Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
See
73
Arie PA3A
Op 24-12-2019 om 14:23 schreef Piotr Wozniak:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: New extended Tutorial Version 1.5. for the NanoVNA-H
Hi Gunthard,
In your file you refer to "Calibration data for the NanoVNA with the supplied SOLT - Calibration set". I spent hours trying to find this file, without success.
Could you (or someone else) give me a link?
I saw this file somewhere in the past, but unfortunately didn't save it.
|
Re: errors of "error" models
Thank you Erik!
73
Arie PA3A
Op 24-12-2019 om 09:20 schreef erik@...:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
To help understanding the impact of the various terms of the complete G formula
/g/nanovna-users/message/8459
I plotted a 1000 point zero to 900MHz uncalibrated measurement of the SOL calibration standards as delivered with the nanoVNA
The colored lines represent the S, O and L values in the complete G formula.
Apart from a rotation of S and O due to electrical length (linear with frequency) and a decrease (probably due to a symmetrical capacitive load in the bridge) the S, O and L stay well behaved. This explains why the nanoVNA is able to reach high accuracy.
This has been verified by doing a T-Check measurement which showed less than 5% measurement error up to 900MHz, mostly due to the port 2 deviation from Z0 so the pure one port accuracy is probably even better.
I attached the raw data to support further evaluation. These are s2p files but only contain relevant S11 data
|
Re: errors of "error" models
#93: On the Simplified Virtualization of the General Picture Hello, - - - - - - (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 : start - - - - - - Allow us, please, to continue with the finalization of our picture: towards to that approximated one, which we already called it a virtual two-port. This can be achieved by expressing the reflection coefficient G, of a load or DUT connected at T Test Port, that is by the ratio of the ("reflected") output signal bT from T port (that is the one caused by the voltage wave directed from inside-to-outside of T port or by a "reflected" to T wave), to the ("incident") input signal aT to T port (that is the one caused by the voltage wave directed from outside-to-inside of T port or by an "incident" to T wave): G := bT/aT in terms of the ratio of the two separate signals aA and aR, * B O T H * I N P U T * ("incident") to the ("receiving") ports A and R, respectively: g := aA/aR This is possible and results -after a really tedious work, if someone selects to do it without some lower of the high mathematics- to the form: G = (Ag + B)/(Cg + D) where A, B, C, and D are rather complicated expressions of various Sij. However, with a careful, technically appropriate, adjustment of the whole of Sij values, it is possible a simplification of these expressions by approximating, diminishing or reasonably ignoring a lot of various signal paths in the above 4-port signal flow diagram: Well, this a most fortunate fact, indeed, because makes possible various "error" models of VNA measurements, with each one of them to take the name of the number of finally kept terms, the remaining ones after the deletion of the rest of the others. And it is only in this way that also the so called "3-terms error model" results, forming something that reminds strongly a two-port network. But, since in this way only the T port is clearly shown, while the other one is a totally absent from the reality, we thought to define a Virtual measurement Port, as we already presented it at: #85: On the Formation of a Virtual Port: 25 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8237- - - finish : (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 - - - - - - - - - - That's all. With the best of our regards to all Members who insist to read this thread, gin&pez@arg 93#:
|
Two thoughts here:
1) A great time for two or three or more hams getting together and jointly buying a subscription to QEX, AND making it available to their club. And you can jointly purchase the DVD at the end of the year and donate it to the club. You don¡¯t belong to a club? So sad. Start one. We did years ago out in Missouri while I was in school. Put an ad in the local paper (or eblog now) and a few interested folks came out of the woods and the club started. Mainly as a coffee round table but later a formal club. I also belong to two clubs, one with a formal schedule and the other just a breakfast gathering without all the rigamarole..... both very enjoyable and educational.
2) One of our club members brought in his Airspy HF+ (Yes, just the less expensive HF+) and showed how to use it as a spectrum analyzer.... I was blown away with the simplicity of it. We were testing the QRP Guys FT8 xcvr vs the Crkits D4D xcvr build.... a lot went over my head but a neat use of a simple DSP tool for those who want to experiment or test things. These Airspy (and other DSP thingies) aren¡¯t just another radio for listening to short wave. They are more like a piece of test gear than any radio you will ever own.
