I also calibrated the FieldFox for each range measured. I calibrated the combination as suggested by the nanoVNA's designer: calibrate the VNA itself first, then calibrate via nanoVNA-Saver for the same frequency range. This program makes it much easier to operate the nano, place cursors, read the data presented and capture screenshots. I used nanoVNA-Saver on my laptop to control the nanoVNA. I wanted to know how much difference a cheap set of SMA standards makes at 4 GHz compared with the Agilent standards. The fourth measurement is actually a comparison of the calibration standards that come with the nano vs. For both VNA's I used the Agilent SOLT standards for the first three comparisons, ie the Agilent standards were used to calibrate both the FieldFox and the nanoVNA. Prior to each measurement, I calibrated both VNA's for the specific frequency range to be tested. The FieldFox at my work QTH also has an upper frequency limit of 4 GHz and was perfect for comparing the S21 performance of the nanoVNA. Like most hams, I don't need to measure anything at 4 GHz but I do want the increased accuracy (hopefully!) that comes from increased dynamic range. It is primarily due to the increased dynamic range that I bought this VNA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |