开云体育

22 : AnyVNA From The Common User's Point Of View :

A Practical Application of the Core Uncertainty Strips

Hello,

Allow us, please, to point out that, first of all, the Practical
Uses of the Core Uncertainty Strip(s) CUS(s) resulting from
AnyVNA system are limited only by the imagination of it's
Common User in Design, Prediction, Explanation,
Justification, Evaluation, or whatever else are his needs...

Anyway, since our Sole Objective here is the Evaluation
of NanoVNA, we begun yesterday our final trials
by using that one-port 50-OHM DC ref2007box,
for which we got its Core Uncertainty Strip(s) CUS(s)
using our VNA system:

[20] : Measurements with Core Uncertainty:
/g/nanovna-users/message/3273

So, our aim was to put the Initial (R,X) calibrated
results of NanoVNA onto (R,X) CUS diagrams.
For that purpose, we built [ods] files by using the
Calc application of foss LibreOffice 4.1.0.4 and
we extracted the following resulting images:

A : Initial NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CUSs :

1 : R ~ f :
2 : X ~ f :

From these figures we concluded at once that
since the most of NanoVNA results were definitely
lie outside the CASs, this is due - perhaps -
to the unavoidably inserted N-to-SMA converter.

After that, and in order to somehow substantially support
this - guessed - conclusion, we "manipulated" the
NanoVNA results by mathematically transforming them
in such a way to put them inside the CUSs, as follows:

B : Initial (pink) and Transformed (red) NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CUSs :

3 : R ~ f :
4 : X ~ f :

Finally, in order to complete the "dirty manipulation of
data" we just "eliminated" the initial NanoVNA results
from the diagrams:

C : (red) (Transformed) NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CASs:

5: R ~ f :
6: X ~ f :

In this way, we could - prematurely - concluded that the
NanoVNA is as much reliable as our VNA.

But, obviously, more work has to be done in the direction of
finding at last the NanoVNA CUSs.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

22