Todd, the battery is already on my list of to do items. The security seal on the meter I've got on the way appears to have not been broken. I assume this is from the last cal back in 98. The fact that it has a seal on the case might be a sign that someone had done work internally, perhaps just the offsets.
I have two options, check the battery and replace as needed when I get the meter or wait until just before sending it off for cal knowing that if I loose the cal data it's not the end of the world. I assume Agilent isn't going to charge more because the cal data was lost? I think either way I need to know what the voltage is of the battery and what type of battery it is. Replacement of course would be done with a current limited power source in place to act as the battery while it's being changed. A bench supply with the voltage matched should do the trick. I'm hoping it will already have the 3.4v battery to make my life a bit easier. Not that I mind replacing a couple resistors.
Thanks,
Jeff
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 12/30/2012 9:11 AM, tmicallef1 wrote:
Another important consideration will be the onboard battery BT501.
See if you can determine its age.
Also, according to my manual (dated Feb 1988 ed 3) on page 6-26,
along with the list of the many updates applied to new revs,
they list a new battery and new resistors to replace the old one.
The original unit appears to have used a 2.9V model and has been
replaced by a 3.4V battery. If you plan on sending it in for cal,
you would probably want to put in a fresh battery.
You probably don't want to pay Agilent to do it for you and you don't
want to lose the new cal constants a week after calibration.
Hopefully that mod has been done already and all you will have to do
is source the replacement. You will probably need a second battery to
keep the NVRAM powered while you replace the old one.
Todd
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...> wrote:
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@...
<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>
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> > 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
|
Re: HP 11660A Shunt for HP 8556A
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:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
|
Re: Foam conductor problems
It seems that for about $11 it would be worth buying some and experimenting with it. Dave On 12/29/2012 12:38 PM, Daniel Koller wrote:
Interesting stuff. I have not used it but I too would like to know
how it works, and how it dries, for a totally different use.
How black is it when it is dry? I am curious if it would make a good
absorptive coating for calorimeter-based optical power detection.
Dan
p.s. realize my interest is Off-Topic so happy to take any replies not
related to the original post off-line. Thx.
________________________________
From: Gary <GEMCCLUNG@... <mailto:GEMCCLUNG%40hotmail.com>>
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:26 PM
Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: Foam conductor problems
I found this doing a search -->
<>
Has anyone ever used this stuff? I'm still not sure if my pads are
defective. I want to make sure the conductive foam is working properly
before I get crazy with fixes. All the LEDs and keypads go through the
conductive foam which is the weak link in the design.
Gary
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, "William" wrote:
I Can't remember where, but I've seen repair kits for kits for those
types of keyboard switches.
Bill HIgdon
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, "Gary" GEMCCLUNG@ wrote:
I've added some pictures under "3561A repair" to document a problem
with my SA. All the electronics check out after replacing some parts
but some of the buttons and most of the LEDs were not working on the
front panel. After opening the front panel I found that this conductive
foam seems to be the culprit. I've repaired LCD displays by cleaning
conductive foam but the conductors in this foam seem very small. I
cleaned it up with some ISO-alcohol and some of the LEDs started working
but some of the key pads quit working. I cleaned it a second time and
the same results. Some other buttons are working but some still not.
The LED problem is solely the problem of the conductive foam but the
keys could also be the conductive pads on the rubber keys. I've
measured the resistance on most of the pads and they are about 50 ohms
except for some that are 200 ohms and greater (up to about 480 ohms).
I'm not sure what the max resistance can be and still make the key
function. My solution first is to just solder the two boards with a
connection harness to eliminate the conductive foam but I'm not sure how
to fix the rubber key problem. I have some conductive paint but the
resistance is still high, around 150 ohms. Does anyone have any success
repairing this kind of problem?
Gary
[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]
|
Dave,
Thanks for pointing that out.
Dave
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 12/28/2012 7:29 PM, Artekmedia wrote:
Dave et all
These manuals are all for the "mixed technology" ( Tubes + Transistors)
version of the 410C
The all solid state version started at serial number 0982A22339. The
Manual Lee needs is 00410-90009
Dave
ArtekManuals.com
On 12/28/2012 12:10 PM, Dave Daniel wrote:
These look better:
(Military version)
from the same web site.
