Summary for people like me.... IT DOESN'T MATTER.
73
Charles Harpole
k4vud@hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:08:25 +0000
> From: david.kirkby@onetel.net
> CC: amps@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Amps] All the recent UHF connector discussion
>
> On 13 November 2013 22:45, Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I had made some UHF connector measurements recently and this discussion
> > encouraged me to publish them.
> >
> > If interested see
> > http://www.w0qe.com/Technical_Topics/uhf_connector_compensation.html
> >
> > 73,
> > Larry, W0QE
>
> Larry,
> I'm not a fan of UHF connectors, but your article was interesting, but
> there are a few things I don't understand.
>
> 1) You don't describe how you calibrated the VNA which is not so easy
> with PL259 as I'm not aware of any cal kits!
>
> It looks to me like you have the open, short and load from an Agilent
> 85033E 3.5 mm cal kit in the picture, with BNC adapters on them. But
> if they are present when the calibration of the VNA is performed, the
> error correction will not be correct, as the offset delays of all the
> standards will be increased dramatically.
>
> From memory the offset delays of the opens and short in that kit are
> around the 30 to 32 ps, but your adapters will probably add double
> that, so all the error correction wil be wrong.
>
> 2) Assuming you got a valid calibration, again there is no mention of
> the effect of the BNC to SMA adapters. But if the calibration is not
> valid, it changes things a lot.
>
>
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|