Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • $\begingroup$ Why not just connect one port of the the NanoVNA to the two antennas, and measure S21 over the range of likely VUHF transmit frequencies. 50 W is 47 dBm so you need S21 to be <-47 dB which is within the dynamic range of a NanoVNA. I agree about the LPF, that's good practice. And about the unpredictability, you can't have the EFHW blowing in the wind later. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2025 at 3:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @tomnexus The receive antenna will pick up strong broadcast and other signals besides the signal from the VNA and the measurement dynamic range and the noise floor will be impacted. That technique may work in some cases but I would not trust it unless verified by more reliable means.. and in that case may not provide useful info in this scenario where the quantity needed is simply |S21| only. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2025 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ “lousy” -> “lossy”? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2025 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ 49:1 transformers have a poor match, a transformation ratio deviation, and increased loss at higher frequencies. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 7, 2025 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for all your input. I will try an insertion loss measurement with the nanoVNA, but more out of interest than as a hard and fast solution. The LPF seems like the best solution for me. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2025 at 10:22