Dave
On 12/28/2012 10:26 AM, Steve Vineyard wrote:
Try here:
www.hparchive.com/*Manuals*/*HP*-*410C*-*Manual*.pdf
Steve
vk5abc wrote:
Hello All
Does anyone have a manual for the last version of the 410c meter solid
state version.
Lee.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Dave Henderson
Manuals@... <mailto:Manuals%40ArtekManuals.com>
www.Artekmanuals.com
PO Box 175
Welch,MN 55089
651-269-4265
|
Another important consideration will be the onboard battery BT501.
See if you can determine its age.
Also, according to my manual (dated Feb 1988 ed 3) on page 6-26,
along with the list of the many updates applied to new revs,
they list a new battery and new resistors to replace the old one.
The original unit appears to have used a 2.9V model and has been
replaced by a 3.4V battery. If you plan on sending it in for cal,
you would probably want to put in a fresh battery.
You probably don't want to pay Agilent to do it for you and you don't
want to lose the new cal constants a week after calibration.
Hopefully that mod has been done already and all you will have to do
is source the replacement. You will probably need a second battery to
keep the NVRAM powered while you replace the old one.
Todd
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., Jeff Machesky <jeff@...> wrote:
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@...
<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>
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> > 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]
|
Re: HP8558/9 Nylon Clutch
Which nylon clutch parts? The attenuator gears on mine, that slide to engage, are brass, with what appears to be a standard 45degree tooth face. The only nylon parts are the switch finger cam and the internal tooth gear (both of which are certainly HP custom parts). If you can't find replacements from a donor unit, there is a thread here by a member that did some great gear casting for the 8640 generator gears that suffer the same fate. I don't think HP anticipated these units still being in service 40-50 years later.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., "jonathan8013" <g4mdc@...> wrote:
Hello All, my first post :-)
I have been searching the group history for any information about a possible source for the Nylon Clutch mechanism that is part of the input attenuator/reference level switch on the above analysers.
I don't have the part number to hand but I could find it.
No success so far.
It seems a particular weakness of these otherwise excellent analysers.
I have an 8558 with the Atten switch completely useless (has been in pieces for years for want of these parts) and an 8559 that is going the same way.
Is robbing parts from another unit the only option?
I don't suppose a 3D printer (a very good one!) might be any solution?
Regards Jon
|
Hello All, my first post :-)
I have been searching the group history for any information about a possible source for the Nylon Clutch mechanism that is part of the input attenuator/reference level switch on the above analysers.
I don't have the part number to hand but I could find it.
No success so far.
It seems a particular weakness of these otherwise excellent analysers.
I have an 8558 with the Atten switch completely useless (has been in pieces for years for want of these parts) and an 8559 that is going the same way.
Is robbing parts from another unit the only option?
I don't suppose a 3D printer (a very good one!) might be any solution?
Regards Jon
|
Thanks Joe. Gives me a bit of piece of mind. I may have overlooked your details in the post. So I assume the self test OK message pretty much rules out failures I need to worry about ? My apologizes for being such a cynic.
I finally found a source of 500V AC to try and get my Tek 2465BDM DMM calibrated within reason. Sadly it keeps changing the impedance on me when it goes in to to the actually cal. Very annoying. But that's a topic for another group.
Thanks,
Jeff
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 12/29/2012 7:08 PM, J. L. Trantham 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@... <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>
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@... <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>
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> > 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
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: hp_agilent_equipment@... [mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...] On Behalf Of Jeff Machesky Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:01 PM To: hp_agilent_equipment@... 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@...
<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>
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> > 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
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@... <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>
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> > 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
|
Re: Agilent 33120A Option 001 P/N 33120-80001
I'm looking for the Option 001 Phase-Lock Assembly for an Agilent 33120A Arbitrary Waveform/Function Generator.
This is a module that allows 10 Mhz Reference in and out of the unit. It's also a 10 Mhz TCXO.
I,ve seen some on Ebay before. Anyone have a link or a source for one?
Thanks
|
I had a Solartron 7081 that I had sent to AMETEK for repair and calibration.
I used it as a ‘transfer’ standard. My AC source was a 3326A fed via Coax
to a 50 ohm terminator read first by the Solartron then fed to the 3458A and
the ‘Solartron value’ entered into the 3458A. The 10 VDC was a 731B and the
10K resistor was a Leeds and Northrup 10 K resistor, both read by the 7081,
and then feeding those measurements into the 3458A. I was amazed at how
well it worked.
Now I have a Fluke 5100B that should be much better at the AC stuff and not
bad at the rest of it as well. Although the Fluke 5100B is only 5 ? digits,
it is fairly stable and should be a good ‘source’ to be read by the 3458A or
the 7081, as long as everything is ‘warmed up’ and you are quick, giving it
little time to change.
Joe
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: hp_agilent_equipment@... [mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...] On Behalf Of David Kirkby Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:04 PM To: hp_agilent_equipment@... Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way On 30 December 2012 00:40, J. L. Trantham <jltran@... <mailto:jltran%40att.net> > wrote: 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'. What do you use as a "House CAL" that is almost good enough for the 8.5 digit 3458A? That's a seriously accurate (and seriously expensive), multi-meter. Dave. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
On 30 December 2012 00:40, J. L. Trantham <jltran@...> wrote: 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'. What do you use as a "House CAL" that is almost good enough for the 8.5 digit 3458A? That's a seriously accurate (and seriously expensive), multi-meter. Dave.
|
Re: What is a good shortwave radio to use with HP 8568B SA?
Thank you for all your responses. I think I'm going to pursue the SDR
option, although I'll keep an eye out for an inexpensive shortwave radio if
I see one.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...> wrote: Bryce, I actually use a Softrock Ensemble II SDR for shortwave. It has
the added advantage of being able to precisely lock on to the WWV
stations and check the accuracy of my frequency counter. It also is just
truly amazing to use the SDR software such as SDR-Radio or HD-SDR. You
can calibrate it down to the sub Hz level and the sensitivity is really
good. It can be build for LF or HF ranges. I could go on and on about
the coolness of the device.
Just food for thought,
Jeff
On 12/29/2012 9:24 AM, disklog wrote:
I used an Sa612 mixer chip feeding a LM3089 into a 386 audio amp chip.
That setup is cheap and can be configured to give am and fm but no ssb.
The best solution is to find a used AOR 8000 wide range handheld
receiver. That demods everything from 100khz to 1950mhz. They were
500bucks new but I just saw a working one sell on ebay for 50 bucks or
so.
Another solution is to pick up a Kaito1103 SW radio. Very cheap radio
that works well. Degen makes its twin. They handle Am/Fm/Ssb using the
BFO on the radio.
I have to confess after adding the demodulator to my HP8558B, I never
use it. By the time you zero the span, center the signal, and fool
with the demodulator, it becomes work.
I find the easiest solution is to buy a wide range receiver (Icom
r8500 or AOR 8000 etc.) and connect a display unit to it. Then as you
tune the radio, you see the signals at the same time.
Have fun, Ken
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@...
<mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, ken fest
<disklog@...> wrote:
--- On Fri, 12/28/12, Bryce Schroeder <bryce.schroeder@...> wrote:
From: Bryce Schroeder <bryce.schroeder@...>
Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] What is a good shortwave radio to
use with HP 8568B SA?
To: hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, December 28, 2012, 4:10 PM
I am looking for a shortwave radio to use as a demodulator for my spectrum
analyzer, so I can listen to the signals I see. I don't have a shortwave
receiver right now. Can someone make a recommendation, preferably for
something relatively inexpensive?
Thank you!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: hp_agilent_equipment@... [mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...] On Behalf Of David Kirkby Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:53 PM To: hp_agilent_equipment@... Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@... <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
|
On 29 December 2012 20:01, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...> 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
|
Watching these videos has sparked my interest in my 3457A and raised some
questions.
