[问答]

转换器的pna-x噪声系数2.4mm E-cal变化

问答对人有帮助，内容完整，我也想知道答案 0 您好，我正在考虑PNA-X上的转换器测量的噪声系数。我在RF端口侧使用2.4mm E-cal，在IF端口侧使用2.92mm E-cal套件。问题是我用2种不同的2.4mm E-c得到不同的结果，同时仍然使用相同的2.92mm E-cal。两个2.4mm E-cals在整个频带上提供大致相同的噪声系数波形，但它们偏移约0.3dB。我还尝试了2.4mm机械校准套件，它与2.4mm E-cal一致，噪声系数测量值更低。（仅差几百dB）。所以我认为2.4mm E-cal有一些问题，它会产生最差的噪声系数。我的第一个问题是，对于两种不同的2.4mm E-cal套件之间的噪声系数测量，可能会出现的最大变化是什么。我的猜测最多是0.1dB。第二个问题是我是否可以在可疑2.4mm E-cal套件上的PNA-X上运行用户端测试，这可能会揭示问题。谢谢，rok 以上来自于谷歌翻译以下为原文 Hello, I am taking noise figure for converters measurement on the PNA-X. I am using a 2.4mm E-cal on the RF port side and a 2.92mm E-cal kit on the IF port side. The problem is that I get different results with 2 different 2.4mm E-cals, while still using the same 2.92mm E-cal. Both 2.4mm E-cals give roughly the same noise figure waveform shape across the frequency band, but they are offset by about 0.3dB. I also tried a 2.4mm mechanical cal kit and it agrees with the 2.4mm E-cal with the lower noise figure measurement. (only worse by a few hundreds of a dB). So I believe there is something wrong with the 2.4mm E-cal that is giving the worst noise figure result. My first question would be what is the largest variation one might expect for the noise figure measurements between 2 different 2.4mm E-cal kits. My guess would be at most 0.1dB. The second question is whether there is a user-side test I can run on the PNA-X on the suspect 2.4mm E-cal kit which might reveal the problem. Thanks, rok 0
2018-12-6 15:57:17　　评论淘帖0 邀请回答您可以邀请以下用户，快速回答问题 × kingnet_52040 该类别下有 195 个回答。邀请回答 60user7 该类别下有 81 个回答。邀请回答蓝色冰汐该类别下有 45 个回答。邀请回答醉狼工作室该类别下有 41 个回答。邀请回答 ianwhoani 该类别下有 30 个回答。邀请回答 dkhwakd 该类别下有 25 个回答。邀请回答 aaabbb567 该类别下有 23 个回答。邀请回答 e08506806 该类别下有 20 个回答。邀请回答 szzjfyp 该类别下有 18 个回答。邀请回答 sonia87 该类别下有 16 个回答。邀请回答 ningee 该类别下有 16 个回答。邀请回答 zouqinxiang 该类别下有 15 个回答。邀请回答 xj5548 该类别下有 15 个回答。邀请回答 daichuangs 该类别下有 14 个回答。邀请回答 derek88 该类别下有 14 个回答。邀请回答 hzmbs2016 该类别下有 12 个回答。邀请回答 JST2006 该类别下有 12 个回答。邀请回答 hu_wflllllllg21 该类别下有 11 个回答。邀请回答 fichesw 该类别下有 11 个回答。邀请回答 www037 该类别下有 11 个回答。邀请回答举报孙燕冉相关推荐 • PNA-X噪声系数环境温度变化不确定度 935 • pna-x Cal所有通道数限制？ 2544 • PNA-X 67GHz噪声系数选项29与选项28相比 1884 • PNA-X噪声系数标准接收器具有尖锐的行为 2368 • PNA X噪声系数负值 4398 • PNA-X专用噪声系数GUI设置 1086 • 怎么在SMC模式下使用PNA-X作为马刺的多输出RF源 1941 • 无法读取磁盘到VNA的系数 1497 • 将NMD-2.4mm公连接器连接到普通的2.4mm电缆或适配器的正确步骤是什么？ 3354 • 能推荐用于毫米波噪声系数测量的前置放大器和滤波器吗？ 1820 1个回答

答案对人有帮助，有参考价值 0 我要尝试的第一件事是设置一个标准的s参数测量通道，匹配噪声系数测量的激励条件，然后使用可疑的2.4mm ECal模块校准该通道。然后从Response-> Cal-> ECal菜单运行ECal Confidence Check，查看ECal与其存储的工厂数据相比的性能。如果您发现差异很大，则可能意味着您的ECal需要进行维修和/或重新校准。你应该比较“好卡路里”和“坏卡路里”的另一件事是每个案例的SC21测量。 ECal在噪声系数校准期间扮演两个角色，一个用于传统的S参数校准标准，另一个用于提供多个阻抗状态以校准噪声接收器增益带宽。噪声系数cal的S参数校准部分最重要的产品是器件增益（SC21），它基本上构成了噪声系数方程的一半。因此，如果比较SC21测量的“良好校准”和“坏校准”，差异为.3 dB，那么您就可以确切地知道噪声系数测量中的误差来自何处。如果要检查并查看噪声接收器的校准情况，最佳可追踪置信度检查是测量校准噪声源的ENR。您可以通过将噪声源连接到端口2参考平面（校准后）并打开噪声源，直接测量ENR（它是“新建跟踪”对话框下的参数）。测量的ENR应与测量频率下噪声源的公布ENR相匹配。但是，在您的情况下，由于您使用的是两个不同的EC，因此IF端口上使用的2.92 mm ECal是用于校准期间提供给噪声接收器的多个阻抗状态的ECal。但是，使用ENR测量检查作为故障排除工具仍然很有用。以上来自于谷歌翻译以下为原文 the first thing I would try is to setup a standard s-parameter measurement channel matching the stimulus conditions of your noise figure measurement and then calibrate that channel using the suspect 2.4mm ECal module. then from the Response->Cal->ECal menu run the ECal Confidence Check to see how well that ECal is performing compared to its stored factory data. if you see a big discrepancy, it could mean that your ECal is due for repair and/or recalibration. the other thing you should compare between the "good cal" and the "bad cal" is the SC21 measurement for each case. The ECal plays two roles during the noise figure calibration, one is for the traditional S-Parameter calibration standard and the other is for providing multiple impedance states for calibrating the noise receiver gain bandwidth. the most important product of the S-Parameter calibration portion of the noise figure cal is the device gain (SC21) which basicaly makes up half of the noise figure equation. So if you compare SC21 measured by the "good cal" and the "bad cal", and the difference is .3 dB, then you know exactly where the error in your noise figure measurement is coming from. If you want to check and see how well the noise receiver was calibrated, the best traceable confidence check is to measure the ENR of a calibrated noise source. you can measure the ENR directly (it is a parameter under the New Trace dialog) by connecting your noise source to the port 2 reference plane (after calibration) and turning on the noise source. the measured ENR should match the published ENR of the noise source at the measurement frequencies. However, in your case, since you are using two different ECals, the 2.92 mm ECal used on the IF port is the one used for multiple impedance states that are presented to the noise receiver during calibration. But using the ENR measurement check is still good to know as a troubleshooting tool.

2018-12-6 16:04:24 评论举报刘华湘