Topics

errors of "error" models

reuterr@...
 

Hello David,
Thank you very much for the clear and polite words.

If the topic is really *important* for the community, the it is the duty of the originators
to convert their FORTAN programs to Python, and show some
*input* *output* data examples.

73, Rudi DL5FA

 

18 : @Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3181

Hello,

Thank you very much for your interest in our work !

We much appreciate that; indeed. Therefore, allow
us, please, to inform you that, on the one hand
English is -obviously- not our native language, and,
on the other hand, we are deeply regret since our
limited presentation abilities still create so much
confusion to you, even after you already read all
of our references on this subject, of course,
because these are : "the document" "including
adequate references, much like a scientific paper"
you ask for. However, and in addition to these,
we already wrote, but obviously you didn't notice
it too, at:

14 : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3111

"
this is the current state of published research on
this subject, excluding some papers under preparation
in order to be published in our small journal:

https://archive.org/details/ftpj-about-e4-online
"
Nevertheless, it is needless to say that we don't
agree at all with your, obviously subjective, comment
that "The whole issue is far from simple"
-
which, by the way, it appears as it is orchestrally
emanated from some honorable specialists of
this forum
-
as it unreasonably discourages any Radio Amateur,
who is absolute beginner or newcomer to the subject
to even give it a chance to attempt to follow it !

And, as your scientific titles imply, it is certain that
you know very well that this is the worst anti-scientific
attempt to patronize the unsuspecting innocent
victim who comes here wanting to learn.

Anyway, since we always try to be good
listeners, we shall also attempt to follow your
valuable subjective suggestions on this very subject
and to learn our lessons : Thank you once more !

Now, regarding the objective points you had the
kindness to also set, which, we assume, you are
definitely referenced to:

[17] : From A Common User's Point Of View
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/2521

allow us, please, to also gladly answer them, as follows:

(1) You are absolutely right about the "incomplete
definitions of the equations".

This was a deliberate omission, in order to check how
many of the honorable members of this forum
-
who desperately declare their thirsty for the Knowledge,
that is they also passionately seek it in way which
exactly coincides with that permanent of ours
-
are indeed interested for it. Therefore, we also thank
you very much, since you are giving us the happiness
to notice that:

the capital letters are representatives of the "true value"
-
[ well, if you don't have a feeling of what this exactly
[ means, then allow us, please, to inform you that
[ you are not alone, but just one of us, and that all
[ together we are, with many others who have the
[ scientific honesty to admit that they also don't know
[ what that really means, because, in our humble
[ opinion, this is a notion lying on the boundaries
[ between the philosophy and the science, that is it
[ is a primitive notion, an undefined term, and all that
[ in addition to the fact that there are many others,
[ who do not accept that exists such a "true value"
-
A, B. C of three "known" loads, and Gama is of the
"unknown" one, while the small letters are the
representatives of the corresponding (VNA or
nanoVNA) "raw" measurements, with the rest
of the multi-letters to stand for either the well-known
indexed S-parameters or for intermediate variables
-
just for the corresponding indexed Numerators to
be used in the calculations and|or the computations
-
which facilitate, as we hope, not only the
comprehension but also the programming, in the
way we are mentioning in [17], that is of complex
variables as they are all the aforementioned ones.

(2) Regarding your interesting contributing notes
about the phase matter, allow us, please to reserve
ourselves from commenting it right now.

Sincerely,

yin&pez@arg

18

Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd <drkirkby@...>
 

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:04, <reuterr@...> wrote:

Hello David,
Thank you very much for the clear and polite words.

If the topic is really *important* for the community, the it is the duty
of the originators
to convert their FORTAN programs to Python, and show some
*input* *output* data examples.

73, Rudi DL5FA

Rudi,

It is *not* anyone’s duty to convert their Fortran to Python! Nor is it
their duty to show examples of show input or output, nor is it it their
duty to write the information in a coherent way.

I do however think writing the information in a coherent manner and showing
some examples of input and output would be *very* useful. Without the
information being written in a coherent way, it is of very little value.

Converting Fortran to Python seems to be taking things too far though.
Porting code has the possibility of introducing bugs. Anyone technically
competent enough to understand the content should be able to use a Fortran
compiler. If not, they should be able to find someone who can compile a
Fortran program.

Dave
--
Dr. David Kirkby,
Kirkby Microwave Ltd,
drkirkby@...
https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Telephone 01621-680100./ +44 1621 680100

Registered in England & Wales, company number 08914892.
Registered office:
Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United
Kingdom

Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd <drkirkby@...>
 

UOn Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:12, yza <yzaVNA@...> wrote:

18 : @Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3181

Hello,

Thank you very much for your interest in our work !

No problem at all. This looks interesting.

We much appreciate that; indeed. Therefore, allow
us, please, to inform you that, on the one hand
English is -obviously- not our native language,

I realise that. I believe if the information was written in English, to
that the best of your English permits, that would be adequate.

and,
on the other hand, we are deeply regret since our
limited presentation abilities still create so much
confusion to you, even after you already read all
of our references on this subject, of course,
because these are : "the document" "including
adequate references, much like a scientific paper"
you ask for.

People are not going to read all the references in an attempt to follow
you, unless they have some idea what you are trying to achieve. Your very
first post in this thread is

*We just uploaded the current version:*

we don’t know what what this is about. There are other threads from you
started on a similar topic.


