开云体育

I think that the adf4351 would be better: Main improvements compared to the ADF4350: * Improved 1/f in-band phase noise (5 dB) * EVM improvement of up to 30% * Lower PFD spurs * Wider output range: 35

Very kind of you to offer Kurt. I was an EMC project manager up until I retired, so I know how pressing deadlines are. I have time now-a-days to follow my whims and will mock up a few test set-ups on

I think this promises to be a very interesting thread. I spent my career solving wave equation problems. In my case, elastic rather than electromagnetic, the impedance is pure real. But the change to

I gleaned the following information from one of the other nanoVNA user groups regarding nanoVNA version 2. 1. The nanoVNA will eventually reach 3GHz (and at a similar price to version 1). 2. It's

Hello, We just uploaded the currently available version of /F/L/O/S/S/ FORTRAN code: https://www.op4.eu/code/DW20190924.7z Check the functionality of the program, please, by using the included text

Hi Herb I did notice you already had mentioned part 2 and 3 "plowing" thru the next messages. Well I need to have a relatively low profile as I am in the midst of a huge project so only limited time.

Thanks for the heads up Kurt. I linked to parts 2 & 3 in a subsequent reply. I found the whole series of articles to be interesting reading and hope to construct a similar Test fixture for sorting my

Hello, We both thank you very much all of you for your most valuable comments ! We gladly feel that we find a sound ground for a fruitful discussion, as we hope. Well, we don't mean to offend you but,

Did you check it with the new nanoVNA-F? Its general parameters seem to be better by 10dB.

the smartphone solution NanoVNA -webclient would be the solution https://cho45.stfuawsc.com/NanoVNA/ but for me i get the nice graphs and possible saving of S1P etc but connection with nao fails. I

Hi Bruce and hwalker Please visit www.reeve.com and read the next report where I tuned in and contributed. The linked article are the first step to better methods ? Kind regards Kurt

Hi, I have tested a lot of firmware version, and never one of them has allowed a frequency step below 100Hz. Are you sure of your previous test ? To have a firmware allowing a more precise frequency

Hi qrp.ddc The way you wrote "by connecting Ch0 with Ch1" it was obvious the you missed the end of cable calibration ? Always remember a test cable is part of the instrument as you are forced to

Thanks all for the replies with detailed information, and also the links, which provide a treasure of information. It looks like the nanoVNA will be extremely helpful in looking at the snap-on ferrite

Hello Reg, I brought up this question of uncertainty in measurements several posts ago. Although the calculation is not complicated, obtaining the parameters to find the uncertainty boundaries is a

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM, Rune Broberg wrote: > > Maurizio, > thank you very much! I see the use for separate segments, certainly, but > with the current architecture of the code, it's not

Maurizio, thank you very much! I see the use for separate segments, certainly, but with the current architecture of the code, it's not easily achievable. Many, many parts of the code assume uniform

Hi Tom, [image: image.png] Coming in the next release. Pushed to GitHub in a few minutes as development code. -- Rune

nice trick, but it will works until power off...

Bruce, You could calibrate the device, make the measurement of interest, go to "Stimulus", press "Pause Sweep", and the data is saved in the nanovna. The device under test can be removed and the data