开云体育

Larry, This is a good test site. It’s known that some specific AV programs have false positives for miscellaneous programs that other AV test approaches do not. It’s why, for instance, Wes Hayward

I don't know what you're using for AV but virustotal gets 0 hits: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4ff059fe0e543309bad2bb9c9447e4166a60264b794ad695397555a4b61f2a05/detection The nanoVNA Wiki has

I wanted to download the PC software, nanovnasharp from Hugen's Google drive. Tried it on 2 pcs, and both using different security programs flagged it as a potential ransomware program. Can anyone

Roger, I had a thought... I think I might try your same technique of external calibration for my original test (per the first post in this message thread). In other words, using both the NanoVNA and

I am on holiday so did follow the various threads recently.?A bridge or Directional coupler is the heart of any VNA. Strictly speaking if you are serious, the bridge or coupler ought to be

I have a nanovna (black) and am tickled with the way it works. I’ve been able to re tune a nice 4 Mhz wide filter for 144 Mhz that had been damaged. I have the software running under windows10 but I

Many thanks!

Great stuff, that matches up very nicely :) Roger

Roger, I think everything is fine. Using a cursor placed on my plots, I can step through the Return Loss for each point. Here's what I see for the last 10 points for each capture: Nano 8753

Hi Ron, Be careful here about mixing power definition into return loss calculations. Strictly speaking the Gamma value or reflection coefficient is defined as a ratio of (V_reflected/V_incident).

Nice work. And yes there is no problem with a healthy dose of sceptisicm. Particularly when results look too good to be true :) I will double check tonight, to make sure I haven't done something

Yes, Jeff. My typo error. Should be GAMMA not RHO!

When using a spectrum analyzer/tracking generator/RF bridge to make S11 measurements, part of the setup is to normalize the results to zero with an open at the DUT port. This the the analog of the

Thanks, Roger. Apologies for the extra work. Smith chart plots are attached. One is "full-view", the other is zoomed-in. Even zoomed-in, I cannot tell any difference between the two. In fact, they are

I've added the output files, thanks to scikit-rf. Hopefully the The 8753 error corrected output 8753_attenuator_output.s1p

Ah thanks. Yes I do have a double up there. Both of those you mentioned are NanoVNA measurements, but done at different times. The 8753 measured attenuator is: 8753 attenuator.S1P

Here is an example of how confusion is created. And how this confusion causes errors. From a web search: For a given RF transformer, the Insertion Loss @ 10 MHz is 0.5 dB, and the Return Loss @ 10 MHz

Roger, excellent! Of the s1p files on your github site, which two files are the corrected attenuator files for the 8753 and for the NanoVNA measurements? I thought I would plot them out on a Smith

That is amazing correlation for the devices. Stuart K6YAZ

Judging from that web search, "return loss" is very gray. If you're talking "s11", that's black and white, as we have now moved from casual speech to the world of mathematics. Jerry