David J. Wilcox K8WPE¡¯s iPad
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 23, 2019, at 3:58 PM, David Eckhardt <davearea51a@...> wrote:
?If one needs a spectrum analyzer on the cheap, try the AirSpy (full units
to 1.8 Ghz - not the HF+ or Discovery) for around $200. SpectrumSpy is
included with the SDR# download at no cost. It is the SW of choice for the
AirSpy offerings. The spectrum analyzer has a minimum span of 10 MHz and a
maximum of 20 MHz through 1.8 GHz. While it, as well, is not an
HP/Agilent/Keysite, its pretty good. Even the HP 8753C VNA does not make a
good spectrum analyzer, so why expect the NANOVNA to do same? It's the
NANOVNA and the HP 8753C are designed and purposed as a Vector Network
Analyzer, not a spectrum analyzer.
Dave - W?LEV
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:13 PM Bob Albert via Groups.Io <bob91343=
[email protected]> wrote:
As the owner of two nanoVNAs and two lab grade VNAs I have run
comparisons between them. They all do their intended job well, and can be
very useful in testing hardware, as well as providing a nearly priceless
opportunity for education in high frequency electronics.
Yes the expensive jobs have important advantages over the little unit.
But when one factors in certain characteristics, such as convenience and
cost and user interface, the nano gives far more per dollar. Yes I can do
better spectrum analysis with the big units and my measurements are both
more accurate and have better noise performance for tiny signals.
So my educated analysis indicates that the nano needs to be a part of any
laboratory for casual measurements. These casual measurements are probably
more than enough to satisfy the needs of any radio amateur or other
hobbyist. For commercial and industrial uses, the expensive units are
almost mandatory, as their accuracy can be verified and their frequency
range wider, not to mention control over bandwidth.
My attempts at spectrum analysis with the nano have proven it to be not
especially useful. For instance, there are images. Fine grequency control
is lacking. There is no control over resolution. Precise analysis of
filters is not one of its strengths.
Notwithstanding these and other limitations, I find the nano the unit of
choice for the majority of my measurements. This may not be true of anyone
else but I am a satisfied customer. One of my big VNAs only goes up toe
150 MHz and that's useful for most of my spectrum analysis and other lower
frequency work, which is the majority of my interest. The other goes up to
a few GHz but my needs seldom go there. The small size and rapid
deployment of the nano make it a fun unit to operate; while I am doing some
work with it I notice things I might not see with the other VNAs.
So take what I say for what it's worth and for what you pay for it, and
draw your own conclusions.
73, Bob K6DDX On Monday, December 23, 2019, 10:43:44 AM PST, hwalker <
herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
hwalker wrote:
The Jan-Feb 2020 Issue of the ARRL QEX magazine has a cover story on the
NanoVNA by Dr. George Steber:
"Dr. George R. Steber, WB9LVI, reviews a tiny vector network analyzer
(VNA) introduced for about US$50 and compares its capabilities with
full-featured lab grade analyzers that cost thousands of dollars. An RF VNA
is the instrument of choice for measuring the electrical parameters of
antennas, components, filters and more. Dr. Steber describes his
experiences with the tiny VNA, termed a NanoVNA. He begins with a short
description of some technical specifications, and relates how he acquired
the NanoVNA. He then includes historical details on the evolution of the
product. Next, he describes the general architecture of the instrument, and
finally he describes the operation of the unit and including examples."
===============================================================================================
My original intention in starting this topic was to let our users know
about the QEX NanoVNA article and to acknowledge one of my favorite
technical authors. The original post does not, as stated by at least one
responder, in any way, shape, or form advocate copyright infringement.
Dr. Steber usually gives a down to earth technical description of a
device's inner workings before preceding on to numerous practical use
applications. Those expecting some type of a-b comparison with high end
commercial VNA's are likely to be disappointed.
