Products > Test Equipment
Agilent E8357A
<< < (20/28) > >>
Forzaman:

--- Quote from: joeqsmith on November 19, 2022, 05:46:26 pm ---At least with mine, I am able to just copy the original license back into the PNA and it's resorted.   

I've been playing a bit more with the receiver alignment and reading what I am able to find.  Looking at the service guide for the N5221A, they use the power meter to measure the cable loss.  They don't mention measuring the power from port 2.

--- End quote ---

Do you not have the E835xA Service Guide?

In the Source Calibration procedure prior to the Receiver Calibration, it mentions not testing the Port 2 power since the difference from port 1 is negligible.
--- Quote from: joeqsmith on November 20, 2022, 02:19:15 am ---Again, pure guess work...

Measured power directly at port1 and also R1.  Insert test cable on port1 and measure power at end of cable along with R1.   Subtract R1 and zero the phase.  This seems to get us very close on the two lower graphs for NOCAL.PNG.    Attach cable to port2 (thru).  Measure S21,12.    Compensate the mag only with new levels.

S21/12 with the cable used to align it is now very good.  S11/22 also seems decent but procedure could be totally wrong. 

Next step is to try a patent search.   

--- End quote ---
joeqsmith:

--- Quote from: Forzaman on November 20, 2022, 04:32:57 am ---Do you not have the E835xA Service Guide?

In the Source Calibration procedure prior to the Receiver Calibration, it mentions not testing the Port 2 power since the difference from port 1 is negligible.

--- End quote ---

I had read that but note that it was not specifically called out in the receiver calibration.   The reason to look at the embedded comments in their program was to solve some of the ambiguity.   

When extending the range, both need to be ran.  If I plot the source, I can see they only characterized it to the range it was sold for, not considering it would be upgraded.  Its pretty bad.
Forzaman:

[/quote]

I had read that but note that it was not specifically called out in the receiver calibration.   The reason to look at the embedded comments in their program was to solve some of the ambiguity.   

When extending the range, both need to be ran.  If I plot the source, I can see they only characterized it to the range it was sold for, not considering it would be upgraded.  Its pretty bad.
[/quote]

That is bad news about the calibration not going beyond the original frequency configuration. I may not upgrade my unit now. I don't have any need to go beyond 6GHz at the moment. Obtaining the time domain option was my main goal. 
joeqsmith:
Worse, I am not able to find any information on where the source leveling data is stored.   I had also backed out the ASCII data for the sourceadj.exe program (attached).  It looked like it may have stored it into the srccalconfig.dat file.  Odd thing about that file.  I had backed up the discrete files from the original hard drive.  After installing the SSD, I upgraded the firmware.  This file now has a 2005 rather than a 2004 date.  They are different but the fact they overwrote it, I don't believe this is where the source data is stored. 

When looking at the ASCII dump, note the "SENS1:CORR:CSET:STAT ONSENS2:CORR:CSET:SEL 'SENS2:CORR:CSET:STAT".   Looking these up in the programmers manual, we can see they are for calibration.    The one I was expecting was the SOUR:POW:CORR but we don't find it in the EXE. 


--- Quote ---That is bad news about the calibration not going beyond the original frequency configuration. I may not upgrade my unit now. I don't have any need to go beyond 6GHz at the moment. Obtaining the time domain option was my main goal. 
--- End quote ---

The attached graph shows the source set to 0dBm, sampling at each frequency that the receivers would be aligned at.  You can see how the performance degrades once  we move beyond 6GHz. 

In my case leaving the alignment may be the best answer.  I don't like not knowing with 100% certainty how these adjustments are made and how they effect the end result.   I understood you're planning to use all of the correct equipment.  In that case, I don't see a reason not to open up the range and realign it.   
joeqsmith:

--- Quote from: Forzaman on November 20, 2022, 05:08:48 pm ---I don't have any need to go beyond 6GHz at the moment. Obtaining the time domain option was my main goal.

--- End quote ---

The only reason I was wanting to increase the frequency range was to increase the time domain resolution.   I wanted to use the PNA as a comparison to the $120 LiteVNA.  They limit the LiteVNA's firmware to 9.3GHz.   Attached are two of the circuits I demo'ed  (splitter with an LC tank and a low pass filter).   The data from the PNA is pretty much what I would expect.   

You can see the demo here if interested:
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod