开云体育

On 12/31/2012 8:34 PM, Steve wrote:

That looks very close to what's in mine. Their warranty is only against DOA. I wonder how old their batteries are...

Steve

On Dec 31, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Peter Gottlieb <hpnpilot@... <mailto:hpnpilot%40verizon.net>> wrote:

Like this one:?

I shouldn't imagine there's much special about these except the

physical size.

On 12/31/2012 7:25 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve, Jeff, and all,

My 2703Axxxxx 3457A also has the SAFT LX 1634, Lithium 3.0V,

battery and it

measures 3.032 VDC. Likewise, I can not see a date code on the battery,
even after removing the A1 Board and looking as far under the

battery as

possible.

My A1 Board is 03457-665xx, REV A, 2703. According to the manual,

this is

the 'New Main Controller'. However, on my board, A11R644 is a 17.4 K
resistor and A11R645 is a 13 K resistor which represents the 'old'

resistors

and matches the schematic. The 'new' resistors would be 13 K and 12.7 K
respectively, according to the parts list and 'Changes'. The 'old'

battery

is listed as a 'Battery 2.9V .9A-HR Li/S-Diox W-Flex', according to the
Agilent website. Likewise, the Agilent website lists the 'new'

battery as a

'Battery 3V 1.2A-HR Lithium Poly Carbon'. Only the manual parts

list lists

the 'new' battery as 3.4 V.

In addition, I don't think I have ever seen a 3.4 V Lithium battery.

So, the question is, when it comes time to replace the battery,

what should

be used?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve

Krull

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:20 AM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and

there's

no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new

battery

in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment

with

that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked

at the

manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if

that's a

default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was

then Boeing

Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up

and check

the battery condition.

Steve

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:08 PM, "J. L. Trantham" <jltran@...

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote:

If the 'SELF TEST OK' message appears, there is no need to make any
'adjustments'. Just do the 'front panel CAL' if needed.

As I said, I would check it out, assume it is the best instrument in

your

collection, send it to Agilent for CAL and see what you get.

I would appreciate knowing what 'REV?' and 'OPT?' says when you get a
chance. 'CALNUM?' would be interesting as well.

In the 3458A, the firmware is in an EPROM (6 EPROM's for the older

units)

and can be removed, a socket placed, and easily upgraded by

purchasing the

latest pre-programmed EPROM (or EPROM's for the older units) from

Agilent.

The only problem is they have a $50 minimum for this $18 part for the

later

units.

My wife thinks I am going to appear on an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeff
Machesky

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Wow, lots of replies all of a sudden. I'm already prepping the

wife for

the $200 + price tag of calibration. Funny how when I was single I

would

have about $800 in cash in my wallet at all times and now I beg

for 20

bucks, Hmm. Sad part is I make about 4 times the money. In any event
I've not received to much feedback on the "Self Test OK" message the
seller had posted. Any comments? I'm too much of a skeptic when it

comes

to eBay purchases. It's just a convenient place to purchase such

goods.

Any feedback would be appreciated as to possible pitfalls regarding

this

device. I like to prep for issues rather then build myself up for
failure. What do they say...it's better to be pleasantly

surprised then

let down.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/29/2012 5:40 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

According to the manual, there are only two 'adjustments' that

can be

made

on a 3457A, Input Offset Amplifier adjustment and AC Converter

Frequency

Response, both needed only if there is a 'HARDWARE ERR' failure

message

after 'TEST' is selected and then only if it is a specific

'AUXERR' or

16 or
256 is seen. Otherwise, all the calibrations are done from the front

panel

with specific inputs from the front panel.

The CALNUM? is incremented by 'several digits' with a 'complete
calibration', one for each calibration point entered, per the

manual.

Interestingly, when I sent my two 3458A's to Agilent for

calibration,

the

CALNUM incremented by only 1. However, when I calibrated one of them
before
sending it to Agilent, (since I lost the data in the DALLAS CALRAM
chip that
I was removing) the CALNUM went from 1 to something like 34 or
something. I
don't recall. It seems that if you have the appropriate software to
run the
complete calibration protocol, it only increments by '1' instead

of by

all

the data points entered. Such software exists for the 3457A but

I have

never seen it available 'on theBay'. I suspect Agilent would

have that

software and equipment to do that calibration and, thus, an Agilent
calibration may only increment the CALNUM? by 1.

When getting an Agilent calibration of the 3458A, you get 'As
Received' and
'As Completed' data. Very helpful to me in that the only two

points my

'House CAL' of the one 3458A failed were the two 'midrange' AC

Voltage

values. All else 'PASSED'.

I agree with Dave. If it's HP/Agilent, I prefer Agilent to do

the CAL.

If

it's Solartron, I prefer AMETEK (Solartron), etc.

I believe that having some 'basic' professionally calibrated

instruments

(DMM's, Noise Sources, Power Sensors, Frequency Standards

(unless you

have a
GPSDO, CS Standard, etc.) etc.), that you can then use as 'transfer
standards' to do your own 'in house' calibration of other

instruments,

is

very important if you want to set up a reliable workshop.

Of course, you will also need a 'stable' source of the various

signals

that
you will use to be 'measured' by the various 'DUT's', such as

resistance,

voltage, current, frequency, etc. The 3458A is relatively easy to
calibrate, requiring only 10.000000 VDC, 10000.000 ohms, and some AC
voltage
at various frequencies, IIRC. I have never CAL'd a 3457A but the

3478A

is a
multi-step process.

This whole thing can become very 'addictive'. Be careful.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of David

Kirkby

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com> > wrote:

Thanks Dave, I actually have watched those videos. Bit drawn out

like

most of his videos..but still good. Too much detail is not always a

bad

thing.

I thought the bit showing the noise on the DVM was a bit silly

when it

was connected to a DC power supply.

As for the 3457A, if it works I plan on getting it calibrated by

Agilent

within the year. From what I understand it's about a $200 US

investment.

The meter was last calibrated in '98, so I'll be curious to see how
accurate it is when I get it.

I think the calibration service you chose might dictate whether you
get data about the condition when sent.

When I send mine in for cal, I'd like to know what was out and

by how

much. But I'm not going to pay extra for a calibration service that
provides that. As far as I'm concerned, if Agilent calibrate it,

then

it is OK. For me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever if it
has ISO, NIST or whatever calibration. But I'd prefer Agilent to
someone else.

I have calibration certificate here for an Agilent VNA calibration
kit. It was done by a calibration house in the USA. But from what I
can gather from reading the documentation, the equipment to

calibrate

them is not available commerically. So it makes me wonder how a lab
can calibrate a cal kit, when the equipment to do it can't be

bought.

I suspect there is a fairly cosy realationship between some test
equipment dealers and calibration facilities.

I plan on purchasing some
voltage references from the well known site as a basic test of the
3457A. I may even calibrate it based on those references if

it's way

out

and later getting it NIST traceable calibrated.

I don't know if there are pots in there you can adjust with a

trimmer,

or if it is all done electronically. You might find it is impossible
to calibrate yourself.

I never had any reason to look inside mine.

Dave

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <>
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5500 - Release Date: 12/31/12

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., David <davidwhess@...> wrote:

It was almost certainly a 2230 (100 MHz and 20 MS/sec) or 2220 (60 MHz
and 20 MS/sec) which came out in 1986 or at least first showed up in
that year's catalog.

The sample clock is not dithered but instead the difference between
the trigger and sample clock is measured to within about 500ps which
allows the acquired samples to be positioned within the waveform
record. In order to gain anything from that process, the signal being
measured and the sample clock have to be asynchronous.

