Author Topic: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?  (Read 46244 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrey_irk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: ru
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #175 on: July 31, 2018, 01:33:09 am »
G0HZU,
Ah, now I see what you mean.
I guess so but I don't know if a VNA would interpret this as a 51.1R resistor with a 50R Zo delay or as a 51.1R resistor with a 51.1R delay.
I think if you leave the load connected after calibration and take a look at the smith chart you'll see how it interprets the 51.1R load. Anyway, in E5071? for instance? you can set offet Zo, impedance value and even offset loss. Although if you want to specify load impedance that is not 50R, then it will be a different standard - arbitary impedance. And I don't know if there are any limitations with using this kind of standards instead of usual loads.

 

Offline Andrey_irk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Country: ru
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #176 on: July 31, 2018, 01:40:20 am »
Still, I understand that it is not difficult to measure LF impedance, but I don't know if it'll give a real benefit. Maybe Dr. Kirkby calculated all the errors and realized that it really doesn't worth it (to some extend of course). Maybe the noise floor is much higher.
 

Offline mark03

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: us
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #177 on: June 10, 2019, 01:09:53 am »
Can't you enter the reference impedance value in the VNA settings and call it a day. Not all VNAs may have that setting changeable though.

Yes, at least on my VNA (Agilent 4396B) the "arbitrary impedance" standard type has the usual offset parameters (delay, loss, Z0), then a separate termination impedance.

I found this necessary to accurately model my own DIY set of female SMA standards.  The professional cal kit I borrowed (a Copper Mountain S911) is spec'ed at better than 38 dB return loss from DC to 9 GHz.  The [measured by me] DC resistance is 50.8 ohms, which is still in spec, but makes LF measurements less accurate than they ought to be.  I couldn't figure out why my DIY load was measuring at ~ 49.2 ohms on the VNA, all the way down to 1 MHz, when I had measured its DC resistance at 50.0 ohms on my DMM :-DD

I guess the moral of the story is that some cal kits (not just Kirkby) are really focused on microwave performance where 40 dB return loss is pretty good, and it's mostly weirdos like ham-radio people who care about LF accuracy, so if you are one of those people it's worth measuring the DC resistance and using that up to ~100 (?) MHz.  Unless you have access to higher-end kits like G0HZU ;)
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #178 on: November 13, 2020, 10:38:32 am »
Hi, is the suggested :
https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=66_68_69&product_id=50
Kit useable for up to 3.2GHz im thinking abaout buying / hacking a SSA3021X-Plus but additional >>100€ for a calkit is said, the SSA is expensive enough for me..?
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #179 on: November 13, 2020, 12:28:08 pm »
SSA3021X-Plus is hackable up to SVA1032X
Than it is a VNA.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 02:02:11 pm by Noy »
 
The following users thanked this post: Mechatrommer

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28383
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #180 on: November 13, 2020, 06:42:50 pm »
Hi, is the suggested :
https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=66_68_69&product_id=50
Kit useable for up to 3.2GHz im thinking abaout buying / hacking a SSA3021X-Plus but additional >>100€ for a calkit is said, the SSA is expensive enough for me..?
Likely to be quite good enough for most measurements.
Doing a Cal with other than kits listed in the Cal menu you need save the file to the SVA file system and then apply it as a Correction.
All simple enough once you get your head around the process/method.

Looking forward to seeing your measurements.  :)
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
Siglent Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SiglentVideo/videos
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #181 on: November 13, 2020, 08:36:06 pm »
 Is there a list which "official" calkits are supported from the cal menu?

Sometimes i think tautech is an inoffical siglent fae crew account (multiple fae behind this account..) or maybe a very smart siglent bot / KI.. :-D so many posts in so many threads where do you work beside posting ? :-D
« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 08:38:40 pm by Noy »
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28383
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #182 on: November 14, 2020, 01:38:45 am »
Is there a list which "official" calkits are supported from the cal menu?
The Siglent Cal kits of course are all supported plus the crossover ones listed in this document:
https://siglentna.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Mechanical-Calibration-Kit-Datasheet.pdf
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
Siglent Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SiglentVideo/videos
 

Offline hendorog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1617
  • Country: nz
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #183 on: November 14, 2020, 08:18:30 pm »
Is there a list which "official" calkits are supported from the cal menu?

