¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Date

Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

Price seems to be going up.....

Wasnt this 5500 a little while ago?
8340B not 5340B.

Jeff
In a message dated 2/29/2020 1:01:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, pmanfre@... writes:

With all this talk about 8510c systems I would like to remind all that I have available a 40GHz 8510c system available for sale.? ?It consists of¡­ 8510c, 8530a, 8516a, 5340b, all interconnect cables,? hp rack,? paper manuals,? (hp test port cables (the real expensive ones,? and cal kit available¡­ additional cost).? Everything tested and working? as it should.? Pick up,? so it can be demo'd.? $7100¡­ additional for cal kit and test port cables¡­

Pics available¡­?

Sorry for bandwidth¡­


Pete wa2odo


?



Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Thanks, Steve.? More good info.? Jim



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Steve - Home <steve-krull@...>
Date: 2/29/20 6:42 AM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

If you get an 8340B with the options that provided rear panel output and no attenuator it was probably from an ATE system or 8510 system. The attenuators are commonly available on eBay but the special bracket for the front panel RF output rarely appears. I lucked out and got one. Addition of the attenuator requires changes to the stored configuration/calibration constants.
Inside the left side panel, near the rear of the 8340, is a pocket that should have a printed listing of the configuration and calibration constants for your serial number. If that list is missing, I¡¯d recommend resurrecting an old 2225A printer, grab the service manual, and print a listing before doing anything else.
It¡¯s not a difficult conversion unless you have to make the odd-shaped bracket for the connector.

Steve
WB0DBS



> On Feb 29, 2020, at 12:13 AM, Sergey Kubushyn <ksi@...> wrote:
>
> ?On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>
> I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
> setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
> that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
>
> Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
> "Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
> in the latter category.)
>
> There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
> than basic instrument without options.
>
>> Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>> -------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20? 4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? > 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A? become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to? >> work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc., in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
>
> ---
> *
> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
> *
>
>
>





Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

Pete Manfre
 

With all this talk about 8510c systems I would like to remind all that I have available a 40GHz 8510c system available for sale.? ?It consists of¡­ 8510c, 8530a, 8516a, 5340b, all interconnect cables,? hp rack,? paper manuals,? (hp test port cables (the real expensive ones,? and cal kit available¡­ additional cost).? Everything tested and working? as it should.? Pick up,? so it can be demo'd.? $7100¡­ additional for cal kit and test port cables¡­?

Pics available¡­??

Sorry for bandwidth¡­?

Pete wa2odo?



Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Thanks, jfphp.? Good information.? Jim?



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "jfphp via Groups.Io" <jfphp@...>
Date: 2/29/20 5:35 AM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

834XX is a boxed synthesized 83592/5X where all aligments are made with potentiometers. 836XXX is a DAC based system with all aligments made with the RPG on the front panel. Beware of the various 836XXX : every piece is different with/out tracking filter/amplifier ; pulse modulator with or without amplifier... The 836XXX without front panel --devoted to the 8510X-- are poor signal generators (no tracking filter, relaxed specs and RF deck very different from a standard on). In a 8510X system the only difference is a better amplitude stability with time from the 836XXX and a quicker step sweep. Keep in mind the sp¨¦cifications about the temperature and the amplitude accuracy : it is ridiculous to mesure a 110 db step attenuator with a 8510X and give data to 1/10th of db. Use a 8902A opt 050 with downconverter
On Saturday, February 29, 2020, 01:49:45 PM GMT+1, Chuck Harris <cfharris@...> wrote:


When Jim Ford replies from his Samsung phone, he wipes out
all of the formatting.? When he replies from his Windows box,
(em client) formatting is preserved.

His reply was the first to have destroyed the formatting.