It is my most used oscilloscope although the updated version in the
form of the 2232 is superior in almost every way.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:40:05 -0000, "erich_schlecht"
<schlechtca@...> wrote:

Speaking of old scopes, the first digital scope I got circa 1986 was a Tek with a sample rate around 20 or 50 Msps, bandwidth 100 or 200 MHz. For repetitive signals it dithered the sample clock to reconstruct signals well above the Nyquist frequency over many cycles. It couldn't see fast single event signals, of course.

It also had a pure analog mode. For the time, it was a pretty decent instrument.Unfortunately, I've long forgotten the model number, but it looked like a 24xx series.

Erich

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., Chuck Harris <cfharris@> wrote:

Hi Peter,

As I said, "any competently designed DSO". An analog scope gives
you the full vertical bandwidth regardless of the timebase setting.
A competently designed DSO should also.

You can be a bit flexible about that requirement, though. If the
aliasing effects are too fast to see at a particular timebase
setting, it would be ok to slow the sample rate until they are
only marginally too fast to see.

-Chuck Harris

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

But it's not just filtering above the Nyquist. There are other ways a sampling
digital scope can give you a wrong picture of reality. If all of these scopes
ran their digitizers constantly at full rate, watched for envelope effects and
so forth they would go a long way towards eliminating these unwanted erroneous
displays.

Peter


On 12/31/2012 10:56 AM, Chuck Harris wrote:

If by "trust" you mean see things faster than the Nyquist
limit, I fully agree.

On Dec 31, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Peter Gottlieb <hpnpilot@...> wrote:

Like this one:?



I shouldn't imagine there's much special about these except the physical size.


On 12/31/2012 7:25 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve, Jeff, and all,

My 2703Axxxxx 3457A also has the SAFT LX 1634, Lithium 3.0V, battery and it
measures 3.032 VDC. Likewise, I can not see a date code on the battery,
even after removing the A1 Board and looking as far under the battery as
possible.

My A1 Board is 03457-665xx, REV A, 2703. According to the manual, this is
the 'New Main Controller'. However, on my board, A11R644 is a 17.4 K
resistor and A11R645 is a 13 K resistor which represents the 'old' resistors
and matches the schematic. The 'new' resistors would be 13 K and 12.7 K
respectively, according to the parts list and 'Changes'. The 'old' battery
is listed as a 'Battery 2.9V .9A-HR Li/S-Diox W-Flex', according to the
Agilent website. Likewise, the Agilent website lists the 'new' battery as a
'Battery 3V 1.2A-HR Lithium Poly Carbon'. Only the manual parts list lists
the 'new' battery as 3.4 V.

In addition, I don't think I have ever seen a 3.4 V Lithium battery.

So, the question is, when it comes time to replace the battery, what should
be used?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve Krull
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:20 AM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and there's
no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new battery
in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment with
that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked at the
manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if that's a
default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then Boeing
Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and check
the battery condition.

Steve

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:08 PM, "J. L. Trantham" <jltran@...

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote:

If the 'SELF TEST OK' message appears, there is no need to make any
'adjustments'. Just do the 'front panel CAL' if needed.

As I said, I would check it out, assume it is the best instrument in

your

collection, send it to Agilent for CAL and see what you get.

I would appreciate knowing what 'REV?' and 'OPT?' says when you get a
chance. 'CALNUM?' would be interesting as well.

In the 3458A, the firmware is in an EPROM (6 EPROM's for the older

units)

and can be removed, a socket placed, and easily upgraded by

purchasing the

latest pre-programmed EPROM (or EPROM's for the older units) from

Agilent.

The only problem is they have a $50 minimum for this $18 part for the

later

units.

My wife thinks I am going to appear on an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeff
Machesky

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Wow, lots of replies all of a sudden. I'm already prepping the wife for
the $200 + price tag of calibration. Funny how when I was single I

would

have about $800 in cash in my wallet at all times and now I beg for 20
bucks, Hmm. Sad part is I make about 4 times the money. In any event
I've not received to much feedback on the "Self Test OK" message the
seller had posted. Any comments? I'm too much of a skeptic when it

comes

to eBay purchases. It's just a convenient place to purchase such goods.
Any feedback would be appreciated as to possible pitfalls regarding

this

device. I like to prep for issues rather then build myself up for
failure. What do they say...it's better to be pleasantly surprised then
let down.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/29/2012 5:40 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

According to the manual, there are only two 'adjustments' that can be

made

on a 3457A, Input Offset Amplifier adjustment and AC Converter

Frequency

Response, both needed only if there is a 'HARDWARE ERR' failure

message

after 'TEST' is selected and then only if it is a specific

'AUXERR' or

16 or
256 is seen. Otherwise, all the calibrations are done from the front

panel

with specific inputs from the front panel.

The CALNUM? is incremented by 'several digits' with a 'complete
calibration', one for each calibration point entered, per the manual.
Interestingly, when I sent my two 3458A's to Agilent for calibration,

the

CALNUM incremented by only 1. However, when I calibrated one of them
before
sending it to Agilent, (since I lost the data in the DALLAS CALRAM
chip that
I was removing) the CALNUM went from 1 to something like 34 or
something. I
don't recall. It seems that if you have the appropriate software to
run the
complete calibration protocol, it only increments by '1' instead of by

all

the data points entered. Such software exists for the 3457A but I have
never seen it available 'on theBay'. I suspect Agilent would have that
software and equipment to do that calibration and, thus, an Agilent
calibration may only increment the CALNUM? by 1.

When getting an Agilent calibration of the 3458A, you get 'As
Received' and
'As Completed' data. Very helpful to me in that the only two points my
'House CAL' of the one 3458A failed were the two 'midrange' AC Voltage
values. All else 'PASSED'.

I agree with Dave. If it's HP/Agilent, I prefer Agilent to do the CAL.

If

it's Solartron, I prefer AMETEK (Solartron), etc.

I believe that having some 'basic' professionally calibrated

instruments

(DMM's, Noise Sources, Power Sensors, Frequency Standards (unless you
have a
GPSDO, CS Standard, etc.) etc.), that you can then use as 'transfer
standards' to do your own 'in house' calibration of other instruments,

is

very important if you want to set up a reliable workshop.

Of course, you will also need a 'stable' source of the various

signals

that
you will use to be 'measured' by the various 'DUT's', such as

resistance,

voltage, current, frequency, etc. The 3458A is relatively easy to
calibrate, requiring only 10.000000 VDC, 10000.000 ohms, and some AC
voltage
at various frequencies, IIRC. I have never CAL'd a 3457A but the

3478A

is a
multi-step process.

This whole thing can become very 'addictive'. Be careful.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of David

Kirkby

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com> > wrote:

Thanks Dave, I actually have watched those videos. Bit drawn out

like

most of his videos..but still good. Too much detail is not always a

bad

thing.

I thought the bit showing the noise on the DVM was a bit silly when it
was connected to a DC power supply.

As for the 3457A, if it works I plan on getting it calibrated by

Agilent

within the year. From what I understand it's about a $200 US

investment.

The meter was last calibrated in '98, so I'll be curious to see how
accurate it is when I get it.

I think the calibration service you chose might dictate whether you
get data about the condition when sent.

When I send mine in for cal, I'd like to know what was out and by how
much. But I'm not going to pay extra for a calibration service that
provides that. As far as I'm concerned, if Agilent calibrate it, then
it is OK. For me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever if it
has ISO, NIST or whatever calibration. But I'd prefer Agilent to
someone else.

I have calibration certificate here for an Agilent VNA calibration
kit. It was done by a calibration house in the USA. But from what I
can gather from reading the documentation, the equipment to calibrate
them is not available commerically. So it makes me wonder how a lab
can calibrate a cal kit, when the equipment to do it can't be bought.

I suspect there is a fairly cosy realationship between some test
equipment dealers and calibration facilities.

