开云体育

The Windows Version 0.6.2 already available on Github

Hello everyone, I know this has been a topic in the messages, but it has been a while and many new firmware versions/revisions of each of those. I am running Version 1.2.24 from DiSlord on my nanovna

Hello Michael, Jim is correct. I will say it in a simpler fashion just so it is clearer, if needed..... If you are using your nanovna to do antenna fine tuning so that you can hook it up to radio and

It depends on whether you are interested in the SWR as seen by the transceiver or looking at the antenna. If you're just looking to "tune" for best match - VNA calibrated at its connectors. If you're

And just to be pedantic, specifying gain as "5.5dBi over a standard discone" is a nonsense anyway. "dBi" is referenced to an isotropic radiator. The 5.5dBi claim here is probably ball park (over an

worth noting? for them that what goes on when putting a transmitter's r.f. into the feed line and antenna applies exactly to what goes on when receiving on that antenna and feed line (if we are to

If amateurs had a basic understanding of antennas rather than just hearsay, sorcery, witchcraft, and the phase of the moon, they would easily spot "off-color" gain claims. But they generally do not.

Put not your faith in Amateur Radio dealers…they are there to make a living, not friends. Further more, the gain figures are generally in the minds of the advertising managers, rather than the

And what's more with the discone, both the elevation angle of radiation (and reception) and polarization change with frequency. It may look good on the Smith chart, but in reality, neither the discone

Over the years I have built several biconical and discone antennas. These antennas do have a wider bandwidth than a standard dipole, and also a lower impedance, but they are far from covering several

GREATER RT, if the measurement were made at the antenna feed. Sorry, I'm also listening to the indictment of the ex-pres. Got confused. Dave - W?LEV [email protected]> wrote:

Yes, lossy coax will exhibit lower return loss if things were measured at the antenna feed. Dave - W?LEV

I agree Dave, the losses should increase steadily with increasing frequency. However the measured return loss will be higher when measuring with a lossy cable, i.e. the real return loss will be worse

No. The SWR plots shown on this thread show a dip in SWR centered on 70-cm. If it were due to coax loss, the losses would continue above 70-cm. They don't. Dave - W?LEV

Maybe the matching at 70cm band is better because the coaxial cable losses are higher there ? If I remember right there was a considerable length of lossy RG58 used during the measurements ? Kind

I checked this antenna on the Moonraker site, specifically amateur radio antennas. It's rated for ONLY the 70-CM BAND. [image: image.png] Sure, it will receive over a wide band with relatively poor

I'm finding this conversation very interesting. I'm just getting up-to-speed with the nanoVNA and thought I understood that the best place to calibrate for SWR measurement would be close to the

Just a comment on Calibration - if you are calibrating at the NanoVNA, or with short jumpers, then a single wide band cal is probably sufficient - the interpolation algorithm will find the right

Steven Did you do a CALIBRATION for each band, over a fairly narrow frequency range? I do that, and SAVE the file: 80m CAL, 40m CAL, etc. I also did one for HF CAL covering 1-30 MHz with with SAVER I

I am surprised some folk on this group have rubbished Moonraker Antennas. I know Moonraker HF antennas are used on some Australian Navy ships, so I don't think they are really "Dollar Shop junk." I