I guess the second reason for starting the topic was to acknowledge the
NanoVNA's semi-Rockstar status as the cover boy for QEX magazine :)
Happy holidays,
- Herb
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*
|
Re: errors of "error" models
@Erik, PD0EK - 24 December 2019: /g/nanovna-users/message/8615/g/nanovna-users/message/8614Dear Erik, Allow us, please, to carefully reserve ourselves from commenting on matters, which either excerpt engineering techniques applied, more-or-less successfully, in the time domain with the obscure purpose to also apply them in the frequency one, or on those mixing-up probabilistic techniques with deterministic ones, or to say it most simply and for the third time, if we are correctly counting : we are not able at all to correct perhaps down to zero the Uncertainties of the Standards, as they are given to us by their Decent Manufacturers; the only thing we can do is to propagate these Uncertainties through that simple formula to its G results, and then, its G results through that well-known one to Z results, and thus to finally to express the unavoidable Core Uncertainty of Z measurements. Yes! We perfectly understand that this is a most unpleasant fact, but what can we do? That's Life - a Scientific one, of course. Best regards, gin&pez@arg
|
Re: errors of "error" models
To help understanding the impact of the various terms of the complete G formula /g/nanovna-users/message/8459I plotted a 1000 point zero to 900MHz uncalibrated measurement of the SOL calibration standards as delivered with the nanoVNA The colored lines represent the S, O and L values in the complete G formula. Apart from a rotation of S and O due to electrical length (linear with frequency) and a decrease (probably due to a symmetrical capacitive load in the bridge) the S, O and L stay well behaved. This explains why the nanoVNA is able to reach high accuracy. This has been verified by doing a T-Check measurement which showed less than 5% measurement error up to 900MHz, mostly due to the port 2 deviation from Z0 so the pure one port accuracy is probably even better. I attached the raw data to support further evaluation. These are s2p files but only contain relevant S11 data -- NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/homeNanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/filesErik, PD0EK
|
Re: errors of "error" models
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:20 PM, gin&pez@arg wrote:
prefer to sell Standards marked with Uncertainty Values, instead
of cancel it using "correction polynomials",
Gin@Pez Not sure I do understand what you try to say. If the correction polynomials have a physical underpinning (L for short, C for open) would you still call it an excuse? And its less work to enter a few factors of a polynomial then to enter the actual 1001 point measurement of the calibration standard I guess. So if the polynomial reflects in a limited amount of numbers the actual measurement impact of the calibration standard I do not understand why it has anything to do with uncertainty values? -- NanoVNA Wiki: /g/nanovna-users/wiki/homeNanoVNA Files: /g/nanovna-users/filesErik, PD0EK
|
Re: errors of "error" models
@Gary O'Neil, N3GO : 24 December 2019 /g/nanovna-users/message/8610Dear Gary, Alright then ! Now we see... Well, allow us, please to avoid any further discussion on such matters, simply because we don't find what we can say except to ask you, please, to advise the interested Non-Common User to ask the Decent Manufacturers, why they still prefer to sell Standards marked with Uncertainty Values, instead of cancel it using "correction polynomials", so to be able to invoke these very "correction polynomials" as their excuse for zeroing the Uncertainty during their defense before the appropriate Mercantile Court... : D With our best regards, gin@pez@arg
|
Re: errors of "error" models
#92: Our General Picture of [TheLeastVNA] Hello, Allow us, please, to inform you that we just uploaded our general picture of a 4-port [LeastVNA] at: Well, as we already wrote in #84: On the Virtuality of the "Measurement Port" [1], although we shaped this general picture from the HP8502A unit: however, * A N Y * O T H E R * VNA operating in a similar way as a [LeastVNA], can be effectively considered as this 4-port [LeastVNA] above, e.g. the schematic one in the picture by Erik, PD0EK at [2]: where, the 4 Graphic Symbols shown at the upper-left corner: [Sinusoidal Generator] - [a0] - [b0] - [couple of opposite arrows a0 and b0] also consist such a 4-port [LeastVNA]. Sincerely, gin&pez@arg REFERENCES: [1] #84: On the Virtuality of the "Measurement Port": 15 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8225 , although [2] /g/nanovna-users/message/8105#92:
|