I plan on purchasing some
voltage references from the well known site as a basic test of the
3457A. I may even calibrate it based on those references if it's way

out

and later getting it NIST traceable calibrated.

I don't know if there are pots in there you can adjust with a trimmer,
or if it is all done electronically. You might find it is impossible
to calibrate yourself.

I never had any reason to look inside mine.

Dave

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <>
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5500 - Release Date: 12/31/12

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 12/31/2012 6:53 PM, Peter Gottlieb wrote:

Like this one:?



I shouldn't imagine there's much special about these except the physical size.


On 12/31/2012 7:25 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve, Jeff, and all,

My 2703Axxxxx 3457A also has the SAFT LX 1634, Lithium 3.0V, battery and it
measures 3.032 VDC. Likewise, I can not see a date code on the battery,
even after removing the A1 Board and looking as far under the battery as
possible.

My A1 Board is 03457-665xx, REV A, 2703. According to the manual, this is
the 'New Main Controller'. However, on my board, A11R644 is a 17.4 K
resistor and A11R645 is a 13 K resistor which represents the 'old' resistors
and matches the schematic. The 'new' resistors would be 13 K and 12.7 K
respectively, according to the parts list and 'Changes'. The 'old' battery
is listed as a 'Battery 2.9V .9A-HR Li/S-Diox W-Flex', according to the
Agilent website. Likewise, the Agilent website lists the 'new' battery as a
'Battery 3V 1.2A-HR Lithium Poly Carbon'. Only the manual parts list lists
the 'new' battery as 3.4 V.

In addition, I don't think I have ever seen a 3.4 V Lithium battery.

So, the question is, when it comes time to replace the battery, what should
be used?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve Krull
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:20 AM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and there's
no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new battery
in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment with
that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked at the
manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if that's a
default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then Boeing
Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and check
the battery condition.

Steve

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:08 PM, "J. L. Trantham" <jltran@...

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote:

If the 'SELF TEST OK' message appears, there is no need to make any
'adjustments'. Just do the 'front panel CAL' if needed.

As I said, I would check it out, assume it is the best instrument in

your

collection, send it to Agilent for CAL and see what you get.

I would appreciate knowing what 'REV?' and 'OPT?' says when you get a
chance. 'CALNUM?' would be interesting as well.

In the 3458A, the firmware is in an EPROM (6 EPROM's for the older

units)

and can be removed, a socket placed, and easily upgraded by

purchasing the

latest pre-programmed EPROM (or EPROM's for the older units) from

Agilent.

The only problem is they have a $50 minimum for this $18 part for the

later

units.

My wife thinks I am going to appear on an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeff
Machesky

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Wow, lots of replies all of a sudden. I'm already prepping the wife for
the $200 + price tag of calibration. Funny how when I was single I

would

have about $800 in cash in my wallet at all times and now I beg for 20
bucks, Hmm. Sad part is I make about 4 times the money. In any event
I've not received to much feedback on the "Self Test OK" message the
seller had posted. Any comments? I'm too much of a skeptic when it

comes

to eBay purchases. It's just a convenient place to purchase such goods.
Any feedback would be appreciated as to possible pitfalls regarding

this

device. I like to prep for issues rather then build myself up for
failure. What do they say...it's better to be pleasantly surprised then
let down.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/29/2012 5:40 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

According to the manual, there are only two 'adjustments' that can be

made

on a 3457A, Input Offset Amplifier adjustment and AC Converter

Frequency

Response, both needed only if there is a 'HARDWARE ERR' failure

message

after 'TEST' is selected and then only if it is a specific

'AUXERR' or

16 or
256 is seen. Otherwise, all the calibrations are done from the front

panel

with specific inputs from the front panel.

The CALNUM? is incremented by 'several digits' with a 'complete
calibration', one for each calibration point entered, per the manual.
Interestingly, when I sent my two 3458A's to Agilent for calibration,

the

CALNUM incremented by only 1. However, when I calibrated one of them
before
sending it to Agilent, (since I lost the data in the DALLAS CALRAM
chip that
I was removing) the CALNUM went from 1 to something like 34 or
something. I
don't recall. It seems that if you have the appropriate software to
run the
complete calibration protocol, it only increments by '1' instead of by

all

the data points entered. Such software exists for the 3457A but I have
never seen it available 'on theBay'. I suspect Agilent would have that
software and equipment to do that calibration and, thus, an Agilent
calibration may only increment the CALNUM? by 1.

When getting an Agilent calibration of the 3458A, you get 'As
Received' and
'As Completed' data. Very helpful to me in that the only two points my
'House CAL' of the one 3458A failed were the two 'midrange' AC Voltage
values. All else 'PASSED'.

I agree with Dave. If it's HP/Agilent, I prefer Agilent to do the CAL.

If

it's Solartron, I prefer AMETEK (Solartron), etc.

I believe that having some 'basic' professionally calibrated

instruments

(DMM's, Noise Sources, Power Sensors, Frequency Standards (unless you
have a
GPSDO, CS Standard, etc.) etc.), that you can then use as 'transfer
standards' to do your own 'in house' calibration of other instruments,

is

very important if you want to set up a reliable workshop.

Of course, you will also need a 'stable' source of the various

signals

that
you will use to be 'measured' by the various 'DUT's', such as

resistance,

voltage, current, frequency, etc. The 3458A is relatively easy to
calibrate, requiring only 10.000000 VDC, 10000.000 ohms, and some AC
voltage
at various frequencies, IIRC. I have never CAL'd a 3457A but the

3478A

is a
multi-step process.

This whole thing can become very 'addictive'. Be careful.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of David

Kirkby

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com> > wrote:

Thanks Dave, I actually have watched those videos. Bit drawn out

like

most of his videos..but still good. Too much detail is not always a

bad

thing.

I thought the bit showing the noise on the DVM was a bit silly when it
was connected to a DC power supply.

As for the 3457A, if it works I plan on getting it calibrated by

Agilent

within the year. From what I understand it's about a $200 US

investment.

The meter was last calibrated in '98, so I'll be curious to see how
accurate it is when I get it.

I think the calibration service you chose might dictate whether you
get data about the condition when sent.

When I send mine in for cal, I'd like to know what was out and by how
much. But I'm not going to pay extra for a calibration service that
provides that. As far as I'm concerned, if Agilent calibrate it, then
it is OK. For me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever if it
has ISO, NIST or whatever calibration. But I'd prefer Agilent to
someone else.

I have calibration certificate here for an Agilent VNA calibration
kit. It was done by a calibration house in the USA. But from what I
can gather from reading the documentation, the equipment to calibrate
them is not available commerically. So it makes me wonder how a lab
can calibrate a cal kit, when the equipment to do it can't be bought.

I suspect there is a fairly cosy realationship between some test
equipment dealers and calibration facilities.

I plan on purchasing some
voltage references from the well known site as a basic test of the
3457A. I may even calibrate it based on those references if it's way

out

and later getting it NIST traceable calibrated.

I don't know if there are pots in there you can adjust with a trimmer,
or if it is all done electronically. You might find it is impossible
to calibrate yourself.

I never had any reason to look inside mine.

Dave

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <>
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5500 - Release Date: 12/31/12

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 12/31/2012 7:25 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve, Jeff, and all,

My 2703Axxxxx 3457A also has the SAFT LX 1634, Lithium 3.0V, battery and it
measures 3.032 VDC. Likewise, I can not see a date code on the battery,
even after removing the A1 Board and looking as far under the battery as
possible.