Sometimes i think tautech is an inoffical siglent fae crew account (multiple fae behind this account..) or maybe a very smart siglent bot / KI.. :-D so many posts in so many threads where do you work beside posting ? :-D

He's definitely a bot. But a fully mechanical one. IC's weren't invented when he was built.

The Tauturk.
 
The following users thanked this post: tautech

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #184 on: November 18, 2020, 10:35:57 pm »
Is it worth to pay the "extra" for the SDR Kits Calkit (box, load measurment, male male Adapter) instead of buying the parts as "single" from Mouser?
Refering to:
http://www.hhft.de/index.php?page=competences&subpage=calibration

Mouser: 56€ + 16% vat inkl. shipping
SDR Kit : 75€ inkl. Vat + shipping (85€ total)

I think same parts and i think the only measured thing from SDR kits is resistive load resistor..
I can do this also with 4 wire measurment with my fluke8840a or?
Or are there more measurment done by them?

Male - male Adapter is sure also available from Mouser (didnt searched , not sure if i need this one...)

Suggestions??

« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 07:17:09 am by Noy »
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28383
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #185 on: November 19, 2020, 07:29:46 am »
Is it worth to pay the "extra" for the SDR Kits Calkit (box, load measurment, male male Adapter) instead of buying the parts as "single" from Mouser?
Refering to:
http://www.hhft.de/index.php?page=competences&subpage=calibration

Mouser: 56€ + 16% vat inkl. shipping
SDR Kit : 75€ inkl. Vat + shipping (85€ total)

I think same parts and i think the only measured thing from SDR kits is resistive load resistor..
I can do this also with 4 wire measurment with my fluke8840a or?
Or are there more measurment done by them?

Male - male Adapter is sure also available from Mouser (didnt searched , not sure if i need this one...)

Suggestions??
SOL are the minimum you need and some kits also come with a through but they are all rated to a max frequency and when swept to that frequency there must be little change across the full range.
You can sorta cobble a set together but good results are tricky to achieve as I found out trying to make some on the cheap for myself.  :(
In the end I sucked it up and bought a $400 SMA Cal kit.  :scared:
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
Siglent Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SiglentVideo/videos
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #186 on: November 19, 2020, 07:31:18 am »
Is it worth to pay the "extra" for the SDR Kits Calkit (box, load measurment, male male Adapter) instead of buying the parts as "single" from Mouser?
Refering to:http://www.hhft.de/index.php?page=competences&subpage=calibration
well without providing CAL kit coefficients or s1p profiles, there is not such thing as even "Kirkby alternative", you can buy whatever cal kit you want and be happy about it, you can even make your own its doesnt matter. you can do the "inverse" or "reverse" profiling from whatever s1p/s2p plot from your VNA. if you care about Load quality that we all can measure with any DMM, you can get from already mentioned brand such as Rosenberger or whatever name they are you can browse the thread. or better, buy few Loads and hand pick which one is the closest to absolute "Fifty Ohms" and still cheaper compared to any knock off or "Kirkby alternative" buzzed/advertised as "CAL kit" out there (you can already have few terminations to test things such as 2/3/4/5 50 ohm signal splitter etc you are going to need it today or 10 years from now). you may get cheaper than your mentioned Mouser or SDR-kit's CAL kit at $50 and get a free (NanoVNA V2+ with decent quality 50ohm Zo SMA pigtail cables) if you buy from Tindie... or $4 this

just look closely from the link you gave about these facts...
Quote
Match / Load (female):
    Offset Length: 0 mm
    C-coefficients: all = 0 F / Hz
    L-coefficients: all = 0 H / Hz

Short (female):
    C-Coefficients: all = 0 F / Hz
    L-Coefficients: all = 0 H / Hz

Open (female):
    C-Coefficients: all = 0 F / Hz
    L-Coefficients: all = 0 H / Hz