However, and in addition to these,
we already wrote, but obviously you didn't notice
it too, at:

14 : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3111


This is part of the problem. Your work is spread across multiple threads.
It is very difficult to follow.

Please ask people how many people are following this. I expect it is very
few.


Nevertheless, it is needless to say that we don't
agree at all with your, obviously subjective, comment
that "The whole issue is far from simple"
-
which, by the way, it appears as it is orchestrally
emanated from some honorable specialists of
this forum

I believe that I am correct to say that the problem is not simple. If you
look at the VNWA, there are no proper uncertainty specifications. The
designer of that product is a university professor, but in my opinion at
least, there are no adequate specifications of uncertainty. The subject is
not easy.

Uncertainty of VNA measurements is still an active area of research. There
are many IEEE papers on the topic.


-
as it unreasonably discourages any Radio Amateur,
who is absolute beginner or newcomer to the subject
to even give it a chance to attempt to follow it !

I do not believe absolute beginners will be worry about uncertainty of
S-parameter measurements, as they will not even know what S-parameters
are! Absolute beginners will not know why a short, open and load are used
for calibration.

I personally believe that only once has a certain level of experience will
people start to question the uncertainty of their measurements.

Many amateur radio enthusiasts have very good knowledge of the use of VNAs.


And, as your scientific titles imply, it is certain that
you know very well that this is the worst anti-scientific
attempt to patronize the unsuspecting innocent
victim who comes here wanting to learn.

That is an unfair comment. I am just trying make you aware that few people
are following your posts. That is why this thread contains more posts from
yourself than everyone else added together.

Anyway, since we always try to be good
listeners, we shall also attempt to follow your
valuable subjective suggestions on this very subject
and to learn our lessons : Thank you once more !

I am trying to be constructive. I am trying to bring to your attention that
few, if any people are following your posts, which is why very few are
replying.

Now, regarding the objective points you had the
kindness to also set, which, we assume, you are
definitely referenced to:

[17] : From A Common User's Point Of View
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/2521

allow us, please, to also gladly answer them, as follows:

No I have not looked, as I do not have a good understanding of what you are
writing about.

(1) You are absolutely right about the "incomplete
definitions of the equations".

This was a deliberate omission, in order to check how
many of the honorable members of this forum
-
who desperately declare their thirsty for the Knowledge,
that is they also passionately seek it in way which
exactly coincides with that permanent of ours
-
are indeed interested for it. Therefore, we also thank
you very much, since you are giving us the happiness
to notice that:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are *deliberately
not defining the terms in your equations to see who is following you. *That
sort of practice *maybe* acceptable if you are trying to teach school
children, but it certainly *not* appropriate practice in this forum. I
believe that the subject is sufficiently complicated for people to
understand, without your deliberate attempts to obscure the subject, just
to see who is following you.

I believe that you need to attempt to make your work understandable by as
many uses of this group as possible, rather than purposely obscure the
subject.

the capital letters are representatives of the "true value"




-
[ well, if you don't have a feeling of what this exactly
[ means, then allow us, please, to inform you that
[ you are not alone, but just one of us, and that all
[ together we are, with many others who have the
[ scientific honesty to admit that they also don't know
[ what that really means, because, in our humble
[ opinion, this is a notion lying on the boundaries
[ between the philosophy and the science, that is it
[ is a primitive notion, an undefined term, and all that
[ in addition to the fact that there are many others,
[ who do not accept that exists such a "true value"
-
A, B. C of three "known" loads, and Gama is of the

If A, B & C are the calibration standards, I would suggest that you use the
term “calibration standards”, rather than “loads”. I appreciate that
English is not your first language, but the term “loads” in the English
technical of VNAs will be considered by most as resistive devices.

*Normally*, the calibration standards for a one port calibration would be
termed the short, open and load in the English speaking world. In waveguide
and high microwave frequencies other standards are necessary.


"unknown" one, while the small letters are the
representatives of the corresponding (VNA or
nanoVNA) "raw" measurements, with the rest
of the multi-letters to stand for either the well-known
indexed S-parameters or for intermediate variables
-
just for the corresponding indexed Numerators to
be used in the calculations and|or the computations
-
which facilitate, as we hope, not only the
comprehension but also the programming, in the
way we are mentioning in [17], that is of complex
variables as they are all the aforementioned ones.

(2) Regarding your interesting contributing notes
about the phase matter, allow us, please to reserve
ourselves from commenting it right now.

Sincerely,

yin&pez@arg

Please understand that I am trying to help you and others by bringing to
your attention the fact that few, if anyone on this group is following you.


Dave.
--
Dr. David Kirkby,
Kirkby Microwave Ltd,
drkirkby@...
https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Telephone 01621-680100./ +44 1621 680100

Registered in England & Wales, company number 08914892.
Registered office:
Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United
Kingdom

 

19 : "true value" - also : @Dr. David Kirkby :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3207

Hello,

We both thank you very much for the time you spent
to compose such a lengthy reply, by which you definitely
assured us that you are really interested on this subject,
which is so central to the reliable operation of any such
device - either [VNA] or [nanoVNA] !