My A1 Board is 03457-665xx, REV A, 2703. According to the manual, this is
the 'New Main Controller'. However, on my board, A11R644 is a 17.4 K
resistor and A11R645 is a 13 K resistor which represents the 'old' resistors
and matches the schematic. The 'new' resistors would be 13 K and 12.7 K
respectively, according to the parts list and 'Changes'. The 'old' battery
is listed as a 'Battery 2.9V .9A-HR Li/S-Diox W-Flex', according to the
Agilent website. Likewise, the Agilent website lists the 'new' battery as a
'Battery 3V 1.2A-HR Lithium Poly Carbon'. Only the manual parts list lists
the 'new' battery as 3.4 V.

In addition, I don't think I have ever seen a 3.4 V Lithium battery.

So, the question is, when it comes time to replace the battery, what should
be used?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve Krull
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:20 AM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and there's
no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new battery
in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment with
that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked at the
manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if that's a
default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then Boeing
Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and check
the battery condition.

Steve

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:08 PM, "J. L. Trantham" <jltran@...

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote:

If the 'SELF TEST OK' message appears, there is no need to make any
'adjustments'. Just do the 'front panel CAL' if needed.

As I said, I would check it out, assume it is the best instrument in

your

collection, send it to Agilent for CAL and see what you get.

I would appreciate knowing what 'REV?' and 'OPT?' says when you get a
chance. 'CALNUM?' would be interesting as well.

In the 3458A, the firmware is in an EPROM (6 EPROM's for the older

units)

and can be removed, a socket placed, and easily upgraded by

purchasing the

latest pre-programmed EPROM (or EPROM's for the older units) from

Agilent.

The only problem is they have a $50 minimum for this $18 part for the

later

units.

My wife thinks I am going to appear on an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeff
Machesky

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Wow, lots of replies all of a sudden. I'm already prepping the wife for
the $200 + price tag of calibration. Funny how when I was single I

would

have about $800 in cash in my wallet at all times and now I beg for 20
bucks, Hmm. Sad part is I make about 4 times the money. In any event
I've not received to much feedback on the "Self Test OK" message the
seller had posted. Any comments? I'm too much of a skeptic when it

comes

to eBay purchases. It's just a convenient place to purchase such goods.
Any feedback would be appreciated as to possible pitfalls regarding

this

device. I like to prep for issues rather then build myself up for
failure. What do they say...it's better to be pleasantly surprised then
let down.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/29/2012 5:40 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

According to the manual, there are only two 'adjustments' that can be

made

on a 3457A, Input Offset Amplifier adjustment and AC Converter

Frequency

Response, both needed only if there is a 'HARDWARE ERR' failure

message

after 'TEST' is selected and then only if it is a specific

'AUXERR' or

16 or
256 is seen. Otherwise, all the calibrations are done from the front

panel

with specific inputs from the front panel.

The CALNUM? is incremented by 'several digits' with a 'complete
calibration', one for each calibration point entered, per the manual.
Interestingly, when I sent my two 3458A's to Agilent for calibration,

the

CALNUM incremented by only 1. However, when I calibrated one of them
before
sending it to Agilent, (since I lost the data in the DALLAS CALRAM
chip that
I was removing) the CALNUM went from 1 to something like 34 or
something. I
don't recall. It seems that if you have the appropriate software to
run the
complete calibration protocol, it only increments by '1' instead of by

all

the data points entered. Such software exists for the 3457A but I have
never seen it available 'on theBay'. I suspect Agilent would have that
software and equipment to do that calibration and, thus, an Agilent
calibration may only increment the CALNUM? by 1.

When getting an Agilent calibration of the 3458A, you get 'As
Received' and
'As Completed' data. Very helpful to me in that the only two points my
'House CAL' of the one 3458A failed were the two 'midrange' AC Voltage
values. All else 'PASSED'.

I agree with Dave. If it's HP/Agilent, I prefer Agilent to do the CAL.

If

it's Solartron, I prefer AMETEK (Solartron), etc.

I believe that having some 'basic' professionally calibrated

instruments

(DMM's, Noise Sources, Power Sensors, Frequency Standards (unless you
have a
GPSDO, CS Standard, etc.) etc.), that you can then use as 'transfer
standards' to do your own 'in house' calibration of other instruments,

is

very important if you want to set up a reliable workshop.

Of course, you will also need a 'stable' source of the various

signals

that
you will use to be 'measured' by the various 'DUT's', such as

resistance,

voltage, current, frequency, etc. The 3458A is relatively easy to
calibrate, requiring only 10.000000 VDC, 10000.000 ohms, and some AC
voltage
at various frequencies, IIRC. I have never CAL'd a 3457A but the

3478A

is a
multi-step process.

This whole thing can become very 'addictive'. Be careful.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of David

Kirkby

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com> > wrote:

Thanks Dave, I actually have watched those videos. Bit drawn out

like

most of his videos..but still good. Too much detail is not always a

bad

thing.

I thought the bit showing the noise on the DVM was a bit silly when it
was connected to a DC power supply.

As for the 3457A, if it works I plan on getting it calibrated by

Agilent

within the year. From what I understand it's about a $200 US

investment.

The meter was last calibrated in '98, so I'll be curious to see how
accurate it is when I get it.

I think the calibration service you chose might dictate whether you
get data about the condition when sent.

When I send mine in for cal, I'd like to know what was out and by how
much. But I'm not going to pay extra for a calibration service that
provides that. As far as I'm concerned, if Agilent calibrate it, then
it is OK. For me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever if it
has ISO, NIST or whatever calibration. But I'd prefer Agilent to
someone else.

I have calibration certificate here for an Agilent VNA calibration
kit. It was done by a calibration house in the USA. But from what I
can gather from reading the documentation, the equipment to calibrate
them is not available commerically. So it makes me wonder how a lab
can calibrate a cal kit, when the equipment to do it can't be bought.

I suspect there is a fairly cosy realationship between some test
equipment dealers and calibration facilities.

I plan on purchasing some
voltage references from the well known site as a basic test of the
3457A. I may even calibrate it based on those references if it's way

out

and later getting it NIST traceable calibrated.

I don't know if there are pots in there you can adjust with a trimmer,
or if it is all done electronically. You might find it is impossible
to calibrate yourself.

I never had any reason to look inside mine.

Dave

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <>
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5500 - Release Date: 12/31/12

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...] On Behalf Of Steve Krull
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:20 AM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way





Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and there's
no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new battery
in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment with
that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked at the
manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if that's a
default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then Boeing
Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and check
the battery condition.

Steve

On Dec 29, 2012, at 8:08 PM, "J. L. Trantham" <jltran@...

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>

<mailto:jltran%40att.net>
<mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote:

If the 'SELF TEST OK' message appears, there is no need to make any
'adjustments'. Just do the 'front panel CAL' if needed.

As I said, I would check it out, assume it is the best instrument in

your

collection, send it to Agilent for CAL and see what you get.

I would appreciate knowing what 'REV?' and 'OPT?' says when you get a
chance. 'CALNUM?' would be interesting as well.

In the 3458A, the firmware is in an EPROM (6 EPROM's for the older

units)

and can be removed, a socket placed, and easily upgraded by

purchasing the

latest pre-programmed EPROM (or EPROM's for the older units) from

Agilent.

The only problem is they have a $50 minimum for this $18 part for the

later

units.

My wife thinks I am going to appear on an episode of 'Hoarders'.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jeff
Machesky

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

Wow, lots of replies all of a sudden. I'm already prepping the wife for
the $200 + price tag of calibration. Funny how when I was single I

would

have about $800 in cash in my wallet at all times and now I beg for 20
bucks, Hmm. Sad part is I make about 4 times the money. In any event
I've not received to much feedback on the "Self Test OK" message the
seller had posted. Any comments? I'm too much of a skeptic when it

comes

to eBay purchases. It's just a convenient place to purchase such goods.
Any feedback would be appreciated as to possible pitfalls regarding

this

device. I like to prep for issues rather then build myself up for
failure. What do they say...it's better to be pleasantly surprised then
let down.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/29/2012 5:40 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

According to the manual, there are only two 'adjustments' that can be

made

on a 3457A, Input Offset Amplifier adjustment and AC Converter

Frequency

Response, both needed only if there is a 'HARDWARE ERR' failure

message

after 'TEST' is selected and then only if it is a specific

'AUXERR' or

16 or
256 is seen. Otherwise, all the calibrations are done from the front

panel

with specific inputs from the front panel.