As for calibration, the Agilent website lists a per incident calibration at
$204.22 and an End of Support date of 4/1/2003. It would be interesting to
send it directly to Agilent and see what the data is 'As Received' versus
'As Completed'. If it has a total failure of the back up battery and you
loose the calibration constants, then do your on 'House CAL', send it in,
and see how well you did. When I hit CALNUM? and hit Enter, I get '98'.
Now for the questions:
What is the latest firmware for the 3457A? When I hit REV? and Enter, I get
'6,0'.
Also, what options were available for the 3457A? I could not find anything
in the manual other than some mounting brackets and such, no internal
'electronic' options, although there is a box on the back of the DMM to
check for 'STD' or 'OPT 700', what ever that is. When I hit OPT? and Enter,
I get '0'
Thanks in advance.
Joe
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: hp_agilent_equipment@... [mailto:hp_agilent_equipment@...] On Behalf Of Jeff Machesky Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:01 PM To: hp_agilent_equipment@... Subject: Re: [hp_agilent_equipment] 3457a on the way 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. 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. Crossing my fingers that it works. The Fluke 8050A that I purchased for $25 and repaired is working a treat. Well within it's rated spec even after having the front end blown out of it. The best part about it is that the case is in excellent condition with hardly any signs of aging. I should know on Thursday if all went well. 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. Thanks, Jeff On 12/29/2012 10:01 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 29 December 2012 03:39, Jeff Machesky <jeff@...
<mailto:jeff%40codebest.com>> wrote:
So I have a 3457a on the way that passes the self tests. What are the
odds of it actually working when I get it? I'd think pretty good. Anyway, this might interest you - a review of
the 3457A. Part 1 seems pretty good - I've not seen part 2, but I'm
going to take a look.
Dave
------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
|
Re: Foam conductor problems
I have used a product from Anders Products called Wire Glue. Not an inspiring name, but works very well. It is non conductive until it cures. Very low resistance and dries to a dark neutral grey color. Interesting to watch the conductivity change during last part of cure process. Price around $10 US. Phil From: Gary Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:33 PM To: hp_agilent_equipment@... Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: Foam conductor problems Here's another product --> <> but a bit more pricy! Gary --- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., Daniel Koller wrote:
Interesting stuff. ? I have not used it but I too would like to
know how it works, and how it dries, for a totally different use. ?
How black is it when it is dry? ? I am curious if it would make a
good absorptive coating for calorimeter-based optical power detection.
Dan
p.s. realize my interest is Off-Topic so happy to take any replies not
related to the original post off-line. ? Thx.
________________________________
From: Gary GEMCCLUNG@...
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:26 PM
Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: Foam conductor problems
?
I found this doing a search -->
; 5
Has anyone ever used this stuff? I'm still not sure if my pads are
defective. I want to make sure the conductive foam is working
properly before I get crazy with fixes. All the LEDs and keypads go through the conductive foam which is the weak link in the design.
Gary
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., "William" wrote:
I Can't remember where, but I've seen repair kits for kits for those
types of keyboard switches.
Bill HIgdon
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., "Gary" GEMCCLUNG@ wrote:
I've added some pictures under "3561A repair" to document a
problem with my SA. All the electronics check out after replacing some parts
but some of the buttons and most of the LEDs were not working on the
front panel. After opening the front panel I found that this conductive foam seems to be the culprit. I've repaired LCD displays by cleaning
conductive foam but the conductors in this foam seem very small. I
cleaned it up with some ISO-alcohol and some of the LEDs started working but some of the key pads quit working. I cleaned it a second time and
the same results. Some other buttons are working but some still not.
The LED problem is solely the problem of the conductive foam but the
keys could also be the conductive pads on the rubber keys. I've
measured the resistance on most of the pads and they are about 50 ohms
except for some that are 200 ohms and greater (up to about 480 ohms).
I'm not sure what the max resistance can be and still make the key
function. My solution first is to just solder the two boards with a
connection harness to eliminate the conductive foam but I'm not sure how to fix the rubber key problem. I have some conductive paint but the
resistance is still high, around 150 ohms. Does anyone have any success repairing this kind of problem?