Well, regarding the matters of a subjective character,
we don't like to repeat ourselves, so allow us, please,
to refer you to our personal replies to other honorable
members of this forum - although, if you are in hurry,
but you are still interested enough, then allow us,
please, to suggest you to search this topic for those
two 2 appearances of [personal taste], as well as,
that one 1 of [expediencies], to which we would like
to add here one more : allow us, please, to take care
of the contents, of our contributions to this very topic,
by ourselves alone.

But, regarding the matters of objective character,
allow us, please, to notice that if someone didn't
pay the owed attention to the subject matter of the
"true value", then he may be sure that he shall
definitely loose the thread of thoughts which
drives to the essence of the Estimation of the
Core of Measurement Uncertainty in VNA/nanoVNA,
that is, for example, when he insists to force his mind
to be trapped by the conventional triplet of the
"standards" (S,L,O), instead of the most general
one of "loads" (A,B,C)
-
he has been warned.

Sincerely,

yin&pez@arg

19

Gary O'Neil
 

Respectfully Dr’s Yin and Pez;

Perhaps much of the frustration you must share with Dr. Kirby and myself, and perhaps a few others who might be following for want of discovery of what these exchanges are all about; results from distorted translation.

To wit...

Early in your entry into this forum, and repeatedly in your responses to those who have reached out to engage technically with you; your posts translate with many judgmental and condescending overtones. In the English speaking world, such overtones can be interpreted as unwelcoming and an invitation to terminate ones gesture of willingness to support.

By example...

I did not anticipate a reprimand as a result of my request for executable code. While the technical content in your response answered my query clearly by identifying a need to compile multiple modules locally, and thus moved my understanding in a progressive direction; it was immediately followed by an invitation to terminate our discussion, based upon your judgement of the time I might feel obliged to bear focus on your efforts.

Those of us who may or may not be attempting to understand you lack neither intellect, nor motivation. We also participate in this forum as equals, and maintain decorum by agreeing to disagree, and occasionally sparring with one another philosophically, when our differences are slight or of limited consequence.

On occasion, I disagree with Dr. Kirby philosophically, but almost always agree with him technically; and I acknowledge with respect his sometimes short fused and quirky... slightly mean spirited... personality. In my own humble opinion, I find his response to you overwhelmingly supportive, and generous in his patience toward attempting to communicate with you in a civil and respectful manner. I also echo his comments and requests of you to provide enablement to the members of this forum who are indeed able, intellectually capable, and willing to invest their own and personal resources of time, knowledge, and skill without desire for remuneration in any form beyond advancing their own knowledge and insight. This is our hobby.

I also agree entirely with Dr. Kirby’s assessment of the level of insight and understanding by the absolute beginners here who are seeking understanding and motivated by their own passions. The information you have provided thus far is nowhere near the level required to understand relevance or significance of anything that you have posted to date in the minds of anyone not skilled in the art.

It is difficult to read Dr. Kirby’s closing and overtly encouraging comment: “Please understand that I am trying to help you and others by bringing to your attention the fact that few, if anyone on this group is following you.”, has elicited such a condescending response. His “subjective” comments were sincere recommendations on how best to get this community engaged and behind you, and knowledgeable of what you are attempting to achieve. You also appear to have cast off his technical comments by suggesting he has a closed mind. This is neither respectful, now will it gain you the respect that, you, your colleagues and you work may well deserve.

I will continue in my attempts to follow this thread until such time I experience an epiphany, or reach a conclusion that there is likely nothing of merit that will advance my understanding or the enjoyment of my hobby. Your posts thus far have not made this an easy journey.

In the meantime; I will consider the negative overtones to be artifacts of translation and not take them as personal attacks on my intellect, abilities, or my integrity. I will make no attempt to influence the decision of my colleagues on their assessment of your work, short of the aforementioned epiphany.

With my sincere respect and good wishes for success in your work. I wish you well my friends.

--
73

Gary, N3GO

 

20 : Measurements with Core Uncertainty

Hello,

Allow us, please, to inform you that in the course of preparation
for the final comparison between VNA and NanoVNA, which we
planned to base it on Results with Core Uncertainties regarding
the Zinp of the "ref2007box" shown here:

(1) externally : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/ref2007box.ext.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.g.16.png

(2) internally : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/ref2007box.int.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.g.16.png

we applied yesterday the current versions of our [REGION] &
[DERDEI] combined /F/L/O/S/S/ on the "raw" (S, L, O) + DUT
measurements, sometime taken with a HP8505A system in
CW mode under HP-IB control, from which we finally got for
the Z-inp in the the frequency range of [2,1289] MHz with step
of 13 MHz, the following graphics:

(3) R ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/r.ref2007box.c.ypa.cc.by.4.0.202.png

(4) X ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/x.ref2007box.c.ypa.cc.by.4.0.203.png

(5) Magnitude ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/m.ref2007box.c.ypa.cc.by.4.0.204.png

(6) Argument ~ f : http://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/a.ref2007box.c.ypa.cc.by.4.0.205.png

(7) R and X ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/z.ref2007box.c.ypa.cc.by.4.0.206.png

where, the sine qua non Core Uncertainty is due both to:

(a) the 5 = 2 + 1 + 2 uncertainties of the S, L, and O standards,
which are known from their manufacturers' data, as well as

(b) the 8 = 2 x 4 inaccuracies of the four VNA readings,

that is the Core Uncertainty is due to a combination of
26 = 13 x 2 error bounds, in total.