The CALNUM? is incremented by 'several digits' with a 'complete
calibration', one for each calibration point entered, per the manual.
Interestingly, when I sent my two 3458A's to Agilent for calibration,

the

CALNUM incremented by only 1. However, when I calibrated one of them
before
sending it to Agilent, (since I lost the data in the DALLAS CALRAM
chip that
I was removing) the CALNUM went from 1 to something like 34 or
something. I
don't recall. It seems that if you have the appropriate software to
run the
complete calibration protocol, it only increments by '1' instead of by

all

the data points entered. Such software exists for the 3457A but I have
never seen it available 'on theBay'. I suspect Agilent would have that
software and equipment to do that calibration and, thus, an Agilent
calibration may only increment the CALNUM? by 1.

When getting an Agilent calibration of the 3458A, you get 'As
Received' and
'As Completed' data. Very helpful to me in that the only two points my
'House CAL' of the one 3458A failed were the two 'midrange' AC Voltage
values. All else 'PASSED'.

I agree with Dave. If it's HP/Agilent, I prefer Agilent to do the CAL.

If

it's Solartron, I prefer AMETEK (Solartron), etc.

I believe that having some 'basic' professionally calibrated

instruments

(DMM's, Noise Sources, Power Sensors, Frequency Standards (unless you
have a
GPSDO, CS Standard, etc.) etc.), that you can then use as 'transfer
standards' to do your own 'in house' calibration of other instruments,

is

very important if you want to set up a reliable workshop.

Of course, you will also need a 'stable' source of the various

signals

that
you will use to be 'measured' by the various 'DUT's', such as

resistance,

voltage, current, frequency, etc. The 3458A is relatively easy to
calibrate, requiring only 10.000000 VDC, 10000.000 ohms, and some AC
voltage
at various frequencies, IIRC. I have never CAL'd a 3457A but the

3478A

is a
multi-step process.

This whole thing can become very 'addictive'. Be careful.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of David

Kirkby

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>

<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com> > wrote:

Thanks Dave, I actually have watched those videos. Bit drawn out

like

most of his videos..but still good. Too much detail is not always a

bad

thing.

I thought the bit showing the noise on the DVM was a bit silly when it
was connected to a DC power supply.

As for the 3457A, if it works I plan on getting it calibrated by

Agilent

within the year. From what I understand it's about a $200 US

investment.

The meter was last calibrated in '98, so I'll be curious to see how
accurate it is when I get it.

I think the calibration service you chose might dictate whether you
get data about the condition when sent.

When I send mine in for cal, I'd like to know what was out and by how
much. But I'm not going to pay extra for a calibration service that
provides that. As far as I'm concerned, if Agilent calibrate it, then
it is OK. For me personally, it makes no difference whatsoever if it
has ISO, NIST or whatever calibration. But I'd prefer Agilent to
someone else.

I have calibration certificate here for an Agilent VNA calibration
kit. It was done by a calibration house in the USA. But from what I
can gather from reading the documentation, the equipment to calibrate
them is not available commerically. So it makes me wonder how a lab
can calibrate a cal kit, when the equipment to do it can't be bought.

I suspect there is a fairly cosy realationship between some test
equipment dealers and calibration facilities.

I plan on purchasing some
voltage references from the well known site as a basic test of the
3457A. I may even calibrate it based on those references if it's way

out

and later getting it NIST traceable calibrated.

I don't know if there are pots in there you can adjust with a trimmer,
or if it is all done electronically. You might find it is impossible
to calibrate yourself.

I never had any reason to look inside mine.

Dave

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 12/31/2012 2:34 PM, Steve Krull wrote:

Jeff,

The history of the 3457A on the way to you doesn't seem unreasonable. If
it was built in the early to mid 90's it may have been calibrated
annually until 97, and a year later when it was due calibration again it
may have been replaced by a more accurate DVM, or used for non-critical
measurements not requiring traceable calibration, or put on a shelf and
not touched for some time. Maybe the owner decided 2012 was a good time
to retire or reduce inventory or upgrade to a 3458A and the e-place was
the way chosen to sell off the unit coming to you.

Cheers,

Steve

On 12/31/2012 2:45 PM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

I didn't know that's how the revisions numbers worked. So the one I have
on the way is 1991 revision. Interesting.

I do fully plan on sending the meter off to Agilent, assuming it doesn't
have any issues. I now am starting to question why a meter would be a
'91 revision and last calibrated in '97 and then sold on ebay in

2012. Hmmm.

As to the confidence check I figure even if I use some low temp co
resistors and trim them ever so slightly down to precision I might get
an hours worth of checks out of the design before it's off by any amount
I would care about. The nice part about the Hamon divider is it appears
to be about how well you match the resistors, not the absolute value.
You also appear to get an order of magnitude greater accuracy then your
original matching. I suspect I can get this pretty accurate. Perhaps a
couple uv very high impedance voltage follower to make it all more
stable. I'm testing the divider now with some resistors I've matched to
better then 0.01%. The temp-cos on them are horrible however. Good
enough for testing.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 1:21 PM, Steve Krull wrote:

The battery looks like it is original, so it could theoretically be up
to 25 years old based on the oft-quoted adage that adding 60 to the
first two digits of the sn prefix gives the year of the revision the
unit was built to. It could be much newer if that revision was in
production for many years, as is more likely the case. 25 years seems a
long time for that generation of battery technology. It is quite
possible the battery was replaced as recently as 2004/2005, just before
I got the unit. If that's the case whoever replaced it did an excellent
job as it looks like it's never been touched.

Your confidence check sounds reasonable. It would be interesting to the
group to see how your results compare with the "as received" numbers if
you do decide to sent your unit to Agilent.

Steve K.

On 12/31/2012 11:44 AM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

Thanks for the information Steve. Hopefully mine will have the 3.6

volt

battery seeing as how it has the newer serial number prefix. How old
do you figure your battery is to still have that voltage ?

On another note I think I'll get a 3.000 volt reference from
voltagestandard.com and build up really carefully a 0.1x and 0.01x

Hamon

divider to check the 300mv and 30mv ranges. Just as confidence check
until I can get it in for calibration. I could in theory check the
30v and 300v ranges by using 0.1x and 0.01x against those voltages
adjusting until the division matches the 3.000v reference and then
checking the results. So for the lower voltages I would divide by 10
or 100 the precision reference and for anything above the reference I
would divide and adjust until it matches the reference and take the
remainder. Hope that all makes sense.

3.00v * 0.01 for 30mv
3.00v * 0.1 for 300mv
3.00v * 1 for 3.00v
adj 30v * 0.1 until equal to 3.00v
adj 300v * 0.01 until equal to 3.00v

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Krull wrote:

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and

there's

no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date

code on

it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new

battery

in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No

problems

with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to

experiment with

that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my

8757A

so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the

volt-nuttery is

on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see

what the

CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked

at the

manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if

that's a

default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The

last

calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then

Boeing

Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and

check

the battery condition.

Steve

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 12/31/2012 2:45 PM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

I didn't know that's how the revisions numbers worked. So the one I have
on the way is 1991 revision. Interesting.

