Re: errors of "error" models
Hello,
Allow us, please, to insist staying on the subject by transferring and repeating here the contents of the following messages, in order to somehow protect if not save them [*]      4 : on the comparison  https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2913 Hello, Allow us, please, to point out that to be possible to the slightest a comparison between measurements regarding nanovna and/or vna, these measurements should be accompanied by an estimation of their uncertainty, as well as by a clearly stated way of its calculation. Sincerely, yin@pez@arg      5 : Re: on the comparison  https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2943 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, 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 oneport 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 twoport vna measurements. 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 yetso, we did not be able to comment our vnananovna comparison results [3], and by the way: after we followed, almost fully, the suggestions given in the Excellent Work of Larry Rothman [4]. Sincerely, yin&pez@arg [1] errors of "error" models https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2770 Saturday, September 21, 2019 04:10 [2] error model(s) https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2553 Wednesday, September 18, 2019 00:24 [3] vna ~ nanovna : (r,x) comparative results but no comments https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2521 Tuesday, September 17, 2019 02:31 [4] Re: List of NanoVNA Console Commands https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2457 Sunday, September 15, 2019 15:23      6 : Re: on the comparison  https://groups.io/g/nanovnausers/message/2968 Hello, Allow us, please, to summarize briefly: (0) The measurement uncertainty is errorbounds of the measurement. (1) If a measurement does not involve mathematical expressions then someone can choose the statistical way he likes to mathematically estimatecompute a subjective uncertainty . (2) If a measurement involves known mathematical expressions then either there is or there is not up to now a known, unique, mathematical way, that is a way solely based on these mathematical expressions alone, to estimatecompute an objective uncertainty. (3) A vna measurement involves known mathematical expressions and after more than ten 10 years there are now five 5 known mathematical ways to estimatecompute a unique objective uncertainty, each one for each of the five 5 "error" models considered (by intermediately estimatecompute the errors of these "errors"), as well as new one(s), the sixth 6th (or more), shall be added as soon as the "error" model(s) of the NanoVNA will be revealed. (4) These "errors" of "error" models are just historical names of parameters mathematically expressed in terms to what is widely known today collectively as "Sparameters" and thus these are not error bounds  they are not uncertainties of the measurement. Sincerely, yin&pez@arg [ * [ which unfortunately enough, but not unexpectedly in almost any [ suffering public discussion were interfered elsewhere, as usually, [ that is using the wellknown technique of the coordinated barrage [ of disorienting, nonanswering, nonparticipating, nondiscussing [ cries  that is, once more : business, as usual Sincerely, yin&pez@arg 8