Hi, On Monday, 23 December 2019 20:11:10 GMT Tominaz wrote: look in the trash folder and all mail sent, could still be there. I resent the email to Luc which he has recieved OK now. FYI I am new member to the group and a new owner of a nanoVNA and I must say there is a wealth of information to be found for this excellent device, here and in the groups files and FAQ. Most helpful for a new user like me, but some of it is a bit of a steep learning curve :-) It's a great addition to my test gear. Seasons Greetings! 73 Colin - G6AVK -- Fedora 31 (Thirty One)
|
Re: errors of "error" models
GIN&PEZ; In reply to Post #8585 regarding my post @Gary, N3GO 22 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8572My question was regarding the results you posted in # 8521. #90.01 : Final Conclusion - #90.00 : A Practical Introduction to our -Second- Arithmetical Method of Error Estimations in VNA Measurements : [SAMEEVNAM] 22 December 2019 - /g/nanovna-users/message/8505My question relates to the significant difference resulting between Z AN Zt: ¡°that in this particular instance, the Least Core Uncertainty - that is the component of the Uncertainty which is propagated only by three HP Standards to the results of Zt measurement using our [NanoVNA] System - is arithmetically estimated to be more than: ( Rt : +5% , Xt : +13% )¡± Both real and imaginary components show a positive offset (favoring closer to upper uncertainty boundary) for the HP standards (with correction). It is only one data point, but the offset is large - particularly the real part - and looks suspicious. The reactance also favors the same offset trend. A correction polynomial would be expected to converge on a nominal value, and while the data may be correct - FACUPOV, the corrections would be expected to converge toward the midpoint of the uncertainty region. Polynomials with alternating signs tend to converge rather than drift off in one direction. This is just a visual observation based on a single data point, but it raises a question about whether the result was contaminated by a typographical error when entering the data. -- 73 Gary, N3GO
|
Re: New version of NanoVNA-Saver: 0.2.1
Thanks all. I'll try adding the scan. I am away from my shack for Xmas Possibly worth a low priority software update Rune if you agree the interface needs to be clearer. 73 Dick
|
Re: First PCB pictures of the V2
"We all stand on the shoulders of giants."
|
If one needs a spectrum analyzer on the cheap, try the AirSpy (full units to 1.8 Ghz - not the HF+ or Discovery) for around $200. SpectrumSpy is included with the SDR# download at no cost. It is the SW of choice for the AirSpy offerings. The spectrum analyzer has a minimum span of 10 MHz and a maximum of 20 MHz through 1.8 GHz. While it, as well, is not an HP/Agilent/Keysite, its pretty good. Even the HP 8753C VNA does not make a good spectrum analyzer, so why expect the NANOVNA to do same? It's the NANOVNA and the HP 8753C are designed and purposed as a Vector Network Analyzer, not a spectrum analyzer. Dave - W?LEV On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 7:13 PM Bob Albert via Groups.Io <bob91343= [email protected]> wrote: As the owner of two nanoVNAs and two lab grade VNAs I have run
comparisons between them. They all do their intended job well, and can be
very useful in testing hardware, as well as providing a nearly priceless
opportunity for education in high frequency electronics.
Yes the expensive jobs have important advantages over the little unit.
But when one factors in certain characteristics, such as convenience and
cost and user interface, the nano gives far more per dollar. Yes I can do
better spectrum analysis with the big units and my measurements are both
more accurate and have better noise performance for tiny signals.
So my educated analysis indicates that the nano needs to be a part of any
laboratory for casual measurements. These casual measurements are probably
more than enough to satisfy the needs of any radio amateur or other
hobbyist. For commercial and industrial uses, the expensive units are
almost mandatory, as their accuracy can be verified and their frequency
range wider, not to mention control over bandwidth.
My attempts at spectrum analysis with the nano have proven it to be not
especially useful. For instance, there are images. Fine grequency control
is lacking. There is no control over resolution. Precise analysis of
filters is not one of its strengths.
Notwithstanding these and other limitations, I find the nano the unit of
choice for the majority of my measurements. This may not be true of anyone
else but I am a satisfied customer. One of my big VNAs only goes up toe
150 MHz and that's useful for most of my spectrum analysis and other lower
frequency work, which is the majority of my interest. The other goes up to
a few GHz but my needs seldom go there. The small size and rapid
deployment of the nano make it a fun unit to operate; while I am doing some
work with it I notice things I might not see with the other VNAs.
So take what I say for what it's worth and for what you pay for it, and
draw your own conclusions.
