56th ARFTG Conference Digest 2000
DOI: 10.1109/arftg.2000.327429
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating and expressing uncertainty in complex S-parameter measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This computation is applied separately to both the real and imaginary components of the complex-valued linear reflection coefficient. We avoid performing the analysis using the magnitude and phase components of the reflection coefficient due to problems with such calculations that have been described in [4].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This computation is applied separately to both the real and imaginary components of the complex-valued linear reflection coefficient. We avoid performing the analysis using the magnitude and phase components of the reflection coefficient due to problems with such calculations that have been described in [4].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zero correlation will leave the axes of the ellipse aligned with the real and imaginary axes of the complex reflection coefficient plane. The use of ellipses to depict the uncertainty in complex-valued quantities has been discussed in [4] and their use has been demonstrated experimentally (for measurements of complex S-parameters) in [6,7]. Finally, it should be noted that calculated values of correlation coefficients, based on relatively small sample sizes, are not very reliable [8].…”
Section: Further Observationsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Experimental design/analysis errors, for example:  Uncertainty not considered as a function of frequency  Uncertainty not considered as a function of device under test (DUT) response  Statistics calculated directly from log/angle quantities [6]  Statistics calculated on truncated distributions [6]  Ignoring that data consists of vector quantities  Incorrectly assuming independence in quantities [6] Metrology issues, grouped as:  Instrument noise  Errors in the calibration standards model  Connector repeatability While only the second group would commonly be attributed to measurement uncertainty, both groups needed to be addressed in order to accurately estimate uncertainties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In essence it appeared that while National Metrology Institutes (NMI"s) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) had provided substantial guidance on quantifying the uncertainty in VNA measurements (e.g. [1]- [6]), this guidance may not be applied consistently.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So, the evaluation of uncertainty in an estimate of S dif is not trivial. Techniques for propagating uncertainty are usually described in terms of a single measurement function [1], [2]. So, if these are to be applied here, one function for the difference is required, like…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%