-Chuck Harris

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Sergey.? I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no
>> options".
>>
>> BTW, do you see your own text below?? When I reply, I see the previous text on my
>> screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the
>> other text as well.? Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from
>> previous posts.? But I've often wondered if others see the previous text.? It bugs
>> the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with
>> no context.
>
> Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
> a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
> do...
>
> Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
> text making it all one long line without breaks.
>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
>>> setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
>>> that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
>>>
>>> Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
>>> "Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
>>> in the latter category.)
>>>
>>> There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
>>> than basic instrument without options.
>>>
>>>> Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't
>>>> concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at
>>>> 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset
>>>> not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20?
>>>> 4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
>>>> [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series
>>>> that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I
>>>> think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can -
>>>> check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford
>>>> <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share
>>>> circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was
>>>> pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? >
>>>> 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the
>>>> labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom
>>>> part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are
>>>> 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------
>>>> Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io"
>>>> <pianovt=[email protected]>> To: [email protected]> Sent:
>>>> 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B
>>>> vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >>
>>>> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back
>>>> then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A?
>>>> become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the
>>>> two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000.
>>>> Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a
>>>> new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series
>>>> had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510.
>>>> Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface.
>>>> They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept
>>>> the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >>
>>>> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was
>>>> introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are
>>>> willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >>
>>>> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to
>>>> 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which
>>>> firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine
>>>> style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much
>>>> the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >>
>>>> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc.,
>>>> in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside
>>>> is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are
>>>> largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also
>>>> available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and
>>>> calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general
>>>> public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> *
>>> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
>>> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> *
> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
> *
>
>
>
>



Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Good to know, Chuck.? I will keep my replies from the phone brief.? As to the quoted text getting deformatted, I don't think I can do anything about that.?



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Chuck Harris <cfharris@...>
Date: 2/29/20 4:49 AM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

When Jim Ford replies from his Samsung phone, he wipes out
all of the formatting.? When he replies from his Windows box,
(em client) formatting is preserved.

His reply was the first to have destroyed the formatting.

-Chuck Harris

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Sergey.? I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no
>> options".
>>
>> BTW, do you see your own text below?? When I reply, I see the previous text on my
>> screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the
>> other text as well.? Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from
>> previous posts.? But I've often wondered if others see the previous text.? It bugs
>> the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with
>> no context.
>
> Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
> a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
> do...
>
> Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
> text making it all one long line without breaks.
>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
>>> setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
>>> that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
>>>
>>> Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
>>> "Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
>>> in the latter category.)
>>>
>>> There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
>>> than basic instrument without options.
>>>
>>>> Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't
>>>> concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at
>>>> 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset
>>>> not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20?
>>>> 4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
>>>> [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series
>>>> that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I
>>>> think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can -
>>>> check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford
>>>> <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share
>>>> circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was
>>>> pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? >
>>>> 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the
>>>> labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom
>>>> part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are
>>>> 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------
>>>> Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io"
>>>> <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent:
>>>> 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B
>>>> vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >>
>>>> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back
>>>> then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A?
>>>> become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the
>>>> two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000.
>>>> Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a
>>>> new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series
>>>> had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510.
>>>> Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface.
>>>> They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept
>>>> the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >>
>>>> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was
>>>> introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are
>>>> willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >>
>>>> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to
>>>> 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which
>>>> firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine
>>>> style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much
>>>> the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >>
>>>> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc.,
>>>> in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside
>>>> is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are
>>>> largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also
>>>> available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and
>>>> calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general
>>>> public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> *
>>> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
>>> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> *
> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
> *
>
>
>
>




Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Good.? I guess my phone and laptop computer automagically include the previous text.

Yes, people who don't provide context are forgiven their minor iniquities.

Thanks.

Jim



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Sergey Kubushyn <ksi@...>
Date: 2/28/20 11:47 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

> Thanks, Sergey.? I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with
> no options".
>
> BTW, do you see your own text below?? When I reply, I see the previous text
> on my screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it
> contains the other text as well.? Therefore, I haven't made any effort to
> copy text from previous posts.? But I've often wondered if others see the
> previous text.? It bugs the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I
> agree" post, for example, with no context.

Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
do...

Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
text making it all one long line without breaks.

>
> Jim
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B
>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>>
>> I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
>> setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can
>> tell
>> that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
>>
>> Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
>> "Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
>> in the latter category.)
>>
>> There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it
>> better
>> than basic instrument without options.
>>
>>> Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't
>>> concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the
>>> same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor),
>>> and 30 Hz offset not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon,
>>> Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>> -------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date:
>>> 2/28/20? 4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some
>>> of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise
>>> than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful
>>> and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to? be sure my
>>> mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting,
>>> Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with? > the 8566 spec
>>> an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty? > much just a
>>> synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? > 8341 (yet), but
>>> there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the labs at
>>> work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom
>>> part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone
>>> synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the
>>> 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via
>>> Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To:
>>> [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM>
>>> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>>
>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >> the
>>> 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back
>>> then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the
>>> 8340A? become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B
>>> versions of the two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary
>>> processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the
>>> 8510C. While this was going on, a new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was
>>> released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were
>>> stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means
>>> they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were
>>> meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the
>>> cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >>
>>> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was
>>> introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are
>>> willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you
>>> can? >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to
>>> >> work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >>
>>> not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy,
>>> and it has a jet engine style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency
>>> synthesis circuits are pretty much the? >> same as what was used in the
>>> 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >> also an output section with a
>>> multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc., in other words all the
>>> stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO
>>> parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely
>>> available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also
>>> available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment
>>> and calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the
>>> general public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
>>
>> ---
>> *
>> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
>> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