73, Bob K6DDX On Monday, December 23, 2019, 10:43:44 AM PST, hwalker <
herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
hwalker wrote:
The Jan-Feb 2020 Issue of the ARRL QEX magazine has a cover story on the
NanoVNA by Dr. George Steber:
"Dr. George R. Steber, WB9LVI, reviews a tiny vector network analyzer
(VNA) introduced for about US$50 and compares its capabilities with
full-featured lab grade analyzers that cost thousands of dollars. An RF VNA
is the instrument of choice for measuring the electrical parameters of
antennas, components, filters and more. Dr. Steber describes his
experiences with the tiny VNA, termed a NanoVNA. He begins with a short
description of some technical specifications, and relates how he acquired
the NanoVNA. He then includes historical details on the evolution of the
product. Next, he describes the general architecture of the instrument, and
finally he describes the operation of the unit and including examples."
===============================================================================================
My original intention in starting this topic was to let our users know
about the QEX NanoVNA article and to acknowledge one of my favorite
technical authors. The original post does not, as stated by at least one
responder, in any way, shape, or form advocate copyright infringement.
Dr. Steber usually gives a down to earth technical description of a
device's inner workings before preceding on to numerous practical use
applications. Those expecting some type of a-b comparison with high end
commercial VNA's are likely to be disappointed.
I guess the second reason for starting the topic was to acknowledge the
NanoVNA's semi-Rockstar status as the cover boy for QEX magazine :)
Happy holidays,
- Herb
-- *Dave - W?LEV* *Just Let Darwin Work* *Just Think*
|
Re: NanoVNA connected to Amazon Fire tablet
Larry Rothman wrote: Read my note on purchasing Chromebooks. They actually come with an 'expiry date' after which Google will no longer offer any type of updates. A number of forum members have installed Linux on their older Chromebooks due to this 'Feature'. Just did this to one owned by a friend. His Chromebook wasn't even that old yet, with a January 2019 date on the bottom. Yet they were already making noises about it going EOL soon. Putting a different OS on there is somewhat a convoluted procedure but not at all difficult. Best bet for most devices is to just completely DITCH ChromeOS completely. Some hardware that's not true, but the run of the mill Chromebook takes linux-only installations in stride, and once it's done you'll love it. Most devices have tutorials on-line, be sure to look yours up before trying this. After you get the thing into developer mode, it's fairly simple. There are several alternative BIOS files to choose from, and the "GalliumOS" Linux distribution is optimized for Chrome hardware, and is generally quite nice. If your Chromebook is one of the smaller ones (16GB or less) then you need to set it up to use a largish USB or SD memory device, or an external hard disk or SSD, as the /home directory if you intend on keeping more than a little data on there. My friend is ecstatic about GalliumOS on his little machine. It was bloody useless under ChromeOS, that thing being just a glorified web-browser meant only to access Google's revenue-generating stuff. He now has a real desktop, a real office suite with full capability for printing and formatting documents and spreadsheets and presentations. And it's all stored LOCALLY, and not out somewhere in never-never-land, with who knows what sort of security. -- w.will n9kdy
|
look in the trash folder and all mail sent, could still be there.
Tom Sides KI7FTK
cell 602-499-9562
skype: Thomas Sides
4243 e. st Charles ave
Phx AZ 85042
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:12 PM Luc ON7DQ <on7dq@...> wrote: Another oops
I cleared out my spam folder and saw just in the last moment that it
contained a mail from (I think) a G6xxx station, with nanoVNA in the title
... probably a comment on my presentation.
But it was already too late ... a moment later the mail was gone and I
can't recover it
So if you sent me a mail , pse send it again
Tnx - Luc ON7DQ
|
As the owner of two nanoVNAs and two lab grade VNAs I have run comparisons between them.? They all do their intended job well, and can be very useful in testing hardware, as well as providing a nearly priceless opportunity for education in high frequency electronics.
Yes the expensive jobs have important advantages over the little unit.? But when one factors in certain characteristics, such as convenience and cost and user interface, the nano gives far more per dollar.? Yes I can do better spectrum analysis with the big units and my measurements are both more accurate and have better noise performance for tiny signals.