Sincerely,

pez&yin@arg

20

Jose Luu
 

Hello yin&pez,

The software documentation mentions that there was a Mathematica version of
the software tools, even though the Matematica version may not be uptodate,
I am better at reading Mathematica code than fortran + maxima, I would like
if possible to have a look at the Mathematica code, could you upload it ?

Regards
Jose

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:23 PM yza <yzaVNA@...> wrote:

Hello,

We just uploaded the currently available version of /F/L/O/S/S/ Maxima
code:
https://www.op4.eu/code/derdei20190923.7z

as well as, the currently available version of its documentation:

https://www.op4.eu/code/ComplexDifferentialErrorRegionsSoftwareTools20190923.pdf

for the Uncertainty Estimation of Full One-Port VNA Measurements.

Next to come : the currently available version of /F/L/O/S/S/ FORTRAN code.

Sincerely,

yin@pez@arg

3



 

21 : The Mathematica Code and the Unpacked DERDEI Code

@Jose Luu : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3278

Hello,

Thank you very much for your kind interest in our work !
We much appreciate that; indeed.

Especially, the fact that you spend your time to read our
documentation for our code. Therefore, allow us, please,
to inform you that, unfortunately enough, we are not in
place to fulfill your inquiry about our mathematica code,
which is already a more than ten 10 years old code ,
for an hierarchy of numerous reasons:

From the most generic first top one, which has to do with
the fact that meanwhile we radically changed our point of
view regarding proprietary software and thus we don't want
to support any one, in any way, even in our humble one,
anymore, down to the most specific last bottom one, which
has to do with the fact that this code is nothing more than
yet another example of the worst of programming style,
of a most personal character, that confused even us some
years ago, when we tried to find out what we had wrote
those days...

Well, after all that subjectively said, we conclude with our
definite decision : this mathematica code of ours is
definitely an unworthy, definitely a non-presentable,
definitely a not for publication code.

However, allow us, please, to also inform you that your inquiry
motivated us to decide that it is really now the time to unpack
the DERDEI code and distribute it, also under an MIT /F/L/O/S/S/
license, thus, we would like to please you to give us some time
to prepare the unpacked code in a form that will allow us to
decide that it is perhaps a somehow worthy, somehow
presentable, and thus a definitely publishable code.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

21

 

22 : We Learn Our Lessons - NanoVNA Calibration
Considerations and Procedure_v1.1

@Gary O'Neil : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3259

Hello,

Thank you very much for your time that you spent to
subjectively but kindly advice us lengthy about the
existed perfect climate that rein among the honorable
members of this forum !

We much appreciate that; indeed. Therefore, allow us,
please, to inform you that, as we already assured at:

18 : @Dr. David Kirkby : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3192

and we can also gladly repeat here:

"
we always try to be good listeners, we shall also attempt
to follow your valuable subjective suggestions on this very
subject and to learn our lessons : Thank you once more !
"
On the occasion, allow us, please, to ask you to accept
our respects for your Excellent Work you have done into
the proven so valuable to us:

"NanoVNA Calibration Considerations and Procedure_v1.1"

where we read that :

"This document is mostly the work of Alan Victor, W4AMV
and his colleague Gary O’Neil, N3GO":
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/files/NanoVNA%20Calibration%20Considerations%20and%20Procedure_v1.1.pdf

Thanking you again,

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

Jeff Anderson
 
Edited

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:38 PM, yza wrote:

where, the sine qua non Core Uncertainty is due both to:

(a) the 5 = 2 + 1 + 2 uncertainties of the S, L, and O standards,
which are known from their manufacturers' data, as well as

(b) the 8 = 2 x 4 inaccuracies of the four VNA readings,

that is the Core Uncertainty is due to a combination of
26 = 13 x 2 error bounds, in total.
Hello yin&pez,

Thank you for introducing the topic of errors of error-models. This discussion is very interesting.

To help me understand, I would like to ask a few questions.

First, you mention that the S and O standards have 2 uncertainties each (while the load has 1 uncertainty). How are you defining these uncertainties? Are they defined as uncertainties in a Standard's Reflection Coefficient (that is, uncertainties in rho and theta), or are they defined to be something else? And why does the load only have 1 uncertainty?

Second, you mention the inaccuracies of the four VNA readings (two inaccuracies for each of the four readings, which I assume are the three readings for the SOL standards plus a fourth reading for the device-under-test). Could you please explain what these inaccuracies are and how one determines them?

Finally, how did you arrive at a Core Uncertainty of 26 error bounds? I can see how you calculate 13 (by adding 5 plus 8), but I do not understand why this value is then multiplied by 2.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards,

- Jeff, k6jca

Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd <drkirkby@...>
 

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 20:00, yza <yzaVNA@...> wrote:

19 : "true value" - also : @Dr. David Kirkby :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3207

Hello,

We both thank you very much for the time you spent
to compose such a lengthy reply, by which you definitely
assured us that you are really interested on this subject,

I am interested. As an undergraduate student I spent some of my time at a
calibration laboratory run by the Ministry of Defence in the UK. That
placement got me interested in metrology, so measurement uncertainly.
However, I am *not* a metrologist. I have an interest in the subject, but
are not an expert.