---
*
*? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
*? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
*




Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

Thanks for the explanation, Job. I didn't see that part of your Twitter post (I guess I don't know hoow to use Twitter and Facebook). Those rubber mounts are actually a big deal. They are there to reduce microphonic disturbances from the fan from getting to the OCXO and anything else that might respond to the shaking.

The top thing that annoys me about the 8340 (and 8566), its the fan noise. It's well worth fixing that problem, especially since these instruments won't be running at 55C here (that's the rating the fan was designed for).

Vladan


Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

Sergey,

The rear output option is unattractive unless you want to commit the 8340 for use with a 8510. Then it's better than the front output. Since this thread is about the use of a 8340/8360 with a 8510, we should keep that in mind. The same is true about other specs which are secondary in a VNA application (e.g. phase noise).

Steve is right, the conversion to front panel output does require a machined bracket. As I recall, it's not an easy DIY piece.

Vladan


Re: Upcoming Stuff Day event at Sphere Research

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Dana,

If Walter doesn't have one you can get a new one direct from Keysight, pn 34401-49321, cost is $12.79. I replaced mine a year or so ago.

Steve K.


On 2/29/2020 8:57 AM, Dana Smith via Groups.Io wrote:

Hello Walter, would you happen to have a replacement window for a HP 34401a ?
Mine ie scratched up bad and would like to replace it.?
Thank you,
Dana J Smith


Re: Upcoming Stuff Day event at Sphere Research

 

On 2020-02-29 9:57 AM, Dana Smith via Groups.Io wrote:
Hello Walter, would you happen to have a replacement window for a HP
34401a ?
Mine ie scratched up bad and would like to replace it.
Hi Dana

I'mnot familiar with that exact faceplate but if it's unmarked, I've
found 1.5mm clear acrylic cut to size works nicely for this. Notches, if
required by the fitting, can be dremeled on the edges.

--Toby


Thank you,
Dana J Smith


Re: Upcoming Stuff Day event at Sphere Research

 

Hello Walter, would you happen to have a replacement window for a HP 34401a ?
Mine ie scratched up bad and would like to replace it.?
Thank you,
Dana J Smith


Re: Load 8510C instead of 8530A in a 85101C

 

I¡¯ve done the ¡°make program disk¡± and ¡°load program disk¡± and it works a treat. I also converted an 8510X to 8510C. Someone mentioned awhile back that you couldn¡¯t take a program disk from one serial numbered machine and do a ¡°load program¡± onto another 8510 as the programs contained serial number data. That doesn¡¯t appear to be the case.
The 8530 to 8510 may be a different thing, though, as there¡¯s a PROM or EPROM specific to the 8530 on the security key board. I don¡¯t have an 8530 so I can¡¯t give it a try.

Steve
WB0DBS

On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:23 PM, Job PH4AS <groupsio@...> wrote:

?Hi Reg,

On 2/29/20 12:09 AM, Reginald Beardsley via Groups.Io wrote:
I have an HP floppy with the 8530A FW V 1.60 and an 8530A with the 8510C FW loaded. I would love to get a floppy image for the 8510C FW so I can switch between the two.
As far as I understand the 8510C On-Site Service Manual (08510-90282)
page 9-20: Making a Backup Operating System Disk
This function is intended exactly for that purpose.
Function 19 is "Load Program Disc" which I assume does the reverse.

Of course I have never tested this yet.

So you should be able to backup your 8510C and then load the 8350A. But
do test your disk somehow as mine are all old and shaky.