So my educated analysis indicates that the nano needs to be a part of any laboratory for casual measurements.? These casual measurements are probably more than enough to satisfy the needs of any radio amateur or other hobbyist.? For commercial and industrial uses, the expensive units are almost mandatory, as their accuracy can be verified and their frequency range wider, not to mention control over bandwidth.
My attempts at spectrum analysis with the nano have proven it to be not especially useful.? For instance, there are images.? Fine grequency control is lacking.? There is no control over resolution.? Precise analysis of filters is not one of its strengths.
Notwithstanding these and other limitations, I find the nano the unit of choice for the majority of my measurements.? This may not be true of anyone else but I am a satisfied customer.? One of my big VNAs only goes up toe 150 MHz and that's useful for most of my spectrum analysis and other lower frequency work, which is the majority of my interest.? The other goes up to a few GHz but my needs seldom go there.? The small size and rapid deployment of the nano make it a fun unit to operate; while I am doing some work with it I notice things I might not see with the other VNAs.
So take what I say for what it's worth and for what you pay for it, and draw your own conclusions.
73, Bob K6DDX On Monday, December 23, 2019, 10:43:44 AM PST, hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
hwalker wrote:
The Jan-Feb 2020 Issue of the ARRL QEX magazine has a cover story on the NanoVNA by Dr. George Steber:
"Dr. George R. Steber, WB9LVI, reviews a tiny vector network analyzer (VNA) introduced for about US$50 and compares its capabilities with full-featured lab grade analyzers that cost thousands of dollars. An RF VNA is the instrument of choice for measuring the electrical parameters of antennas, components, filters and more. Dr. Steber describes his experiences with the tiny VNA, termed a NanoVNA. He begins with a short description of some technical specifications, and relates how he acquired the NanoVNA. He then includes historical details on the evolution of the product. Next, he describes the general architecture of the instrument, and finally he describes the operation of the unit and including examples."
===============================================================================================
? ? My original intention in starting this topic was to let our users know about the QEX NanoVNA article and to acknowledge one of my favorite technical authors. The original post does not, as stated by at least one responder, in any way, shape, or form advocate copyright infringement.
? Dr. Steber usually gives a down to earth technical description of a device's inner workings before preceding on to numerous practical use applications.? Those expecting some type of a-b comparison with high end commercial VNA's are likely to be disappointed.
? I guess the second reason for starting the topic was to acknowledge the NanoVNA's semi-Rockstar status as the cover boy for QEX magazine? :)
Happy holidays,
- Herb
|
Another oops
I cleared out my spam folder and saw just in the last moment that it contained a mail from (I think) a G6xxx station, with nanoVNA in the title ... probably a comment on my presentation.
But it was already too late ... a moment later the mail was gone and I can't recover it
So if you sent me a mail , pse send it again
Tnx - Luc ON7DQ
|
hwalker wrote:
The Jan-Feb 2020 Issue of the ARRL QEX magazine has a cover story on the NanoVNA by Dr. George Steber:
"Dr. George R. Steber, WB9LVI, reviews a tiny vector network analyzer (VNA) introduced for about US$50 and compares its capabilities with full-featured lab grade analyzers that cost thousands of dollars. An RF VNA is the instrument of choice for measuring the electrical parameters of antennas, components, filters and more. Dr. Steber describes his experiences with the tiny VNA, termed a NanoVNA. He begins with a short description of some technical specifications, and relates how he acquired the NanoVNA. He then includes historical details on the evolution of the product. Next, he describes the general architecture of the instrument, and finally he describes the operation of the unit and including examples."
===============================================================================================
My original intention in starting this topic was to let our users know about the QEX NanoVNA article and to acknowledge one of my favorite technical authors. The original post does not, as stated by at least one responder, in any way, shape, or form advocate copyright infringement.
Dr. Steber usually gives a down to earth technical description of a device's inner workings before preceding on to numerous practical use applications. Those expecting some type of a-b comparison with high end commercial VNA's are likely to be disappointed.
I guess the second reason for starting the topic was to acknowledge the NanoVNA's semi-Rockstar status as the cover boy for QEX magazine :)
Happy holidays,
- Herb
|
Arie Kleingeld PA3A
gin&pez@arg
David Wilcox K8WPE
Colin G6AVK
Oristo
Tominaz