完善资料让更多小伙伴认识你，还能领取20积分哦， 立即完善>
3天内不再提示
德赢Vwin官网
论坛|
我们收到两台新的Agilent N5245A PNA来替换旧的8510SX系统，在使用85054B N-Type校准套件校准PNA期间，立即注意到使用滑动负载的校准是相反的。
PNA指示至少为5的位置1，滑块显示在其完全向外的位置（朝向回拉端），与85054B的手册完全相反，85054B完全朝向连接器端显示位置1。 然后，PNA继续将滑块再次移向连接器端，与85054B的手册完全相反。 通过PNA，我们收到了几个85056A 2.4mm校准套件和一个85057B 2.4mm验证套件，因此要检查这是否是PNA的常见问题，我使用85056A 2.4mm校准套件对PNA进行了校准。 按照Agilent用户手册第3-18页，引用： - “注意：校准开始后，始终将滑环移向滑动负载的中心导体回拉端。 如果在校准过程中滑动环朝向负载的连接器端移动，则校准可能不稳定并且可能导致测量结果不良。“再次，PNA指示位置1至少为5，滑块显示在其完全向外的位置 ，与手册直接矛盾。 请问您能否确认哪些是正确的，文献还是PNA？ 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 We received two new Agilent N5245A PNAs to replace our old 8510SX system, during the calibration of the PNA using an 85054B N-Type calibration kit it was immediately noticed that the calibration using the sliding load is reversed. The PNA indicates position 1 of at least 5 that the slide is shown in its fully out position (towards the pullback end), completely opposite to the manual for the 85054B which shows position 1 fully towards the connector end. The PNA then goes on to move the slide towards the connector end again completely opposite to the manual for the 85054B. With the PNAs we received several 85056A 2.4mm calibration kits and a 85057B 2.4mm verification kit, so to check to see if this is a common problem with the PNAs I carried out a calibration of the PNA with the 85056A 2.4mm calibration kit. In accordance with the Agilent User’s Manual Page 3-18, Quote:- “NOTE After calibration has begun, always move the sliding ring towards the center conductor pullback end of the sliding load. If the sliding ring is moved toward the connector end of the load during the calibration sequence, the calibration may be unstable and poor measurements may result.” Again the PNA indicates position 1 of at least 5 that the slide is shown in its fully out position, in direct contradiction with the manual. Please could you confirm which is correct, the literature or the PNA? 
0
|
|
相关推荐
6个回答
|
|
|
我第一次注意到这一点。
我的训练是开始并进入。想法是如果由于滑动负载的摩擦而导致中心导管稍微移动，则倾向于将中心销推向测试端口，保持恒定的配合。 然而，对于较新的滑动载荷，锁定机构被设定为产生恰好正确的间隙，因此滑动以使间隙更小并不是改进。 因此，可以以不同方式操作不同的滑动载荷以获得最佳性能。 将照片放在引导校准中可能不是我们最好的想法。 让每张照片都正确是一个持续的噩梦。 大多数或所有指令都来自连接器设置，因此通常是正确的。 事实上，该算法根本不关心滑动位置，因此从理论角度来看任何顺序都是好的。 我只是检查并看到说明符合我认为对于较旧的负载是正确的。 您希望在校准中有一个小间隙的原因是pna测试端口略微凹陷，并且如果您将滑动负载完全推入配合，然后稍后测试具有轻微的设备（如固定负载） 间隙，你会得到一个错误，因为在滑动负载cal中没有考虑由PNA端口的凹陷引起的间隙部分。 所有这些只影响计量等级测量（即误差很小），并且在帮助文件中，它特别说要参考滑动负载手册以便正确操作，这就是我要使用的。 经过进一步调查后编辑。编辑：Dr_joel于2014年8月20日下午5:12 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 First time I've notice this. My training was to start out and move in. The idea being that if there is some slight movement of the center condutor due to friction of the sliding load, it would tend to push the center pin toward the test port, maintaining a constant mating. However, with the newer sliding loads, the locking mechanism is set to creat exactly the right gap, and so sliding to make the gap smaller is not an improvement. Thus, different sliding loads might be operated in different ways for the best performance. putting pictures in the guided calibration was perhaps our not our best idea. Getting every picture right is a an ongoing nightmare. Most or all of the instructions are derived from the connectors settings, so normally correct. In fact, the algorithm doesn't care at all about the slide position, so any order is Ok from a theoretical standpoint. I just checked and see that the instructions follow what I believe to be correct for the older loads. The reason you want a slight gap in the calibraiton is that the pna test port is slightly recessed, and if you push the sliding load all the way to mate exactly, and then later test a device (like a fixed load) that has a slight gap, you will get an error because the portion of the gap caused by the recesion of the PNA port is not accounted for in the sliding load cal. All this affects only metrology grade measurements ( that is, the errors are small) and in the help file, it specifically says to consult the sliding load manual for proper operation, so that is what I would use. Edited after further investigation. Edited by: Dr_joel on Aug 20, 2014 5:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
很好听。
两个描述之间存在不一致。 但不一致并不是真正的重要。 从前到后或从后到前的区别并不重要。 如果进行测量使滑块沿一个方向而不是来回移动，则滑动元件的稳定性更好。 简而言之，只要它处于一个恒定的方向而不是来回，你移动的方向并不重要。 您可能会发现以前的线程信息有用https://community.keysight.com/message/11206#comment-11206 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 Nice catch. There is an inconsistency between the two descriptions. But the inconsistency is not really material. The difference between going from front to back or back to front is not significant. The stability of the slide element is better if measurements are made moving the slide in one direction rather than back and forth. In short, it doesn't really matter which direction you move as long as it is in a constant direction rather than back and forth. You might find the information of a previous thread useful https://community.keysight.com/message/11206#comment-11206 |