Best regards,
Job
PH4AS




Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

If you get an 8340B with the options that provided rear panel output and no attenuator it was probably from an ATE system or 8510 system. The attenuators are commonly available on eBay but the special bracket for the front panel RF output rarely appears. I lucked out and got one. Addition of the attenuator requires changes to the stored configuration/calibration constants.
Inside the left side panel, near the rear of the 8340, is a pocket that should have a printed listing of the configuration and calibration constants for your serial number. If that list is missing, I¡¯d recommend resurrecting an old 2225A printer, grab the service manual, and print a listing before doing anything else.
It¡¯s not a difficult conversion unless you have to make the odd-shaped bracket for the connector.

Steve
WB0DBS

On Feb 29, 2020, at 12:13 AM, Sergey Kubushyn <ksi@...> wrote:

?On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.

Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
"Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
in the latter category.)

There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
than basic instrument without options.

Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10. I guess James Bond wasn't concerned about phase noise! 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20 4:43 PM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase noise than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with > the 8566 spec an. I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway. I don't have an 8340 or > 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in > one of the labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the > 8566. The sloped bottom part of the front panel gives them away. I > believe the standalone synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4 > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with >> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360 >> series back then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at >> some point the 8340A become a "B" too. The biggest difference >> between the A and B versions of the two instruments was the change >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a new >> sweeping syntehsizerseries was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were stripped down, >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means they didn't >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were meant to >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the cost >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or >> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was introduced, >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are willing >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am >> not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine style cooling >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much the >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is >> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits, >> modulation etc., in other words all the stuff that's needed to get >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely available for the >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also available. Not so much >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and calibration >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general public >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
---
*
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
*



Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

834XX is a boxed synthesized 83592/5X where all aligments are made with potentiometers. 836XXX is a DAC based system with all aligments made with the RPG on the front panel. Beware of the various 836XXX : every piece is different with/out tracking filter/amplifier ; pulse modulator with or without amplifier... The 836XXX without front panel --devoted to the 8510X-- are poor signal generators (no tracking filter, relaxed specs and RF deck very different from a standard on). In a 8510X system the only difference is a better amplitude stability with time from the 836XXX and a quicker step sweep. Keep in mind the sp¨¦cifications about the temperature and the amplitude accuracy : it is ridiculous to mesure a 110 db step attenuator with a 8510X and give data to 1/10th of db. Use a 8902A opt 050 with downconverter
On Saturday, February 29, 2020, 01:49:45 PM GMT+1, Chuck Harris <cfharris@...> wrote:


When Jim Ford replies from his Samsung phone, he wipes out
all of the formatting.? When he replies from his Windows box,
(em client) formatting is preserved.

His reply was the first to have destroyed the formatting.

-Chuck Harris

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Sergey.? I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no
>> options".
>>
>> BTW, do you see your own text below?? When I reply, I see the previous text on my
>> screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the
>> other text as well.? Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from
>> previous posts.? But I've often wondered if others see the previous text.? It bugs
>> the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with
>> no context.
>
> Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
> a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
> do...
>
> Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
> text making it all one long line without breaks.
>
>>
>> Jim
>>

>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
>>> setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
>>> that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
>>>
>>> Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
>>> "Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
>>> in the latter category.)
>>>
>>> There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
>>> than basic instrument without options.
>>>
>>>> Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't
>>>> concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at
>>>> 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset
>>>> not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>>> -------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20?
>>>> 4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
>>>> [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series
>>>> that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I
>>>> think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can -
>>>> check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford
>>>> <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share
>>>> circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was
>>>> pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? >
>>>> 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the
>>>> labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom
>>>> part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are
>>>> 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------
>>>> Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io"
>>>> <pianovt=[email protected]>> To: [email protected]> Sent:
>>>> 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B
>>>> vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >>
>>>> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back
>>>> then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A?
>>>> become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the
>>>> two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000.
>>>> Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a
>>>> new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series
>>>> had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510.
>>>> Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface.
>>>> They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept
>>>> the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >>
>>>> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was
>>>> introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are
>>>> willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >>
>>>> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to
>>>> 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which
>>>> firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine
>>>> style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much
>>>> the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >>
>>>> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc.,
>>>> in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside
>>>> is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are
>>>> largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also
>>>> available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and
>>>> calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general
>>>> public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> *
>>> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
>>> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> *
> *? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
> *? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
> *
>
>
>
>



HP3336b

Tim
 

Hello Everyone. Been a lurker here for awhile. Great stuff here. I find myself reading about equipment I don't even own. I need a little direction. I have s HP3336b that when I turn it on will show a Fail Oscil for about 5 seconds and then go away. It seems to work find after that. Every once in away I will have to turn it off to get rid of the error. Can anyone point me the direction to start? Thanks


Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

When Jim Ford replies from his Samsung phone, he wipes out
all of the formatting. When he replies from his Windows box,
(em client) formatting is preserved.