I do fully plan on sending the meter off to Agilent, assuming it doesn't
have any issues. I now am starting to question why a meter would be a
'91 revision and last calibrated in '97 and then sold on ebay in 2012. Hmmm.

As to the confidence check I figure even if I use some low temp co
resistors and trim them ever so slightly down to precision I might get
an hours worth of checks out of the design before it's off by any amount
I would care about. The nice part about the Hamon divider is it appears
to be about how well you match the resistors, not the absolute value.
You also appear to get an order of magnitude greater accuracy then your
original matching. I suspect I can get this pretty accurate. Perhaps a
couple uv very high impedance voltage follower to make it all more
stable. I'm testing the divider now with some resistors I've matched to
better then 0.01%. The temp-cos on them are horrible however. Good
enough for testing.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 1:21 PM, Steve Krull wrote:

The battery looks like it is original, so it could theoretically be up
to 25 years old based on the oft-quoted adage that adding 60 to the
first two digits of the sn prefix gives the year of the revision the
unit was built to. It could be much newer if that revision was in
production for many years, as is more likely the case. 25 years seems a
long time for that generation of battery technology. It is quite
possible the battery was replaced as recently as 2004/2005, just before
I got the unit. If that's the case whoever replaced it did an excellent
job as it looks like it's never been touched.

Your confidence check sounds reasonable. It would be interesting to the
group to see how your results compare with the "as received" numbers if
you do decide to sent your unit to Agilent.

Steve K.

On 12/31/2012 11:44 AM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

Thanks for the information Steve. Hopefully mine will have the 3.6 volt
battery seeing as how it has the newer serial number prefix. How old
do you figure your battery is to still have that voltage ?

On another note I think I'll get a 3.000 volt reference from
voltagestandard.com and build up really carefully a 0.1x and 0.01x Hamon
divider to check the 300mv and 30mv ranges. Just as confidence check
until I can get it in for calibration. I could in theory check the
30v and 300v ranges by using 0.1x and 0.01x against those voltages
adjusting until the division matches the 3.000v reference and then
checking the results. So for the lower voltages I would divide by 10
or 100 the precision reference and for anything above the reference I
would divide and adjust until it matches the reference and take the
remainder. Hope that all makes sense.

3.00v * 0.01 for 30mv
3.00v * 0.1 for 300mv
3.00v * 1 for 3.00v
adj 30v * 0.1 until equal to 3.00v
adj 300v * 0.01 until equal to 3.00v

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Krull wrote:

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and

there's

no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new

battery

in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to

experiment with

that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my

8757A

so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see

what the

CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked

at the

manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if

that's a

default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The

last

calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then

Boeing

Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and

check

the battery condition.

Steve

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 12/31/2012 2:49 PM, Tom Miller wrote:

Do you guys have the dimensions or a suggested part number for
replacements?
Since these are for the 8568, they would most likely be used in other
units. If they have a minimum quantity, maybe a group buy would be in
order. Distribution would be easy with 1st class mail. Also, a better
material might be a good change, maybe silicone, etc.

Thanks,
Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Krull
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: DIY: Repair of HP 8568B Step
Attenuators - another question...

Thanks Karl - I've emailed them to see if they will sell in small
quantities.

Steve K.

On 12/31/2012 12:46 PM, Karl wrote:

Ran across these guys while designing a gas analyzer. They make
all kinds of 0-Rings.



Karl

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Krull
<Steve-Krull@...> wrote:

I've got an attenuator for an 8672A that suffers from failed

O-rings. In

this case it appears someone used something nasty to try to clean the
spring contacts and attenuator pads and whatever was used dripped down
the nylon plungers and turned all the O-rings to a mushy black paste.
Not a single survivor. Agilent no longer stocks them but provides the
dimensions and material type so I just need to research a source.

Steve


On 12/30/2012 10:16 PM, pianovt wrote:

Hi Jim,

Do not unscrew the solenoids on the top, at least not for now.

To see

what's happening, you will have to open the lower part where the RF
action is.

The two SMA connectors have hex-nuts. Remove them. There is thin

name

plate that you can now remove. It covers the whole area between the
SMA connectors. It probably has a few glue spots on its other

side, so

carefully pry it off without bending the it. Now, you will see a

bunch

of socket cap screws. When you remove them, you will be able to
carefully separate the parts and gain access to the attenuator pads
and plungers. The rubber O-rings are on the tiny nylon plungers that
are attached to the gold plated spring contacts. I think there are

two

rings on each plunger, one on the RF side and one on the solenoid

side.

Vladan

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
<james.schatzman@> wrote:

Vladan-

I got the cover off without trouble. By testing I note that when

the

middle (40 dB) switch is triggered, the output turns off completely.
As far as I can determine, the plunger is actuated correctly. Moving
it manually also results in the loss of output. The other two

switches

(10 and 20 dB) work fine.

I suppose that either the switch contacts are failing or the 40 dB

resistor is open. Apparently both switches and resistors are inside
the two-piece machined steel block. All the RF path seems to be
inside. It would appear that I need to get this apart, but I am not
sure how to. There are quite a few screws attaching the solenoids to
the steel block, but I am not seeing what is holding the steel block
together.

This attenuator has a PC board with several chips on it. I have

noticed before that HP seems to have adopted the philosophy that

if 2

chips are good, then 20 must be better. It is a surprisingly
complicated device.

Any advice??

Thanks!

Jim



At 08:45 PM 12/30/2012, you wrote:

Jim,

You will have to pull out the front panel. There are a few

flat-head screws along the front frame (top and bottom, maybe even
sides - don't remember any more). Once you remove them, the front
panel pulls out of the front frame, though it still has a couple of
umbilicals attached. From there, you will see how to get the
attenuator out.

The most common failure has to do with the tiny rubber O-rings on

the plungers. This is all delicate magnifier work. Do not succumb to
the "magnetized housing" myth of repair. The attenuator depends on
magnets for latching. It's just that when the O-ring fails and

either

splits or falls off, the mechanism shifts closer to the magnet and

the

force of magnetic attraction increases. At that point, the solenoid
(which has nothing wrong with it) no longer can pull the parts away
from the magnet (which also has nothing wrong with it). This is when
some people decide that demagnetizing everything will fix things. If
you have the patience, study the design, it's interesting. The goal
was to use current only when switching a stage is required and then
interrupt all current to the coils as soon as the task is

accomplished.

You open the attenuator by removing one of the end caps and

sliding

the U-shaped steel cover off. It comes off relatively easily. Don't
try to remove it by prying with screwdrivers.

There are two versions of the attenuators. The older ones are all

electro-mechanical, the newer ones have a p.c. board with some

ICs on

them.

Good luck, they can be fixed, but the work requires some patience

and you may have to order no O-rings from Agilent.

Vladan

--- In

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
<james.schatzman@> wrote:

All-

O.k., I have an 8568B with a bad attenuator (40dB and below are

dead).

My big question is - how do you get access to the attenuator to

take it apart and clean/repair? It seems to be really buried under a
maze of stuff...

Thanks!

Jim



At 01:44 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:

Thanks a lot of this.

I just managed to get a 8568B that attenuator has some

problems

with the 20dB step.

These instructions encourage me to open the attenuator and

clean

the pads with isopropyl alcohol. Now it works fine.

I didn't made a testped for it i just cold moved carefully the

solenoids and checked with dg8saq vnwa the attenuator pads. I'm not
sure is the solenoid stuck or is it actually a contact failure.

The instructions how to disaasemble the attenuator was very

accurate and easy to follow.

BR, Jarmo

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Krull
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: DIY: Repair of HP 8568B Step Attenuators - another question...



Thanks Karl - I've emailed them to see if they will sell in small
quantities.

Steve K.