Core of Measurement Uncertainty in VNA/nanoVNA,
that is, for example, when he insists to force his mind
to be trapped by the conventional triplet of the
"standards" (S,L,O), instead of the most general
one of "loads" (A,B,C)
-
he has been warned.

I can assure you that I am *not* trapped into assuming that the calibration
standards need to be open, short & load. I have designed and sold waveguide
calibration kits, where it is totally impossible to make a “open “. In
fact, I wrote an explanation of why an open can not be used for waveguide
calibrations about a year ago. You almost certainly know why, but I will
post the link, hoping to convince you I am not stuck into this
open/short/load procedure, and perhaps it will be useful to others

https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/Support/FAQ/How-do-I-perform-waveguide-calibration/

However, I am trying to bring to your attention the fact that in the
English speaking world, your use of “loads (A, B, C)” is *very confusing.*
Many people will interpret that as meaning three resistive devices.
Instead I believe that you should use the term

“*calibration standards (A,B,C)”*

Personally, I would write something like

“calibration standards (A, B, C), where typically A, B and C are a short,
open and a load, but A, B & C can theoretically be any combination of
three devices which have a different reflection coefficient at every
frequency over which they are used“

Although I admit that it is longer to write, it has several advantages.

* It avoids the use of the word “loads” which is confusing in the English
language.
* Making a reference to the three calibration standards typically being a
short, open and load will help the reader understand more.
* Stating that theoretically the calibration standards can be any
combination of three devices having different reflection coefficients, will
educate some readers who may not know this.
* By stating that theoretically any combination of three devices can be
used, will allow you to address the problem I stated earlier, that if the
phase of the calibration standards are too similar, the calibration will be
poor.

I am really trying to help you, but unless you address some of my concerns,
in particular the need to write your work in one document that at least
some English speaking readers will be able to follow, I fear nobody on this
group will understand your work.

I have a Fortran compiler (gcc), and probably could compile your Fortran
code. However, I am not going to do this unless you can give me a clearer
explanation of the scope of your work.

Dave
--
Dr. David Kirkby,
Kirkby Microwave Ltd,
drkirkby@...
https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Telephone 01621-680100./ +44 1621 680100

Registered in England & Wales, company number 08914892.
Registered office:
Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United
Kingdom

 

22 : AnyVNA From The Common User's Point Of View :

A Practical Application of the Core Uncertainty Strips

Hello,

Allow us, please, to point out that, first of all, the Practical
Uses of the Core Uncertainty Strip(s) CUS(s) resulting from
AnyVNA system are limited only by the imagination of it's
Common User in Design, Prediction, Explanation,
Justification, Evaluation, or whatever else are his needs...

Anyway, since our Sole Objective here is the Evaluation
of NanoVNA, we begun yesterday our final trials
by using that one-port 50-OHM DC ref2007box,
for which we got its Core Uncertainty Strip(s) CUS(s)
using our VNA system:

[20] : Measurements with Core Uncertainty:
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3273

So, our aim was to put the Initial (R,X) calibrated
results of NanoVNA onto (R,X) CUS diagrams.
For that purpose, we built [ods] files by using the
Calc application of foss LibreOffice 4.1.0.4 and
we extracted the following resulting images:

A : Initial NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CUSs :

1 : R ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/R.init.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png
2 : X ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/X.init.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png

From these figures we concluded at once that
since the most of NanoVNA results were definitely
lie outside the CASs, this is due - perhaps -
to the unavoidably inserted N-to-SMA converter.

After that, and in order to somehow substantially support
this - guessed - conclusion, we "manipulated" the
NanoVNA results by mathematically transforming them
in such a way to put them inside the CUSs, as follows:

B : Initial (pink) and Transformed (red) NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CUSs :

3 : R ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/R.init-transf.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png
4 : X ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/X.init-transf.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png

Finally, in order to complete the "dirty manipulation of
data" we just "eliminated" the initial NanoVNA results
from the diagrams:

C : (red) (Transformed) NanoVNA results vs ref2007box CASs:

5: R ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/R.transf.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png
6: X ~ f : https://www.op4.eu/code/ref2007box/X.transf.ref2007box.vs.nanoVNA.c.yza.cc.by.4.0.png

In this way, we could - prematurely - concluded that the
NanoVNA is as much reliable as our VNA.

But, obviously, more work has to be done in the direction of
finding at last the NanoVNA CUSs.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

22

 

23 : On the Uncertainties of the "Standards" - Part I

@ Jeff Anderson : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3294

Hello,

Thank you very much for your most encouraging message !

We much appreciate your interest in our work - thank you.

We also thank you for your most valuable * s p e c i f i c *
inquiries regarding it, by which you give us the chance to
explain it, from a common user's point of view, facupov, as
we always try to do.

Regarding your first question:

JA : "... you mention that the S and O standards have 2
uncertainties each (while the load has 1 uncertainty).
How are you defining these uncertainties? "

- (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 : start -

allow us, please, to answer its last part as follows:

We are not defining the uncertainty of any "standard".

If the manufacturer of a "standard" is a decent one
then he defines its uncertainties, so we could reservedly
adopt it as a 'standard' and proceed in our measurements
with it.

A "standard" without uncertainties is nothing else than
a load with a nominal value, that is one named with a
value: e.g. a "standard" of 50 Ohm is just a load of which
its "true value" is somewhere near by 50 + j0 Ohm.