|
|
|
|
|
感谢回复人员@ Dr_joel，我们在10年前收到了我们的网络分析仪（不是安捷伦部门），所有用户都被送到了校准套件制造商的培训课程（同一制造商，
安捷伦使用）。 “锁定”滑动负载方向（从进到出）更多地被描述为安全问题，即如果滑动负载中心销已经以某种方式损坏并且滑动卡在其上，则用户将拉出销钉 网络分析器端口（不会损坏端口），也不会将引脚推入“昂贵”的端口，并可能损坏网络分析仪。 多年来网络分析仪的相对成本大幅下降，但它们仍然是大多数公司将拥有的最昂贵的电子测试项目之一，因此任何避免损坏的都是有利的。 @ Daveb，我们确实有NIST校准的人工制品标准，我使用这两种方法进行测量，即使他们确实显示测量值略有差异，结果也在组合不确定性的RSS范围内。 我认为这里的重点是为什么安捷伦（是德科技）会在PNA软件中编写一个与之相矛盾的要求。 我已经看到 - 不仅在我工作的公司，而且我访问过的公司 - 由于校准套件/标准的错误使用（误用）而导致的VNA测量结果不佳。 如果用户没有阅读支持文档（用户手册），滑动负载位置3（PNA位置4，反转！）应该是错 实际上在第3个标记后设置为0.2英寸（标记前的PNA！）而不是滑动负载第3个标记。 这对我来说是Keysight向客户展示他们可以做什么的绝佳机会，并且消除了他们的客户坐在新电子设备前面的需要，并且仍然需要在他们周围打开几个用户手册。 我希望Keysight PNA团队能够花一些时间来获取屏幕校准指南以匹配用户手册......请。 OK Rant完成....同时我将确保PNA上有警告，以便遵循Agilent（是德科技）手册，而不是PNA指南图片。 问候， 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 Thanks for the replies guys, @ Dr_joel, with one of our network analysers (not an Agilent unit) we received over 10 years ago, all of the users were sent on a training course to the manufacturer of the calibration kits (the same manufacturer that Agilent used). The 'locking' sliding load direction (from in to out) was described more as a safety issue, i.e. if the sliding load centre pin had been damaged in some way and the slide jams on it, the user would be pulling the pin out on the network analyser port (causing no damage to the port) and not pushing the pin into the 'expensive' port and possibly damaging the network analyser. The relative cost of the network analyser has dropped significantly over the years but they still are one of the most expensive electronic test items that most companies will own and therefore anything to avoid damage would be advantageous. @ Daveb, we do have NIST calibrated artefact standards which I did measure using both methods, even though they did show slight differences in measured values the results are within the RSS of the combined uncertainties. I think the point here is why Agilent (Keysight) would put in writing a requirement that is then contradicted in the PNA software. I have seen - not only in the company I work for, but companies I have visited - bad VNA measurements being made, due to incorrect use (misuse) of calibration kits/standards. The incorrect PNA guide pictures will just compound this, the sliding load in the 85054B kit is a prime example, if the user does not read the supporting documentation (user manual) that the sliding load position 3 (PNA position 4, reversed!) should actually be set to 0.2 inch after the 3rd mark (PNA before the mark!) and NOT on the sliding load 3rd mark. This to me was the perfect opportunity for Keysight to show their customers what they can do and remove the need for their customers to be sat in front of new electronic equipment and still have the need to have several user manuals open around them. I hope that the Keysight PNA team can actually put some time into getting the on screen calibration guide to match the users manuals...please. OK Rant done.... In the mean time I will ensure that the PNAs have warnings stuck on them to follow the Agilent (Keysight) manuals and not the PNA guide pictures. Regards, |
|
|
|
|
60user72 发表于 2018-11-12 13:56 我们更新了PNA固件以反转滑动加载动画。 我们还修改了帮助菜单以提供其他滑动负载信息。 校准套件手册也将更新，以提高一致性。 固件更改将进入下一个Web发布，并且应该在一两个月内可用。 最好的问候，戴夫 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 We updated the PNA firmware to reverse the sliding load animation. We also modified the help menu to provide additional sliding load information. The cal kit manuals will also be updated to improve consistency. The firmware changes will go into the next web release and should be available in a month or two. Best regards, Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
谢谢Dave，期待更新。 我们发现验证软件/固件存在一些不一致之处，您是否希望我开始新的线程或继续使用此线程？ 问候 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 Thanks Dave, Look forward to the update. We have found a few inconsistencies with the verification software/firmware, would you like me to start a new thread or carry on in this one? Regards |
|
|
|
|
|
推荐一个新线程。 以上来自于谷歌翻译 以下为原文 recommend a new thread. |
|
|
|
|
只有小组成员才能发言，加入小组>>
1285 浏览 0 评论
2373 浏览 1 评论
2192 浏览 1 评论
2064 浏览 5 评论
2948 浏览 3 评论
1108浏览 1评论
关于Keysight x1149 Boundary Scan Analyzer
752浏览 0评论
N5230C用“CALC:MARK:BWID？”获取Bwid,Cent,Q,Loss失败，请问大佬们怎么解决呀
924浏览 0评论
1287浏览 0评论
/7 
关注我们的微信
下载发烧友APP
德赢Vwin官网 观察
版权所有 © 湖南华秋数字科技有限公司
德赢Vwin官网 （电路图） 湘公网安备 43011202000918 号 电信与信息服务业务经营许可证：合字B2-20210191
工商网监
湘ICP备2023018690号
2149
评论
淘帖
1042