Thru (female / female):
    Offset Length: 0 mm (The reference plane lies in the middle of the thru-connection)
this is what we call... Ideal Calibration Standard, even HP $20K CAL kit cant achieve this in reality. offset length can be measured physically with caliper, one eye closed and tongue at the right angle. electrical one way trip can be observed from VNA plot/TDR and punch the figure into the formula to get dielectric constant and hence "electrical length" aka "offset length". the deal here is to get 3rd degree polynomial approximation for those Cn and Ln up to whatever BW you are interested in, maybe those are negligible up to say 3-6GHz? i dont know. if someone can figure that out from "reverse" characterization from even a cheap VNA like NanoVNA alone, there is no reason to buy from Kirkby or HP at all, they should not be even mentioned in the first place, and there should not be any comparison to or no such thing as "Kirkby alternative" at all... $4 CAL kit is what we should look after if we dont care about polynomials, ymmv. cheers.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 08:08:43 am by Mechatrommer »
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 
The following users thanked this post: tautech

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #187 on: November 19, 2020, 08:04:20 am »
There are more informations available:
https://www.sdr-kits.net/documents/Rosenberger_Female_Cal_Standards_rev5.pdf

So because they are "standard" Rosenberger types i think these informations are also true for the "single buy" mouser parts.

SDR-Kits are using the same parts like stated on the website. But I#m unsure if SDR-Kits are measuring anything "more" than the 50 Ohm impedance and write this value on top of the box...

If this is all there is no need to pay the "extra" if its only a small wood box...

This is what i mean. I think rosenberger parts are way more "true" even with this provided sheet against these cheap china parts (i already have delock 12GHz N->SMA Adapters, some decent SS405 2x (20cm) / 2x RG405 (1m) and some (10x 20cm / 2x 1m) RG316 cables for up to 3.2GHz (hopefully) also RG58 with bnc but these are <<1GHz useabel..) And all kind of "cheaper" SMA adaptors. Only a calkit with "stated true" things is missing (beside the china stuff) but 400$ if the whole VNA was only 1600€ is for hobby use a bit too much. So the rosenberger parts are (i think for hobby use) best bang/buck? And since i will not go higher than the 3.2GHz i think its sufficiant?

But I'm new to this stuff so i will need an advice.

 
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 08:07:55 am by Noy »
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28383
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #188 on: November 19, 2020, 08:14:00 am »
There are more informations available:
https://www.sdr-kits.net/documents/Rosenberger_Female_Cal_Standards_rev5.pdf

So because they are "standard" Rosenberger types i think these informations are also true for the "single buy" mouser parts.

SDR-Kits are using the same parts like stated on the website. But I#m unsure if SDR-Kits are measuring anything "more" than the 50 Ohm impedance and write this value on top of the box...

If this is all there is no need to pay the "extra" if its only a small wood box...

This is what i mean. I think rosenberger parts are way more "true" even with this provided sheet against these cheap china parts (i already have delock 12GHz N->SMA Adapters, some decent SS405 2x (20cm) / 2x RG405 (1m) and some (10x 20cm / 2x 1m) RG316 cables for up to 3.2GHz (hopefully) also RG58 with bnc but these are <<1GHz useabel..) And all kind of "cheaper" SMA adaptors. Only a calkit with "stated true" things is missing (beside the china stuff) but 400$ if the whole VNA was only 1600€ is for hobby use a bit too much. So the rosenberger parts are (i think for hobby use) best bang/buck? And since i will not go higher than the 3.2GHz i think its sufficiant?

But I'm new to this stuff so i will need an advice.
See what they're really like when you sweep them.
I played around with a SMA load member hendorog gave me which he said measured quite reasonable with his HPAK and SH VNA's and it was pretty good on my SVA1032X however his Kirkby Cal kit was somewhat better.
IIRC I've posted some sweeps in the SVA thread, go have a peep.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
Siglent Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SiglentVideo/videos
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #189 on: November 19, 2020, 08:34:39 am »
afaik, they can only gather research on nice appearance "butt plug" for open or short etc and save your time from calculating offset (mean) length and collect/put them in a nice wooden box and possibly do the "comparative/relative" quality check to their more pricey CAL Std (you can ask them what, i dont know). those are worth the price increase if you can appreciate that. but the cost for characterization is another thing. individual/unique coefficients/character profile files for your kit and getting a nice calibrated equipments (aka expensive) to get a reasonable transferable standard worth that another cost.