How much near by?

As much as it is defined by its manufacturer. If he did not
define how much it is, then we don't know how much.

In this, most reasonable way, we could reservedly adopt
as a 'standard' at DC any common resistor part on which
its manufacturer has put -usually by coded colors-
its nominal value in ohms and its tolerance as an
implicitly minus/plus percent of its nominal value in ohms,
that is : its nominal value and its uncertainty, e.g. as
47 Ohm and 10%, which results, instead of a single
"true value", in unaccountably many values, which they
lie between the lower value or bound of:

42.3 Ohm = - 10% x 47 + 47 Ohm = - 4.7 + 47 Ohm

and the upper value or bound of:

51.7 Ohm = 47 + 10% x 47 Ohm = 47 + 4.7 Ohm

or which they lie in the true closed interval of values

[ 42.3 , 51.7 ] Ohm

Therefore, allow us, please, to think that this example
is most than adequate to show the way in which the
Uncertainty is defined facupov for this resistor in DC:

This is exactly these two 2 values or two 2 errors in
the "true value" of 47 Ohm:

the lower error or value -4.7 Ohm and

the upper error or value of +4.7 Ohm

where, also notice that, please, in this case
these two 2 errors lie symmetrically to the
center value of 47 Ohm.

It is very important for our duty of supporting
the true -without putting it between double " "
or single quotation marks ' '- understanding
of our work to conclude the subject with this
"footnote":

This resistor can be also be considered as a
'standard' with a "true value" of 50 Ohm and
an uncertainty expressed by the two 2 error
bounds of -7.7 Ohm and +1.7 Ohm, for the
lower and upper ones, respectively, and
especially : non-symmetrically, simply because
its "true value" of 50 Ohm with its unsymmetrical
Uncertainty [ -7.7 , +1.7 ] Ohm results in exactly
the same invariant interval for the values of this
resistor : [ 42.3 , 51.7 ] Ohm, as it is defined by
the initial "true value" of 47 Ohm and its
symmetrical Uncertainty [ - 4.7 , + 4.7 ] Ohm.

Finally, a Warning Sign in capitals for the Common User:

THE DECENT MANUFACTURER HAS THE KINDNESS
TO SUPPLY THE UNCERTAINTY INFORMATION IN
ORDER TO BE USED BY THE COMMON USER

So, if either a "common user" feels happy or a Common
User feels unhappy when he ignores this uncertainty then
this is just another matter of taste - he has been warned.

- end : (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 -

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

Jeff Anderson
 

Dear gin&pez,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions.

I must apologize -- it is clear that my questions were too vague. I hope you will allow me to ask them in a clearer fashion.

To improve my understanding "facupov", I would like to understand:

1. For the Open and Short standards, in what terms (or parameters) do you define each standard's two uncertainties?

(I will note that Keysight (formally Agilent, formally Hewlett-Packard) defines the Open and Short uncertainties each in terms of a single parameter: angle of the Reflection Coefficient. How are your two parameters of uncertainty related to the manufacturer's definition of uncertainty in terms of a single parameter, Reflection Coefficient angle?)

2. For the Load standard, in what terms (or parameters) do you define its single uncertainty?

(I will note that Keysight defines its Load-standard uncertainties in terms of rho (rho being defined as the magnitude of the Reflection Coefficient). Therefore, the range of possible values for the Load can be pictured on a Smith Chart as being those values whose Reflection Coefficients are bounded by a circle, centered at 0,0, whose radius is rho. And so I would think that a Load would have two uncertainties, defined in terms of the magnitude and the angle of its Reflection Coefficient, rather than a single parameter of uncertainty.)

I hope my questions help you to understand why I am confused. Thank you again for taking the time to reply. I very much appreciate your efforts.

Best regards,

- Jeff, k6jca

 

- (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 : start -

24 : The Main Frame of a Possible Communication

There are three 3 Worlds.

The Physical World: Phenomena involving objects
which are created, existed, and destroyed.

The Subjective World: In order to explain and predict
the phenomena : Personal Ideas in correspondence
with those of the Physical World : objects with properties,
in relations, created, existed and destroyed.

The Objective World: The Common Sharable Subjective
World among more than one people.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

- end : (c) gin&pez@arg (cc-by-4.0) 2019 -

23

 

25 : The concept of Quantity today

Hello,

Our Objective World adopted * p a r t s * of the following:

VIM - International Vocabulary of Metrology
https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_pack_2012-10.zip
https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html

JCGM_200_2012.pdf - 4,024,384 bytes

Author : BIPM
Title: JCGM 200:2012 - International vocabulary of metrology -
Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM)
PDF Version : 1.6
Pages Count : 108

p.viii:

The present Vocabulary pertains to metrology, the “science of
measurement and its application”.

p.18 - Left Column

1.1 (1.1)
quantity
property of a phenomenon, body, or substance, where the property
has a magnitude that can be expressed as a number and a
reference

NOTE 2
A reference can be a measurement unit, a measurement procedure,
a reference material, or a combination of such.

After that, we put parentheses "( )" around the undefined terms
and square brackets around the defined terms in the above entries
of this very version of VIM, to get the following:

[quantity]
(property) of a : (phenomenon), (body), or (substance), where
the (property) has a (magnitude) that can be expressed as a
number and a [reference]

A [reference] can be a [measurement unit], a [measurement
procedure], a [reference (material)], or a combination of such.

