Re: on the comparisons



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, in our humble opinion,
the whole story of hp "error" models is just a myth serving the
powerful advertisement, so, we don't believe at all that this
matter is due to any lack of knowledge or of ability among Radio
Amateurs, while, in direct contrast to that, the pioneered Work
of whom is usually exploited by patentees.

Anyway, we just ask you now to be patient enough and give us the
chance to present you: (1) the fortran code by which we estimate
the errors of the aforementioned "errors", in full one-port vna
measurements (see, please, the related "discussion" [1]), as
well as (2) sometime later, the way in which we calculate the
errors of the corresponding "errors" in full two-port vna

Finally, we just mention that in the case of nanovna we just
took a look at the mathematical expressions included there
and we have a feeling -but notice, please, NOT a proof yet- that
the "error" model(s) used in the original nanovna code are
missing some terms which are present in the original "error"
model(s). And this is the reason that we already asked: "if is
there any certain knowledge available regarding the specific
error model(s) that NanoVNA uses" [2]--but unfortunately
without any response yet--so, we did not be able to comment our
vna-nanovna comparison results [3], and by the way: after we
followed, almost fully, the suggestions given in the Excellent
Work of Larry Rothman [4].



[1] errors of "error" models
Saturday, September 21, 2019 04:10

[2] error model(s)
Wednesday, September 18, 2019 00:24

[3] vna ~ nanovna : (r,x) comparative results but no comments
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 02:31

[4] Re: List of NanoVNA Console Commands
Sunday, September 15, 2019 15:23

Join to automatically receive all group messages.