But I'm new to this stuff so i will need an advice.
See what they're really like when you sweep them.
compared to what? i can make a sloppy diy cal kit and make them flat to 6GHz on a VNA with zero offset everythings. one clue though to see a good LOAD without relative comparison is its return loss, but its real impedance and esp for OPEN and SHORT... you can be happy about anything.
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #190 on: November 19, 2020, 10:38:59 am »
There are more informations available:
https://www.sdr-kits.net/documents/Rosenberger_Female_Cal_Standards_rev5.pdf
i just noticed they use Thru as Open, to cut corner maybe? thats funny, as i read somewhere, the Open need to be shielded to reduce nasty/random "fringing capacitance" effect. you can download plenty of "Basics of VNA" and "Calibration Standard" materials esp good materials/appnotes from HP/Keysight and learn as you go, i'm also still learning, there are lots of things and maths to learn in this arena. :phew:
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #191 on: November 19, 2020, 10:52:07 am »
So basically put a cheap china "open" on the other side of "thru" to close the shield?
 

Online switchabl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #192 on: November 19, 2020, 11:37:09 am »
So a lot of things to unpick here:
- The kit from SDR kits is really just the normal Rosenberger parts with a box and a 4-wire resistance measurement. I seem to recall that the price on Mouser was around the same, but if you can get them cheaper elsewhere now, no reason to pay more.

- The offset lengths given by HHFT and Kurt Poulsen contain the first capacitance/inductance term (C0/L0), which really just gives a delay. You cannot derive them from a mechanical measurement. You also cannot measure them on a VNA without calibrating it first against known standards.

- I have seen some measurements on a lab-grade VNA of the open and short and they didn't look bad to 5GHz+. The measurements shown on the HHFT page are probably not a bad indication of what to expect. On the plots they show, the performance >3GHz seems to be limited mostly by the load.

- The mechanical dimensions of the parts are probably quite precise, but the properties of the PTFE dielectric will vary from batch to batch. So if you need a more accurate characterization (with higher-order capacitance terms), you would really need to measure each one individually (like Kirkby does). Or use 3.5mm parts with air-dielectric (like Keysight, Spinner, Maury Microwave or the proper Rosenberger cal-kits). Those are very consistent and the RF properties can essentially be calculated from the CAD model.

- I would recommend against putting a male cap on the female thru used for open calibration. The fringing capacitance is already factored into the offset delay and is likely to increase (slightly) with a cap. The point of shielding the open is mainly to prevent radiative loss, but even on a male SMA (which essentially has a tiny antenna if left open), this isn't really an issue until at least 5-6GHz.

- The load has a relatively large tolerance (all of those cheap general purpose loads have). It is only guaranteed to have >26.4dB return loss above 2GHz. In reality, most will be a lot better than that but don't rely on it. At low frequencies, the main contribution is the tolerance of the resistive film, so selecting by DC resistance is not a bad start if you have several. Entering the DC resistance as a parameter is usually also better than not (at least to 2-3GHz), but keep in mind there is also a short piece of transmission line between the connector and the resistive film, so changes in the resistance don't translate into a purely real impedance change at higher frequencies. If you buy separately, any 12-18GHz female load from Minicircuits, Huber+Suhner, Telegärtner etc will be very similar, in case you can find some of those cheaper.

- Buying a pack of cheap random loads on eBay and selecting those by DC resistance may end in disappointment. Some of those have really poor RF properties and even if you find one with 50.00Ohms at DC, it may be way off at a couple hundred MHz, let alone a couple of GHz. Buying cheap RF parts of unknown providence is risky business in general. Mechanical tolerances may be off and it's easy to damage a good connector by mating it with a bad one. So inspect carefully, keep questionable parts separately and don't connect them to expensive instruments/parts. Use some sacrificial adapters or cables in between. Never use male SMA connectors where you cannot rotate the barrel separately from the center pin (like in some cheap "calkits"). That is a sure way to eventually ruin the mating female connector.

Overall, if you are looking for something cheap for non-critical measurements, the Rosenberger kit is probably your best option. It will not give you the confidence and accuracy of a proper calkit, but you get quality parts (mechanically) and to 2-3GHz performance will likely be respectable. It is also a female kit, which is likely the more useful one if you are getting just one. I don't know why all the cheap NanoVNAs all come with male ones.