His reply was the first to have destroyed the formatting.

-Chuck Harris

Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

Thanks, Sergey.? I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no
options".

BTW, do you see your own text below?? When I reply, I see the previous text on my
screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the
other text as well.? Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from
previous posts.? But I've often wondered if others see the previous text.? It bugs
the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with
no context.
Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
do...

Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
text making it all one long line without breaks.


Jim

------ Original Message ------
From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.

Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
"Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
in the latter category.)

There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
than basic instrument without options.

Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't
concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at
100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset
not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20?
4:43 PM? (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
[HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series
that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I
think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can -
check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford
<james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share
circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was
pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? >
8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the
labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom
part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are
5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------
Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io"
<pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent:
2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B
vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >>
the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back
then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A?
become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the
two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000.
Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a
new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series
had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510.
Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface.
They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept
the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >>
synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was
introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are
willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >>
probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to
26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which
firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine
style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much
the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >>
also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc.,
in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside
is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are
largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also
available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and
calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general
public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
---
*
*? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
*? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
*





---
*
*? KSI@home??? KOI8 Net? < >? The impossible we do immediately.? *
*? Las Vegas?? NV, USA?? < >? Miracles require 24-hour notice.?? *
*




Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

Hi Vladan,

None of these were necessary :-) a screwdriver and some patience is all
I can remember.

This shows the difference in depth of the fans:


I remember there were some rubbers which caused it to sag a bit and it
started touching the outer cover, but it doesnt matter AFAIK. No extra
vibration or so.

Best regards,

Job
PH4AS

On 2/29/20 1:11 AM, pianovt via Groups.Io wrote:
Sorry, but I can't see much there. Do you remember having to use a
hacksaw, drill, file, oxy-acatelyne welder, pneumatic grinder, sawzall,
jackhammer, etc?

Vladan
_._,_._,_


Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

Thanks, Sergey. I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no options".

BTW, do you see your own text below? When I reply, I see the previous text on my screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the other text as well. Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from previous posts. But I've often wondered if others see the previous text. It bugs the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with no context.
Those people who post a single "Me too!" letters are mentally ill and it is
a sin to insult them. Thou shalt forgive them; for they know not what they
do...

Your quoting is fine; it is somebody else that screwed up earlier message
text making it all one long line without breaks.


Jim

------ Original Message ------
From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:
I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.
Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
"Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
in the latter category.)
There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
than basic instrument without options.

Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10. I guess James Bond wasn't concerned about phase noise! 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20 4:43 PM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase noise than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with > the 8566 spec an. I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway. I don't have an 8340 or > 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in > one of the labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the > 8566. The sloped bottom part of the front panel gives them away. I > believe the standalone synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4 > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with >> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360 >> series back then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at >> some point the 8340A become a "B" too. The biggest difference >> between the A and B versions of the two instruments was the change >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a new >> sweeping syntehsizerseries was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were stripped down, >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means they didn't >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were meant to >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the cost >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or >> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was introduced, >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are willing >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to
work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am >>
not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine style cooling >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much the >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is >> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits, >> modulation etc., in other words all the stuff that's needed to get >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely available for the >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also available. Not so much >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and calibration >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general public >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
---
*
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
*


---
*
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
*


Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

Thanks, Sergey. I have updated my "wishlist" HP 8340 entry to add "best with no options".

BTW, do you see your own text below? When I reply, I see the previous text on my screen, and when I receive my own reply as posted to the group, it contains the other text as well. Therefore, I haven't made any effort to copy text from previous posts. But I've often wondered if others see the previous text. It bugs the crap out of me to see somebody else's "Yeah, I agree" post, for example, with no context.

Jim

------ Original Message ------
From: "Sergey Kubushyn" <ksi@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2/28/2020 10:13:42 PM
Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.

Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
"Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
in the latter category.)

There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
than basic instrument without options.

Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10. I guess James Bond wasn't concerned about phase noise! 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset not specified. Thanks, Bruce. JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20 4:43 PM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase noise than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with > the 8566 spec an. I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway. I don't have an 8340 or > 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in > one of the labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the > 8566. The sloped bottom part of the front panel gives them away. I > believe the standalone synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4 > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with >> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360 >> series back then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at >> some point the 8340A become a "B" too. The biggest difference >> between the A and B versions of the two instruments was the change >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a new >> sweeping syntehsizerseries was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were stripped down, >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means they didn't >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were meant to >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the cost >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or >> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was introduced, >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are willing >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to >> work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am >> not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine style cooling >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much the >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is >> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits, >> modulation etc., in other words all the stuff that's needed to get >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely available for the >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also available. Not so much >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and calibration >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general public >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
---
*
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
*



Re: 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B

 

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Jim Ford wrote:

I don't know who had all that message thread screwed up (guys, _PLEASE_
setup proper quoting -- it is impossible to read) but as of 8340B I can tell
that the best one is instrument without _ANY_ options.

Unlike 99.9999% of other measurement equipment _EVERY_ option in 8340B is
"Remove something" or "Make it worse" (moving connectors to the rear falls
in the latter category.)

There is no options in 8340B that would've added something or made it better
than basic instrument without options.

Option 007 is relaxed phase noise, page 1-10.? I guess James Bond wasn't concerned about phase noise!? 3 dB worse across the board except is the same at 100 kHz offset (not surprising as that's probably the PN floor), and 30 Hz offset not specified.?Thanks, Bruce.?JimSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Bruce <bruce@...> Date: 2/28/20 4:43 PM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B Some of the 8340 series that were used with the 8510C have more phase? noise than the "normal" unit - I think this is the Opt 5 version - be? careful and try to avoid Opt 5 if you can - check the documentation to? be sure my mmemory is correct.Quoting Jim Ford <james.ford@...>:> Interesting, Vladan, that the 8340/8341 synths share circuitry with? > the 8566 spec an.? I figured the bottom part of the 8566 was pretty? > much just a synthesized sweeper anyway.? I don't have an 8340 or? > 8341 (yet), but there are a few of the lower frequency versions in? > one of the labs at work, and they do look like the bottom of the? > 8566.? The sloped bottom part of the front panel gives them away.? I? > believe the standalone synths are 5 rack units, though, vs. 3 or 4? > for the bottom of the 8566.>> Jim>> ------ Original Message ------> From: "pianovt via Groups.Io" <pianovt@...>> To: [email protected]> Sent: 2/28/2020 1:20:20 PM> Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] 8510C: 8340B vs 83631B>>> Here is a brief history. The 8340A was designed in parallel with? >> the 8510A and was intended for use with it. There was no 8360? >> series back then. With time, the 8510 A became the 8510B and at? >> some point the 8340A? become a "B" too. The biggest difference? >> between the A and B versions of the two instruments was the change? >> from a HP proprietary processor to the 68000. Eventually, the 8510B? >> was reworked into the 8510C. While this was going on, a new? >> sweeping syntehsizerseries? was released, the 8360.>>>> The 8360 series had some models which were stripped down,? >> specifically for use with the 8510. Stripped down means they didn't? >> have a standard front panel user interface. They were meant to? >> interact with the 8510 via the system bus only. That kept the cost? >> down for customers who didn't need a stand-alone sweeper or? >> synthesizer.>>>> In the meantime, a lower cost version of the 8340 was introduced,? >> the 8341. It was a 20 GHz synthesizer. However, if you are willing? >> to study the differences and do some work late at night, you can? >> probably make the 8341 do much of what the 8340 does and get it to? >> work to 26.5 GHz. The 8341 will work with the 8510 system, but I am? >> not sure which firmware works with what.>>>> The 8340/41 is very heavy, and it has a jet engine style cooling? >> fan. Inside, the frequency synthesis circuits are pretty much the? >> same as what was used in the 8566 spectrum analyzer, but there is? >> also an output section with a multiplier, leveling circuits,? >> modulation etc., in other words all the stuff that's needed to get? >> the signal out. The upside is, many 8566 LO parts can be had for? >> next to nothing, so spare parts are largely available for the? >> synthesizer portion. Documentation is also available. Not so much? >> for the 8360. As far as I know, the alignment and calibration? >> software for the 8360 has not been released to the general public? >> either.>>>> Vladan>>>>
---
*
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
*