开云体育

I found the progam DfuSe_Demo_V3.0.6_Setup.exe, but it's a demo. Are there any limitations? Is there a document that explains the update procedure for those who have never done this? Thanks

Hi all. I am new to this group. I recently bought a nanovna off Ebay. It's a black one, set up for 900MHz and 2 traces. It will not measure S21. All I get is noise at +/-10dB peak levels. S11 works

I agree, return loss should be a positive number, and I can remember endless debates in our engineering-team about it, but when you tune filters on a Network analyzer, it is nice to have the insertion

Hi, For filters the steepness of the skirts is important apart from the 3dB bandwidth. -6DB and -80 dB are a real measure for the skirts! However ,many filters ( or measuring conditions ) are not

The current firmware allows dumping the internal calibration table with the data command data [0-6] where 0: S11 1: S21 and 2 /* error term directivity */ 3 /* error term source match */ 4 /* error

a link about measuring filters http://na.support.keysight.com/vna/help/latest/Tutorials/Pass-Band_Measurements.htm

In my own experience coming from a R&D environment, we would specify filters with the -3dB and -60dB (theoretical) points, but for production and customer tests, AND specifications, we would only test

Hello Run, I like to use your program and I am very happy with it. You try to realize feasible expansion requests during the program development. And all for free and for the three main operating

[email protected]> wrote: Whilst agreeing on his return loss statement, the blog is written in a childish condescending way. If anyone wants to forward him the post I made about how the HP LCR meter

Rune, My school days are far behind me, but I recall that different filter designs fall off in certain dB/decades (i.e. 20 dB/decade) so if you were trying to extrapolate it would definitely help to

30 : our final report 1 29 : ann : our nanovna will be evaluated tonight : /g/nanovna-users/message/3867 hello all, this is our final report on the comparison of our [nanovna] and

Hi Herb, my code thus far does indeed try to extrapolate what the -60 dB point would be. Only I'm nowhere near good enough at making calculations like this, so I'm stumbling a little. I know what the

IMO, "return loss" is a poor term. > But one used very extensively. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Arguably, >>any<< return is loss, when sending power is the goal. In which Not always.

Hi Martin, thank you very much for your appreciation! :-) I don't know Owen, so I couldn't possibly comment on his experiences; nor will I speculate on where his heart is. I only know what impact

Mike, Google on filter bandwidth and the majority of the results will come up as the -3 dB point. Not saying the -6 dB and -60 db points are not useful info, just that the -3dB point is the common

Lower frequency limit: will be unchanged because the si5351 is still present and is switched in below 140MHz. Larger screen: we are going to use the plug-in style of ILI9341 display rather than the

Martin, You might also try using the console commands via a terminal to accomplish saving and loading configurations. If it can be done via a terminal, then you can provide that feedback to Rune and

IMO, "return loss" is a poor term. Arguably, >>any<< return is loss, when sending power is the goal. In which case, "return loss" might be power sent (since lost from return)..

I appreciate that some folks here seem interested in both. Many messages with potentially useful content already here lack context and often stray far from nominal topic, requiring "reverse

I read a recent post that said that, among hams, its become the consensus that return loss is a negative number. I respectfully disagree. Regarding return loss, I understand some think its a negative