I am a bit more sceptical about their male kit. Like I said above, the male open cap doesn't really do much at low frequencies anyway, so the open measurement will depend more on your test connector than on the calkit.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 12:09:19 pm by switchabl »
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #193 on: November 19, 2020, 12:21:05 pm »
So basically put a cheap china "open" on the other side of "thru" to close the shield?
as i said it does not matter actually if we dont care about polynomials. but my thought is, if they want to sell a nice cal kit set, why they let us to go to trouble to buy separate shielded Open? maybe it will cost them only extra $1.

You cannot derive them from a mechanical measurement. You also cannot measure them on a VNA without calibrating it first against known standards.
exactly my point in some of my earlier posts in the other threads too. but well, its not like the end of the world if we dont have a characterized CAL kit, it will not prohibit us from happy go learning. later i will look into how good a VNA can de-embed fixtures such as pcb, say if we want to probe at the very tip of smd components pad, i've been doing this for sometime by omitting cal parm and offsets, ie leave them all to 0, i will evaluate if my method is correct or what.

Never use male SMA connectors where you cannot rotate the barrel separately from the center pin (like in some cheap "calkits"). That is a sure way to eventually ruin the mating female connector.
yes agreed. this one point that i didnt highlight but it can be a concern if you try to mate with expensive equipment or cable. so from this point of view, NanoVNA's short and the $4 kit i linked are bad. but since my KC901V is using cheap sacrificial N-sma, and NanoVNA is using equally cheap female sma connector, this is not really an issue imho, and i usually use cables that are male connectors, so they wont mate with those solid Short male directly, a thru will become sacrificial.

Buying a pack of cheap random loads on eBay and selecting those by DC resistance may end in disappointment. Some of those have really poor RF properties and even if you find one with 50.00Ohms at DC, it may be way off at a couple hundred MHz,
agreed too as this is what i found out with a couple of Loads/terminators i bought from china (not meant for CAL kit). but to know this, you need a good CAL kit in the first place.

I don't know why all the cheap NanoVNAs all come with male ones.
because the Nano has female input? or they figured it is better (more configurable) and they dont have to provide M-M thru. male cal kit can always be connected to F-F thru to get female version. i find F-F thru is inevitable and i very seldomly reach for M-M thru version.
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #194 on: November 19, 2020, 12:48:29 pm »

I don't know why all the cheap NanoVNAs all come with male ones.
because the Nano has female input? or they figured it is better (more configurable) and they dont have to provide M-M thru. male cal kit can always be connected to F-F thru to get female version. i find F-F thru is inevitable and i very seldomly reach for M-M thru version.
[/quote]

Sure, but normally i thought you will also calibrate your used cables out or not ??

A decent / cheap "Calkit" for < 4-6 Ghz would be nice. All the expensive calkits are already up to >>10GHz which is not needed for "cheap" VNAs like siglent ones which are only up to 3.2GHz. Why aren't there affordable ones for less than <150€ with measured values?

 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #195 on: November 19, 2020, 01:08:47 pm »
All the expensive calkits are already up to >>10GHz which is not needed for "cheap" VNAs like siglent ones which are only up to 3.2GHz. Why aren't there affordable ones for less than <150€ with measured values?
Kirkby SMA kits thats advertised as 6GHz are specified to 12GHz using 20GHz calibrated HP VNA, dont ask the CAL kit he uses as The Reference. to convincingly rate a kit to 3GHz, you may want to specify to like what? 4-6GHz? using calibrated reputable brand VNA like HP/Agilent/Keysight, that is still expensive investment, dont ever call them to quote for the CAL kit alone we'll come back in shame, to get the idea, check on used (out of spec) market in ebay. if target customers are hobbiests, its sad hobbiest always aim for cheap price (me included), making this unpleasant business to venture. going to companies and universities, they will tend to go beyond 10GHz with todays 5G age. so you could end up with an expensive piece of paperweight on your desk without return profit. among all, most of Kirkby's customers are universities and professors thats impressed by him. we dont go into the know-how knowledge yet for the reliable calibration/verification process. inside the usb drive of CAL kit profiles, Kirkby included bunches of app notes relating to his work (i guess free non copyrighted) materials mostly from HP, i think i've only read one or two of the materials.
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Online switchabl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #196 on: November 19, 2020, 01:13:48 pm »
as i said it does not matter actually if we dont care about polynomials. but my thought is, if they want to sell a nice cal kit set, why they let us to go to trouble to buy separate shielded Open? maybe it will cost them only extra $1.
Because it makes very little difference and if it does, it will likely make the performance slightly worse. Shielding an open standard does not help against fringing capacitance, it introduces more of it. If you think about it, the dust cap is essentially one plate of a capacitor. The same is true with these cheap male "calkits": don't bother with the open "standard", just leave the connector open. Use dustcaps to protect from dust, not for calibration.