On 12/31/2012 12:46 PM, Karl wrote:
>
>
> Ran across these guys while designing a gas analyzer. They make
> all kinds of 0-Rings.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
> --- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
> <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Krull
> <Steve-Krull@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've got an attenuator for an 8672A that suffers from failed
> O-rings. In
> > this case it appears someone used something nasty to try to clean the
> > spring contacts and attenuator pads and whatever was used dripped down
> > the nylon plungers and turned all the O-rings to a mushy black paste.
> > Not a single survivor. Agilent no longer stocks them but provides the
> > dimensions and material type so I just need to research a source.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On 12/30/2012 10:16 PM, pianovt wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jim,
> > >
> > > Do not unscrew the solenoids on the top, at least not for now. To see
> > > what's happening, you will have to open the lower part where the RF
> > > action is.
> > >
> > > The two SMA connectors have hex-nuts. Remove them. There is thin name
> > > plate that you can now remove. It covers the whole area between the
> > > SMA connectors. It probably has a few glue spots on its other
> side, so
> > > carefully pry it off without bending the it. Now, you will see a
> bunch
> > > of socket cap screws. When you remove them, you will be able to
> > > carefully separate the parts and gain access to the attenuator pads
> > > and plungers. The rubber O-rings are on the tiny nylon plungers that
> > > are attached to the gold plated spring contacts. I think there are
> two
> > > rings on each plunger, one on the RF side and one on the solenoid
> side.
> > >
> > > Vladan
> > >
> > > --- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
> <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
> > > <james.schatzman@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vladan-
> > > >
> > > > I got the cover off without trouble. By testing I note that when
> the
> > > middle (40 dB) switch is triggered, the output turns off completely.
> > > As far as I can determine, the plunger is actuated correctly. Moving
> > > it manually also results in the loss of output. The other two
> switches
> > > (10 and 20 dB) work fine.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose that either the switch contacts are failing or the 40 dB
> > > resistor is open. Apparently both switches and resistors are inside
> > > the two-piece machined steel block. All the RF path seems to be
> > > inside. It would appear that I need to get this apart, but I am not
> > > sure how to. There are quite a few screws attaching the solenoids to
> > > the steel block, but I am not seeing what is holding the steel block
> > > together.
> > > >
> > > > This attenuator has a PC board with several chips on it. I have
> > > noticed before that HP seems to have adopted the philosophy that if 2
> > > chips are good, then 20 must be better. It is a surprisingly
> > > complicated device.
> > > >
> > > > Any advice??
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 08:45 PM 12/30/2012, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Jim,
> > > > >
> > > > >You will have to pull out the front panel. There are a few
> > > flat-head screws along the front frame (top and bottom, maybe even
> > > sides - don't remember any more). Once you remove them, the front
> > > panel pulls out of the front frame, though it still has a couple of
> > > umbilicals attached. From there, you will see how to get the
> > > attenuator out.
> > > > >
> > > > >The most common failure has to do with the tiny rubber O-rings on
> > > the plungers. This is all delicate magnifier work. Do not succumb to
> > > the "magnetized housing" myth of repair. The attenuator depends on
> > > magnets for latching. It's just that when the O-ring fails and either
> > > splits or falls off, the mechanism shifts closer to the magnet and
> the
> > > force of magnetic attraction increases. At that point, the solenoid
> > > (which has nothing wrong with it) no longer can pull the parts away
> > > from the magnet (which also has nothing wrong with it). This is when
> > > some people decide that demagnetizing everything will fix things. If
> > > you have the patience, study the design, it's interesting. The goal
> > > was to use current only when switching a stage is required and then
> > > interrupt all current to the coils as soon as the task is
> accomplished.
> > > > >
> > > > >You open the attenuator by removing one of the end caps and
> sliding
> > > the U-shaped steel cover off. It comes off relatively easily. Don't
> > > try to remove it by prying with screwdrivers.
> > > > >
> > > > >There are two versions of the attenuators. The older ones are all
> > > electro-mechanical, the newer ones have a p.c. board with some ICs on
> > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > >Good luck, they can be fixed, but the work requires some patience
> > > and you may have to order no O-rings from Agilent.
> > > > >
> > > > >Vladan
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In
> > >
> <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>hp_agilent_equipment@...
> <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
> > > <james.schatzman@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> All-
> > > > >>
> > > > >> O.k., I have an 8568B with a bad attenuator (40dB and below are
> > > dead).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My big question is - how do you get access to the attenuator to
> > > take it apart and clean/repair? It seems to be really buried under a
> > > maze of stuff...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jim
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At 01:44 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Thanks a lot of this.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I just managed to get a 8568B that attenuator has some problems
> > > with the 20dB step.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >These instructions encourage me to open the attenuator and
> clean
> > > the pads with isopropyl alcohol. Now it works fine.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I didn't made a testped for it i just cold moved carefully the
> > > solenoids and checked with dg8saq vnwa the attenuator pads. I'm not
> > > sure is the solenoid stuck or is it actually a contact failure.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >The instructions how to disaasemble the attenuator was very
> > > accurate and easy to follow.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >BR, Jarmo
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

On 12/31/2012 1:21 PM, Steve Krull wrote:

The battery looks like it is original, so it could theoretically be up
to 25 years old based on the oft-quoted adage that adding 60 to the
first two digits of the sn prefix gives the year of the revision the
unit was built to. It could be much newer if that revision was in
production for many years, as is more likely the case. 25 years seems a
long time for that generation of battery technology. It is quite
possible the battery was replaced as recently as 2004/2005, just before
I got the unit. If that's the case whoever replaced it did an excellent
job as it looks like it's never been touched.

Your confidence check sounds reasonable. It would be interesting to the
group to see how your results compare with the "as received" numbers if
you do decide to sent your unit to Agilent.

Steve K.

On 12/31/2012 11:44 AM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

Thanks for the information Steve. Hopefully mine will have the 3.6 volt
battery seeing as how it has the newer serial number prefix. How old
do you figure your battery is to still have that voltage ?

On another note I think I'll get a 3.000 volt reference from
voltagestandard.com and build up really carefully a 0.1x and 0.01x Hamon
divider to check the 300mv and 30mv ranges. Just as confidence check
until I can get it in for calibration. I could in theory check the
30v and 300v ranges by using 0.1x and 0.01x against those voltages
adjusting until the division matches the 3.000v reference and then
checking the results. So for the lower voltages I would divide by 10
or 100 the precision reference and for anything above the reference I
would divide and adjust until it matches the reference and take the
remainder. Hope that all makes sense.

3.00v * 0.01 for 30mv
3.00v * 0.1 for 300mv
3.00v * 1 for 3.00v
adj 30v * 0.1 until equal to 3.00v
adj 300v * 0.01 until equal to 3.00v

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Krull wrote:

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and

there's

no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new

battery

in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to

experiment with

that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my

8757A

so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see

what the

CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked

at the

manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if

that's a

default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The

last

calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then

Boeing

Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and

check

the battery condition.

Steve

On 12/31/2012 12:46 PM, Karl wrote:

Ran across these guys while designing a gas analyzer. They make
all kinds of 0-Rings.



Karl

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Krull
<Steve-Krull@...> wrote:

I've got an attenuator for an 8672A that suffers from failed

O-rings. In

this case it appears someone used something nasty to try to clean the
spring contacts and attenuator pads and whatever was used dripped down
the nylon plungers and turned all the O-rings to a mushy black paste.
Not a single survivor. Agilent no longer stocks them but provides the
dimensions and material type so I just need to research a source.

Steve


On 12/30/2012 10:16 PM, pianovt wrote:

Hi Jim,

Do not unscrew the solenoids on the top, at least not for now. To see
what's happening, you will have to open the lower part where the RF
action is.