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

25

 

26 : Correction of Maxima Version and "Unpacked" DERDEI Code

- also @Jose Luu : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3278 -

Hello,

Allow us, please, to inform you that, as we already promised at:

21 : The Mathematica Code and the Unpacked DERDEI Code :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3290

we just uploaded the new, "unpacked" version of DERDEI at:
https://www.op4.eu/code/DERDEI20191001.7z

Also allow us, please, to inform, facupov, the interested
Common User that in order to avoid unnecessary
complications, he has to take into account the following:

(0.a/b) As it is detailed in the messages:

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Maxima 5.38.1 64 bit build Windows
From: <petrosez@gm...> - 2016-06-13 11:18:29
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/35155308/

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Maxima 5.38.1 64 bit build Windows
From: Gunter Königsmann <gunter@pe...> - 2016-06-14 06:44:35
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/35157219/

the version 5.38.1 of [maxima] requires a bunch of hard to
follow instructions for installation under wxpp32 or wxpp64.

Therefore, we * e r r o n e o u s l y * suggested, what we had
avoid to say, about this installation at:

2 : yza, Sep 21, 2019 : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/2802

and thus he should install the last * f u l l y * working 32-bit version
5.36.1 of [maxima] with [sbcl]:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/files/Maxima-Windows/5.36.1-Windows/maxima-sbcl-5.36.1.exe/download

We are terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Please accept our apologies.

(0.b/b) Note: He may need to also do the following:

|Start|Settings|Control Panel|System|Advanced|Performance|Data
Execution Prevention|(o) Turn on DEP for all programs and
services except those I select:|Add|{X:\}{wxpp32}Program Files\
or{wxpp64}Program Files (x86)\Maxima-sbcl-5.36.1\bin\sbcl.exe|
|Open|

(1) He should unzip [DERDEI20191001.7z] to the default
folder with name: [DERDEI20191001], in the root folder of a drive,
which, if it is different than of our [K:], lets say [X:], then he has
to edit [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC] and
in the multi-lines beginning with /*10*/ up to /*15/ to replace
every occurrence of K: by X:

(2) He should skip | ignore any instructions given in the
Documentation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230625676_Complex_Differential_Error_Regions_Software_Tools

regarding the file: [functions.txt], because all the contents of this file
are now embedded into: [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC]
at the aforementioned lines, and thus he should also ignore
completely the file: [useless-MC-embedded-functions.txt],
which was included into [DERDEI20191001.7z] just for the shake
of completeness

(3) He may execute sequentially, the 15 multi-line commands by
Copy-Paste into [XMAxima] and Enter them one-by-one

(4) He may omit the just informative multi-line commands
beginning with: /*2*/, /*4*/, /*6*/, and /*8*/

(5) If he likes, then in just three 3 steps he can: (I) copy
the whole content of [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC],
then: (II) paste them to [maxima], and finally: (III) run it fully.

(6) He may want to change the way in which the six 6 graphics
windows are presented by [gnuplot] and to select between the
"cascading" way, in which each window has to be closed, in order
to appear the next one, or the simultaneous one, by following
the instructions provided by the [Maxima 5.36.0 Manual: 12.
Plotting][12.3 Functions and Variables for Plotting][System
variable: gnuplot_view_args]:

"In Windows versions of Gnuplot older than 4.6.3 the behavior of
"~s -" and "-persist ~s" were the opposite; namely, "-persist
~s" made the plot window and the gnuplot interactive shell
remain, while "~s -" closed the gnuplot shell keeping the plot
window. Therefore, when older gnuplot versions are used in
Windows, it might be necessary to adjust the value of
gnuplot_view_args."

(7) If he is indeed a [mathematica] user, then it is up to him to
transfer -more-or-less "easily"- the graphics commands in the
remaining just four 4 [maxima] multi-line commands beginning
with: /*3*/, /*5*/, /*7*/, and /*9*/, to [mathematica], because:
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/

"Macsyma" [maxima] "was revolutionary in its day, and many later
systems, such as Maple and Mathematica, were inspired by it"
-
at least, if not much more, more than that...

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

26

Jose Luu
 

Hello gin&pez

I installed maxima and ran the visualizer, it worked OK giving the expected
figures.
I have also taken a look at the fortran code, and I am not done yet, it is
difficult to read
as it is written in strict fortran 77 using the 6 character variable names.
Such short variable
names makes it difficult (for about 20% of the names) to understand the
intent of the variable or function.
You may consider using longer variable names as 32 character variables
names are supported in
watcom fortran 2.0 (not sure for 1.9) and 31 character variable names in
the fortran 90 standard and gnu fortran.
You may also consider indenting the loops and conditionals to ease reading.

