Alberto,
Are you seeing any errors indicated on the 3336C? Is the signal stable at the problem frequencies? Viewed with a spec anal.? If not available, then a freq. counter?
I have seen a similar phenomenon on other sig gens when the lock loops could not lock and kept searching, that problem was due to a faulty DAC that could not get the exact tune number and alternated with the best high and low achievable tune numbers. It caused a 6dB drop in amplitude at some tune frequencies, 3dB, 9dB, and 12dB at some other frequencies. The signal appeared to be sine FM’d at the failed frequencies. I am not an expert on the HP 3336A/B/C units, but I am versed on the HP 3335A.
Don Bitters

开云体育

I have not found a way.
Get the manuals from the hp website.
Do not attempt to open the unit until you have read and understand the disassembly instructions.
I broke a perfectly good unit because I did not.
There are some very thin and delicate circuit boards attached to the Rf connectors.

73
Glenn
WB4UIV

Just obtained this unit. Seems to work fine. It does have CW generator.
I was wondering if there was a way to extend the frequency range of the CW generator to below its advertised 375 MHz

Thanks Wally KC9INK

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Little                ARRL Technical Specialist   QCWA  LM 28417
Amateur Callsign:  WB4UIV            wb4uiv@...    AMSAT LM 2178
QTH:  Goose Creek, SC USA (EM92xx)  USSVI LM   NRA LM   SBE ARRL TAPR
"It is not the class of license that the Amateur holds but the class
of the Amateur that holds the license" 

开云体育

Well I’ll jump in here and absorb some of the heat. ?I run several mail systems and support only IMAPS and only 993, with 587 open for sending client mail. I wish I could figure out how to close 25 and not lose all that pesky outside mail.

Just obtained this unit. Seems to work fine. It does have CW generator.
I was wondering if there was a way to extend the frequency range of the CW generator to below its advertised 375 MHz

Thanks Wally KC9INK

On 3/3/19 5:28 PM, Mark Wendt wrote:

>> ?? Part of the issue here is that many people (very obviously,
right now)
>> don't really understand how IMAP works, and make big assumptions.
>
> I was a system and network administrator for over 25 years working for
> DoD.? I completely understand how POP, SPOP and IMAP work.? No
> assumptions on my part, just knowledge from administrating large email
> systems that used both POP and IMAP protocols, often at the same time.

? Mark, my reply wasn't directed at you.

Your reply was directed to a pretty wide swath. It was hard to tell who
it was directed at.

Ahh, yes you're right, my apologies for not being more clear.

Well, in this stream of emails I never said anything about opening a
machine to the world. Appropriate ports, properly secured,whether POP or
IMAP, are not open to the world.

On ISP networks they generally are.

You seemed to assert that POP was not as secure as IMAP, and I said both
carried identical security.?

Oh nono, I did not intend to suggest that at all. Yes, I agree that
they are identical in that regard. My point was "fewer is better".

I've hardened hundreds of systems to DoD requirements and am quite well
aware of port security and port management. I've yet to see an OS out of
the box with all 65000 ports actually available at first boot. Not even
on the notoriously non-secure Windows systems. It's up to the system
administrator and the requirements of the system that determine which
ports to open and which to shut down.?

Agreed. However, we're speaking in the context of an outside-facing
production service. On the networks I managed, past and present, there
has always been a general policy that fewer exposed services is better,
reduced attack surface and such. That's the standpoint from which I was
speaking earlier. Once again I apologize for not being more clear.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

On 3/3/19 3:24 PM, Mark Wendt wrote:

?? Part of the issue here is that many people (very obviously, right now)
don't really understand how IMAP works, and make big assumptions.

I was a system and network administrator for over 25 years working for
DoD.? I completely understand how POP, SPOP and IMAP work.? No
assumptions on my part, just knowledge from administrating large email
systems that used both POP and IMAP protocols, often at the same time.

Mark, my reply wasn't directed at you.

So, two different protocol systems is ok,
and don't worry about the two ports,
there are 65000 others ;-))

?? The issue isn't running out of them, the issue is keeping them secure.

Nonsense.? Both IMAP and SPOP use the same encryption systems to secure
them.? SSL/TLS has been around for a very long time, and are used to
secure both protocols.? As long as you are encrypting the entire
process, both SPOP and IMAP have the same security level.? Email systems
have long used secure ports.? Just as POP uses ports 110 and 995 for
non-secure and secure ports, IMAP uses 143 and 993 for it's non-secure
and secure ports.? I doubt very much you'll find a commercial provider
that doesn't supply ports 995 and 993 for both SPOP and IMAP these
days.? Even SMTP has both non-secure and secure ports, 25 and 465.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the protocols.

Surely a man with your claimed experience wouldn't assert that it's
not desirable to reduce the number of IP ports that are open to the
outside world. THAT would be nonsense.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

On 3/3/19 13:53, Dave McGuire wrote:

On 3/3/19 1:51 PM, Heinz-Peter Deutsch wrote:

Don't listen to Dave and try to stop POP.
If you have only 5 emails a day and delete them after reading,
IMAP is fine.
But if you have thousends of emails in stock
( I have about 80.000 emails stored)
and your provider give you only 1 GB storage
then you loose.
Also if you accidently delete the online mail contents
your emails on all systems will be deleted, too.

If you tell it to, yes.