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
Re: Foam conductor problems
Here's another product --> <> but a bit more pricy! Gary --- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., Daniel Koller wrote:
Interesting stuff. ? I have not used it but I too would like to
know how it works, and how it dries, for a totally different use. ?
How black is it when it is dry? ? I am curious if it would make a
good absorptive coating for calorimeter-based optical power detection.
Dan
p.s. realize my interest is Off-Topic so happy to take any replies not
related to the original post off-line. ? Thx.
________________________________
From: Gary GEMCCLUNG@...
To: hp_agilent_equipment@...
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:26 PM
Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] Re: Foam conductor problems
?
I found this doing a search -->
; 5
Has anyone ever used this stuff? I'm still not sure if my pads are
defective. I want to make sure the conductive foam is working
properly before I get crazy with fixes. All the LEDs and keypads go through the conductive foam which is the weak link in the design.
Gary
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., "William" wrote:
I Can't remember where, but I've seen repair kits for kits for those
types of keyboard switches.
Bill HIgdon
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@..., "Gary" GEMCCLUNG@ wrote:
I've added some pictures under "3561A repair" to document a
problem with my SA. All the electronics check out after replacing some parts
but some of the buttons and most of the LEDs were not working on the
front panel. After opening the front panel I found that this conductive foam seems to be the culprit. I've repaired LCD displays by cleaning
conductive foam but the conductors in this foam seem very small. I
cleaned it up with some ISO-alcohol and some of the LEDs started working but some of the key pads quit working. I cleaned it a second time and
the same results. Some other buttons are working but some still not.
The LED problem is solely the problem of the conductive foam but the
keys could also be the conductive pads on the rubber keys. I've
measured the resistance on most of the pads and they are about 50 ohms
except for some that are 200 ohms and greater (up to about 480 ohms).
I'm not sure what the max resistance can be and still make the key
function. My solution first is to just solder the two boards with a
connection harness to eliminate the conductive foam but I'm not sure how to fix the rubber key problem. I have some conductive paint but the
resistance is still high, around 150 ohms. Does anyone have any success repairing this kind of problem?
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
Re: What is a good shortwave radio to use with HP 8568B SA?
Bryce, I actually use a Softrock Ensemble II SDR for shortwave. It has the added advantage of being able to precisely lock on to the WWV stations and check the accuracy of my frequency counter. It also is just truly amazing to use the SDR software such as SDR-Radio or HD-SDR. You can calibrate it down to the sub Hz level and the sensitivity is really good. It can be build for LF or HF ranges. I could go on and on about the coolness of the device.
Just food for thought,
Jeff
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 12/29/2012 9:24 AM, disklog wrote:
I used an Sa612 mixer chip feeding a LM3089 into a 386 audio amp chip. That setup is cheap and can be configured to give am and fm but no ssb.
The best solution is to find a used AOR 8000 wide range handheld receiver. That demods everything from 100khz to 1950mhz. They were 500bucks new but I just saw a working one sell on ebay for 50 bucks or so.
Another solution is to pick up a Kaito1103 SW radio. Very cheap radio that works well. Degen makes its twin. They handle Am/Fm/Ssb using the BFO on the radio.
I have to confess after adding the demodulator to my HP8558B, I never use it. By the time you zero the span, center the signal, and fool with the demodulator, it becomes work.
I find the easiest solution is to buy a wide range receiver (Icom r8500 or AOR 8000 etc.) and connect a display unit to it. Then as you tune the radio, you see the signals at the same time.
Have fun, Ken
--- In hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>, ken fest <disklog@...> wrote:
--- On Fri, 12/28/12, Bryce Schroeder <bryce.schroeder@...> wrote:
From: Bryce Schroeder <bryce.schroeder@...>
Subject: [hp_agilent_equipment] What is a good shortwave radio to
use with HP 8568B SA?
To: hp_agilent_equipment@... <mailto:hp_agilent_equipment%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, December 28, 2012, 4:10 PM
I am looking for a shortwave radio to use as a demodulator for my spectrum
analyzer, so I can listen to the signals I see. I don't have a shortwave
receiver right now. Can someone make a recommendation, preferably for
something relatively inexpensive?
Thank you!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