Regards
Jose

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:47 PM yza <yzaVNA@...> wrote:

26 : Correction of Maxima Version and "Unpacked" DERDEI Code

- also @Jose Luu : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3278 -

Hello,

Allow us, please, to inform you that, as we already promised at:

21 : The Mathematica Code and the Unpacked DERDEI Code :
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3290

we just uploaded the new, "unpacked" version of DERDEI at:
https://www.op4.eu/code/DERDEI20191001.7z

Also allow us, please, to inform, facupov, the interested
Common User that in order to avoid unnecessary
complications, he has to take into account the following:

(0.a/b) As it is detailed in the messages:

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Maxima 5.38.1 64 bit build Windows
From: <petrosez@gm...> - 2016-06-13 11:18:29
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/35155308/

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Maxima 5.38.1 64 bit build Windows
From: Gunter Königsmann <gunter@pe...> - 2016-06-14 06:44:35
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/35157219/

the version 5.38.1 of [maxima] requires a bunch of hard to
follow instructions for installation under wxpp32 or wxpp64.

Therefore, we * e r r o n e o u s l y * suggested, what we had
avoid to say, about this installation at:

2 : yza, Sep 21, 2019 : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/2802

and thus he should install the last * f u l l y * working 32-bit version
5.36.1 of [maxima] with [sbcl]:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/files/Maxima-Windows/5.36.1-Windows/maxima-sbcl-5.36.1.exe/download

We are terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Please accept our apologies.

(0.b/b) Note: He may need to also do the following:

|Start|Settings|Control Panel|System|Advanced|Performance|Data
Execution Prevention|(o) Turn on DEP for all programs and
services except those I select:|Add|{X:\}{wxpp32}Program Files\
or{wxpp64}Program Files (x86)\Maxima-sbcl-5.36.1\bin\sbcl.exe|
|Open|

(1) He should unzip [DERDEI20191001.7z] to the default
folder with name: [DERDEI20191001], in the root folder of a drive,
which, if it is different than of our [K:], lets say [X:], then he has
to edit [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC] and
in the multi-lines beginning with /*10*/ up to /*15/ to replace
every occurrence of K: by X:

(2) He should skip | ignore any instructions given in the
Documentation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230625676_Complex_Differential_Error_Regions_Software_Tools

regarding the file: [functions.txt], because all the contents of this file
are now embedded into: [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC]
at the aforementioned lines, and thus he should also ignore
completely the file: [useless-MC-embedded-functions.txt],
which was included into [DERDEI20191001.7z] just for the shake
of completeness

(3) He may execute sequentially, the 15 multi-line commands by
Copy-Paste into [XMAxima] and Enter them one-by-one

(4) He may omit the just informative multi-line commands
beginning with: /*2*/, /*4*/, /*6*/, and /*8*/

(5) If he likes, then in just three 3 steps he can: (I) copy
the whole content of [DERDEI-unpacked_20191001-600-1000.MC],
then: (II) paste them to [maxima], and finally: (III) run it fully.

(6) He may want to change the way in which the six 6 graphics
windows are presented by [gnuplot] and to select between the
"cascading" way, in which each window has to be closed, in order
to appear the next one, or the simultaneous one, by following
the instructions provided by the [Maxima 5.36.0 Manual: 12.
Plotting][12.3 Functions and Variables for Plotting][System
variable: gnuplot_view_args]:

"In Windows versions of Gnuplot older than 4.6.3 the behavior of
"~s -" and "-persist ~s" were the opposite; namely, "-persist
~s" made the plot window and the gnuplot interactive shell
remain, while "~s -" closed the gnuplot shell keeping the plot
window. Therefore, when older gnuplot versions are used in
Windows, it might be necessary to adjust the value of
gnuplot_view_args."

(7) If he is indeed a [mathematica] user, then it is up to him to
transfer -more-or-less "easily"- the graphics commands in the
remaining just four 4 [maxima] multi-line commands beginning
with: /*3*/, /*5*/, /*7*/, and /*9*/, to [mathematica], because:
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/

"Macsyma" [maxima] "was revolutionary in its day, and many later
systems, such as Maple and Mathematica, were inspired by it"
-
at least, if not much more, more than that...

Sincerely,

gin&pez@arg

26



 

27 : Reproduction of (REGION , DEREDEI) Results and Graphics

@Jose Luu : https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3812

Hello Jose,

Thank you very much for your proved interest on our work.

Your message contents are really Great News for our Objective World !

Now, regarding the restricted - up to 6 characters long, with capital
letters only - names of our variables, we can assure that we tried hard
to conform ourselves with the requirements of FORTRAN IV without
any extension, in order to make possible for our REGION program
to be compiled and run under as much environments as is possible

Nevertheless, from what you report we conclude that it may worth to
look again into the current state of progress of openwatcom V2 fork.
Thank you.

And by the way, a word of clarification regarding our instructions at:

26 : Correction of Maxima Version and "Unpacked" DERDEI Code
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3770

Because of the existing restrictions in [maxima] GUI, it is not possible
at all for the interested reader to Copy-and-Paste using his mouse all
the way, so he has to use the key-combinations: [Ctrl][C]-and-[Ctrl][V].

Finally, allow us, please, to motivate you, as well as, any other interested
reader, to try our /F/L/O/S/S/ on your measurements. One, of the many,
possible use is to construct your real standard load with Nominal Value
and Core Uncertainty depending in an * e x p l i c i t l y * k n o w n * way
on the frequency - that is as we have already done with our ref2007box:

22 : AnyVNA From The Common User's Point Of View :
A Practical Application of the Core Uncertainty Strips
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/3340

Who can ask more than that ?

Best regards,

Nikolitsa OE3ZGN|SV7DMC and Petros OE3ZZP|SV7BAX

27