The two SMA connectors have hex-nuts. Remove them. There is thin name
plate that you can now remove. It covers the whole area between the
SMA connectors. It probably has a few glue spots on its other

side, so

carefully pry it off without bending the it. Now, you will see a

bunch

of socket cap screws. When you remove them, you will be able to
carefully separate the parts and gain access to the attenuator pads
and plungers. The rubber O-rings are on the tiny nylon plungers that
are attached to the gold plated spring contacts. I think there are

two

rings on each plunger, one on the RF side and one on the solenoid

side.

Vladan

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
<james.schatzman@> wrote:

Vladan-

I got the cover off without trouble. By testing I note that when

the

middle (40 dB) switch is triggered, the output turns off completely.
As far as I can determine, the plunger is actuated correctly. Moving
it manually also results in the loss of output. The other two

switches

(10 and 20 dB) work fine.

I suppose that either the switch contacts are failing or the 40 dB

resistor is open. Apparently both switches and resistors are inside
the two-piece machined steel block. All the RF path seems to be
inside. It would appear that I need to get this apart, but I am not
sure how to. There are quite a few screws attaching the solenoids to
the steel block, but I am not seeing what is holding the steel block
together.

This attenuator has a PC board with several chips on it. I have

noticed before that HP seems to have adopted the philosophy that if 2
chips are good, then 20 must be better. It is a surprisingly
complicated device.

Any advice??

Thanks!

Jim



At 08:45 PM 12/30/2012, you wrote:

Jim,

You will have to pull out the front panel. There are a few

flat-head screws along the front frame (top and bottom, maybe even
sides - don't remember any more). Once you remove them, the front
panel pulls out of the front frame, though it still has a couple of
umbilicals attached. From there, you will see how to get the
attenuator out.

The most common failure has to do with the tiny rubber O-rings on

the plungers. This is all delicate magnifier work. Do not succumb to
the "magnetized housing" myth of repair. The attenuator depends on
magnets for latching. It's just that when the O-ring fails and either
splits or falls off, the mechanism shifts closer to the magnet and

the

force of magnetic attraction increases. At that point, the solenoid
(which has nothing wrong with it) no longer can pull the parts away
from the magnet (which also has nothing wrong with it). This is when
some people decide that demagnetizing everything will fix things. If
you have the patience, study the design, it's interesting. The goal
was to use current only when switching a stage is required and then
interrupt all current to the coils as soon as the task is

accomplished.

You open the attenuator by removing one of the end caps and

sliding

the U-shaped steel cover off. It comes off relatively easily. Don't
try to remove it by prying with screwdrivers.

There are two versions of the attenuators. The older ones are all

electro-mechanical, the newer ones have a p.c. board with some ICs on
them.

Good luck, they can be fixed, but the work requires some patience

and you may have to order no O-rings from Agilent.

Vladan

--- In

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Schatzman
<james.schatzman@> wrote:

All-

O.k., I have an 8568B with a bad attenuator (40dB and below are

dead).

My big question is - how do you get access to the attenuator to

take it apart and clean/repair? It seems to be really buried under a
maze of stuff...

Thanks!

Jim



At 01:44 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:

Thanks a lot of this.

I just managed to get a 8568B that attenuator has some problems

with the 20dB step.

These instructions encourage me to open the attenuator and

clean

the pads with isopropyl alcohol. Now it works fine.

I didn't made a testped for it i just cold moved carefully the

solenoids and checked with dg8saq vnwa the attenuator pads. I'm not
sure is the solenoid stuck or is it actually a contact failure.

The instructions how to disaasemble the attenuator was very

accurate and easy to follow.

BR, Jarmo

On 12/31/2012 11:44 AM, Jeff Machesky wrote:

Thanks for the information Steve. Hopefully mine will have the 3.6 volt
battery seeing as how it has the newer serial number prefix. How old
do you figure your battery is to still have that voltage ?

On another note I think I'll get a 3.000 volt reference from
voltagestandard.com and build up really carefully a 0.1x and 0.01x Hamon
divider to check the 300mv and 30mv ranges. Just as confidence check
until I can get it in for calibration. I could in theory check the
30v and 300v ranges by using 0.1x and 0.01x against those voltages
adjusting until the division matches the 3.000v reference and then
checking the results. So for the lower voltages I would divide by 10
or 100 the precision reference and for anything above the reference I
would divide and adjust until it matches the reference and take the
remainder. Hope that all makes sense.

3.00v * 0.01 for 30mv
3.00v * 0.1 for 300mv
3.00v * 1 for 3.00v
adj 30v * 0.1 until equal to 3.00v
adj 300v * 0.01 until equal to 3.00v

Thanks,

Jeff

On 12/31/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Krull wrote:

Joe and all,

I just had a quick look inside my 3457A again. Mine has the 3.0 volt
lithium battery, SAFT LX-1634. Obsolete at Agilent, as is the newer
battery. Google was no help either. Mine measures 3.03 volts and there's
no evidence of corrosion so that's good. I couldn't see a date code on
it; probably on the underneath side. I've replaced batteries by
paralleling the existing connections with an appropriate power supply
and then unsoldering the old battery with an isolated-tip iron and
soldering in the new battery. I've also carefully soldered a new battery
in parallel with the old and then clipped out the old one. No problems
with lost data so far.

I'm not sure how the cal numbers increment. I'll have to experiment with
that sometime. Right now I need to repair the 1349D display in my 8757A
so I can get on with a sweeper plug in project, so the volt-nuttery is
on hold for awhile.

Happy New Year to all!

Steve

On 12/30/2012 5:34 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the data. Mine is also 2703A prefix with REV?:6,0 and
CALNUM?:98. Not a multiple of 34. Would be interesting to see what the
CALNUM increments by after an Agilent CAL.

I, too, need to look at the battery condition. I have not looked

at the

manual regarding replacing the battery. Has anyone done that without
losing
the CAL Constants?

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:14 PM
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>

<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way

It would be interesting to see if a newer rev is out there. My 3457A
is s.n.
prefix 2703, with rev 6,0 and option 0, CALNUM=34. I wonder if

that's a

default number for anything less than a full cal at Agilent? The last
calibration was at least 6 years ago and performed by what was then

Boeing

Military Airplane Company's metrology lab. I need to open it up and

check

the battery condition.

Steve

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., Steve Vineyard <willltinker@...> wrote:

Martin,

Well that is the information I was looking for! Thank you, however that
is not what I expected. That was option "2" for me. To me it seemed more
logical to provide a 600 ohm load to the 600 ohm output of the TG and
then provide a 50 ohm impedance to the 50 ohm load. But what do I know!
That is why I asked!

I will have to build one like that and see what difference it makes in
my measurements.

Thank you Martin. Good find by the way. But I am stumped, like you, as
to what the difference is between the "11660A 50 ohm TG Shunt" and the
"11048C 50 ohm Feed Thru Termination". Because the Feed Thru's I have
measure exactly the same as you say this Shunt does.

Maybe someone will know the difference.

Steve, KJ5RV

danaz.chandler wrote:

There was one on Ebay. I bought it. It has a shunt impedance of 50
ohms and a series impedance of zero ohms....Looks just like a 11048C
to me...I don't understand.

Dan in Chandler, AZ
==================================================

--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, "martin_u_fischer"
<martin.u.fischer@> wrote:

Hello Steve,

even using resistors of utmost precision you would neither obtain a

600 ohms input resistance (= load resistance for the TG) nor a 50 ohms
output resistance (= source resistance for the 50 ohms load).

You may verify this fact by terminating the output into 50 ohms and

measuring the resulting input resistance (which will be 575 ohms).
Terminating the input into 600 ohms (= source resistance of the TG)
will yield a source resistance of approx. 47.916666 ohms for the load.

Regards
Martin