LEV

Mike, Version 5 of NanoVNA Saver has a lot of code changes and is buggy. I suggest you try version 4. Also consider using NanoVNA app instead. Much better graphics scaling and sweep comparison

Just from a physics-based opinion, things that require calibration do tend to drift over time. Component aging, thermal/environmental cycling, physical impact (dropping on the ground), and overvoltage

Except to tell a stupidity, I prefer, to make the calibration on all the range of frequency which I will use, with many points (therefore many segments). Like: 20 segments for 1-30 MHz with smoothing

I've been using the same calibrations over the HF range for over a year, and when I check the SOLT loads, they're still on the money. I've done one 401 point calibration from 3.5 to 30 MHz and can use

New user here so apologies if this has been covered already but I couldn't see it. I have installed NanoVNA-Saver v0.5.3 on a Windows 10 laptop and I'm using it with a NanoVNA H4 with DisLord firmware

(Hi, I didn't see this covered in the wiki or other topics. Apologies if it has been) I'd like to save three calibrations (corresponding to 3 different frequency ranges) for repeated recall. How often

This is an enormously useful insight for my use case. With this information, along with some of the other tips here, I spent several hours this afternoon with my NanoVNA and my portable adjustable

my experience likewise. It sort of depends on what "ground" is and how close you are. NEC4 does much better with antennas that are close to or touch the soil. But NEC2 does pretty good, if you're

Back in 2011, I used something called FEKO Lite to model a PCB bowtie antenna with a tapered matching feedline that had to function both as an antenna and a rudder for an autonomous submarine.

OPENEMS.DE Open EMS is to HFSS as Linux? is to? Windows Produced by a community of EE and software geeks. Be sure to download the tutorials. Like HFSS, it has quite the vertical learning curve.?

Sonnet USA supplies a far-field radiation pattern program as an option on all versions except the free SonnetLite. It probably costs an arm and a leg to get it, though. I've been using SonnetLite for

Thank hou for correcting me. DaveD

Jim, I've not experienced that problem when the model is properly set up. I've designed and constructed many antennas from HF through L-band and the 1.42 GHz deep space neutral hydrogen emission using

NEC is not frequency limited - you can model wire antennas at 30 GHz if you like. The problem is that nobody builds wire antennas at 10 GHz - the losses get high. Then you're doing microstrip patches,

In general Method of Moments (MMANA, NEC and programs that use NEC) is not a great way to model surfaces like patches. If you're making simple patches, then the equations in textbooks like Pozar or

I believe that NEC derivative modeling software only goes into the 300 MHz range. The two higher-frequency software packages of which I am aware are CST Studio and Comsol Multiphysics. CST offers a

None! They do wire type antennas only.