I hasten to add that of course a properly designed open standard for higher frequencies should be shielded (and some care goes into doing it in a way that capacitance is reduced), because the open connector eventually becomes an antenna otherwise. But we are talking 5-6GHz+ there.

I don't know why all the cheap NanoVNAs all come with male ones.
because the Nano has female input? or they figured it is better (more configurable) and they dont have to provide M-M thru. male cal kit can always be connected to F-F thru to get female version. i find F-F thru is inevitable and i very seldomly reach for M-M thru version.
Yes, the test port is (usually) female, but then most often there is a M-M test cable to connect to the DUT. And you really should calibrate at the end of the cable, not at the VNA port. "Converting" a cal kit with a F-F adapter will degrade performance significantly.

A decent / cheap "Calkit" for < 4-6 Ghz would be nice. All the expensive calkits are already up to >>10GHz which is not needed for "cheap" VNAs like siglent ones which are only up to 3.2GHz. Why aren't there affordable ones for less than <150€ with measured values?
As you can see from the Rosenberger kit, the individual parts are not exactly free even without the characterization (if you want reliable parts from a reputable brand). And that is re-purposing jelly-bean parts like a thru for an open. Having a purpose-built open standard made in the really low volume we are talking about would be prohibitively expensive. And then you need an expensive VNA with a reference cal kit, pay for regular calibration and maintenance and pay for the lab technician who actually does the measurements.
 

Offline Noy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 361
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #197 on: November 19, 2020, 01:24:46 pm »

[/quote]
As you can see from the Rosenberger kit, the individual parts are not exactly free even without the characterization (if you want reliable parts from a reputable brand). And that is re-purposing jelly-bean parts like a thru for an open. Having a purpose-built open standard made in the really low volume we are talking about would be prohibitively expensive. And then you need an expensive VNA with a reference cal kit, pay for regular calibration and maintenance and pay for the lab technician who actually does the measurements.
[/quote]

For sure, i thought something like "calibrated" VNA with a "pogo plug SMA" and a machine putting it on the pogo plug, measure the value write it down into an excelsheet and throw away, put the next onto the pogo plugs.. something like that. "Fully automized" than calkits with SMA for <6GHz would be cheaper...
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11653
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #198 on: November 19, 2020, 01:35:23 pm »
"Converting" a cal kit with a F-F adapter will degrade performance significantly.
imho no, except with extra effort to screw unscrew for connection and reduce usable life of the connectors. with good continuity/connectivity and good quality 50 ohm Zo thru, connecting to Open and Short will only increase its offset length, the rest of parameters are still the same. connecting to a good Load will still appear 50 ohm to the VNA. but well, this is true given the CAL set is of descent quality, if not, even a SMA cable or the sacrificial adapter connected to your VNA can look funny. this can quite visible beyond 3GHz and much lower with nonsense hunglow grade. ymmv.
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Online switchabl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: de
Re: Kirkby calibration kit alternatives?
« Reply #199 on: November 19, 2020, 01:35:52 pm »
For sure, i thought something like "calibrated" VNA with a "pogo plug SMA" and a machine putting it on the pogo plug, measure the value write it down into an excelsheet and throw away, put the next onto the pogo plugs.. something like that. "Fully automized" than calkits with SMA for <6GHz would be cheaper...

Ha, unfortunately, that won't work. There are some "snap-on" RF connectors, but they won't mate with SMA. Especially for calibration purposes, there is just no way around properly tightening it to a matching connector (with a torque wrench).

Also, even if it were technically feasible, how many of those do you think you could sell? This is a tiny market.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 01:41:00 pm by switchabl »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf