¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

I started a separate topic on measuring the CH1 noise or leakage

There are many discussion on this forum around the "noise" on CH1 limiting the dynamic range and weather the noise is influenced by the termination of CH1 or by good or bad SA612 So I decided to

Goddammit... Have I waste $1 / 1€ / ?1 on these now ;-)

Rune where can I find the 1500 mhz code? Thx 73 Dana VE3DS =================================== Dana, it's not Rune's firmware, but see: /g/nanovna-users/message/2391 73, David GM8ARV

Hi qrp.ddc and Rune I think it is time to get this discussion straightened out.. Doing a simulation of an SMA female adaptor with e.g. the program FEMM and by basing the simulation on mechanical

Further thoughts. Best evidence presented so far shows two plots, one with a noise floor of abut -80db, the other with a load connected to Ch1 shows a -85db noise floor. But that noise floor wobbles

Glad to help Joe. I recognise your callsign from the QRSS Grabber that I have monitored in the past. I think it got zapped by a lightning strike ? 73 de Andy

Don't forget to upgrade NanoVNASaver - that phase error was fixed in 0.0.9, and 0.0.10 will be out "soon" :-) -- Rune / 5Q5R

Several days ago I reported stability issues with some usb commands ( /g/nanovna-users/message/2379 ) . This is a follow-up... First, to summarise the issue, a number of commands sent

forgot

Hi Andy, you make my day ;o) The error was before the "nano" :o)) I had probably callibrated correctly, but was of the opinion DONE = Done, saved. I wondered why the Save window would appear again and

Did you look at the phase of CH1? If its coherent (not all over the place but a more or less straight line with frequency) then its not noise that is limiting the CH1 measurement but leakage from the

Well folks, I just found a second load to put on Ch1 for a test. Using my calibration method, with nothing on Ch1 at all, just open with a 50R load on Ch0 gives me about -80db noise floor at 250Mhz.

That leads to the question on how to calibrate for best filter rejection measurements as many filters have impedance far from 50ohm outside passband. Should you compare with isolation measured with

Andy G0FTD>> Why not do a port isolation calibration using the 50R load supplied on Ch0, and the supplied SHORT on the input of Ch1 ? Both ways - to use short or open on CH1 for isolation calibrate

Thanks. I'd say that there's no discernible difference for S11 measurements (expected) but the lower limit of noise floor has been extended by about 5db. Not got my reading glasses on for my laptop

erik@, the black cable supplied with NanoVNA is a crap :) I don't recommend to use it for calibration or precise measurement. It's better to buy 10-15 cm RG405 with soldered SMA connectors:

Andy G0FTD>> Does anyone have data on measurements taken with or without ? yes, here is measurement. First one is without load on CH1. And the second one with load on CH1. As you can see, with load on

Using a calibrated nanoVNA (0.5-900MHz) using the supplied black cables and a female-female barrel for connecting the calibration OPEN/SHORT/LOAD to the black cable connected to CH0 I tested if I

Andy G0FTD, for proper calibration, you're needs to use all terminators (open, short and load) with the same geometry and length.If you will try to use different geometry/length load it leads to