Part of the issue here is that many people (very obviously, right now)
don't really understand how IMAP works, and make big assumptions.

I was a system and network administrator for over 25 years working for DoD.? I completely understand how POP, SPOP and IMAP work.? No assumptions on my part, just knowledge from administrating large email systems that used both POP and IMAP protocols, often at the same time.

So, two different protocol systems is ok,
and don't worry about the two ports,
there are 65000 others ;-))

The issue isn't running out of them, the issue is keeping them secure.

Nonsense.? Both IMAP and SPOP use the same encryption systems to secure them.? SSL/TLS has been around for a very long time, and are used to secure both protocols.? As long as you are encrypting the entire process, both SPOP and IMAP have the same security level.? Email systems have long used secure ports.? Just as POP uses ports 110 and 995 for non-secure and secure ports, IMAP uses 143 and 993 for it's non-secure and secure ports.? I doubt very much you'll find a commercial provider that doesn't supply ports 995 and 993 for both SPOP and IMAP these days.? Even SMTP has both non-secure and secure ports, 25 and 465.

-Dave

Mark

开云体育

On 3/3/19 1:51 PM, Heinz-Peter Deutsch wrote:

Don't listen to Dave and try to stop POP.
?
If you have only 5 emails a day and delete them after reading,
IMAP is fine.
But if you have thousends of emails in stock
( I have about 80.000 emails stored)
and your provider give you only 1 GB storage
then you loose.
Also if you accidently delete the online mail contents
your emails on all systems will be deleted, too.

If you tell it to, yes.

Part of the issue here is that many people (very obviously, right now)
don't really understand how IMAP works, and make big assumptions.

So, two different protocol systems is ok,
and don't worry about the two ports,
there are 65000 others ;-))

The issue isn't running out of them, the issue is keeping them secure.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

On 3/3/19 1:45 PM, Dave_G0WBX via Groups.Io wrote:

Any other scrap/breaker old instrument part-system that has one on the
back!? (Mine are generally salvaged from old ISA bus PC/GPIB cards,
along with the line driver IC's.? There are many on the surplus market
that can't be used now, as the driver software is so obsolete it wont
run on "modern" systems.?? Trouble is, the sellers know it's the socket
that is the desired part.

A lot of those boards (most of them, in fact) are supported by
open-source software, you know.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

开云体育

Any other scrap/breaker old instrument part-system that has one on the back!? (Mine are generally salvaged from old ISA bus PC/GPIB cards, along with the line driver IC's.? There are many on the surplus market that can't be used now, as the driver software is so obsolete it wont run on "modern" systems.?? Trouble is, the sellers know it's the socket that is the desired part.

They are reusable y'know.? Even the IDC ribbon types (with care.)

Else, it's time spent with a steady hand, magnifier soldering iron, fine wire and solder..

Dave G0WBX.

---

From: Steve Hendrix
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 15:21:58 PST
Where'd you find a $3 IEEE-488 connector? That connector is the biggest expense in my KISS-488 Ethernet-to-GPIB interface.

Steve Hendrix

-- 
Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software:

The service manual is readily available on Didier's website, or
on BAMA.
<>


or,

<>

-Chuck Harris

Alberto di Bene wrote:

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 07:02 AM, Steve Hendrix wrote:

Bingo! You just hit the nail precisely on the head, for why KISS-488 exists - it not only doesn't care what version of Windows you're using (virtually all of the other 488 interfaces I looked at require older versions), KISS-488 doesn't care if you're on a PC, a Mac, an Android, an iPhone, an iPad, or anything else, as long as it supports a standard browser speaking HTTP, or anything that can speak TelNet. It sounds like you've already got a solution that works for you; I'd have enjoyed working with you on your specific application.

That's great!? It would have been perfect if web services had existed when we built our microwave testing system out of a stack of HP gear; back then, even GPIB was a lone standard in a morass of conflicting connectivity solutions.? ;-)? I'll keep an eye on it anyway, because it may be useful in the future. I really only needed a quick way of sending and receiving a couple of commands to this one meter, so I didn't look for anything more sophisticated at this time.

One thing I've discovered so far is that even once you get the interface working, many of the 'cross-platform' GPIB utilities won't even load due to dependencies or broken install scripts.? Or a local implementation of a standard utility like 'cu' or 'stty' has bugs in it which you don't find until a script uses it.? Not all authors maintain their software regularly, so it's a minefield.? It reminds me why I stopped enjoying software development some time before I retired; too many towers of half-finished libraries which barely work together being shoved into production environments before they're fully tested...? And that was in commercial systems which provided critical customer services.? Many hobbyists push stuff out before it's even finished; sometimes it's OK, sometimes it is frustrating to the person who just wants a quick solution.

Sometimes it's worthwhile to just write something simple and reliable for personal use, even if it's a bit clunky.? ;-)

On 3/3/19 10:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

I use gmail’s POP ports.

I prefer IMAP, but POP will do.
(IMAP plays better with leaving the messages on the server, which is great if your local copy breaks for some reason.)

IMAP works great as long as you have an internet connection. The messages remain on the server. I much prefer them on my local machine if my internet connection goes down. Living in rural areas like some of us do can make for a less than reliable connection.

IMAP readers (definitely Apple Mail and Thunderbird) can be configured to download all messages (or even all messages and all attachments). Best of both worlds — online *and* offline.

And don't forget IMAP's advantages with multiple mail clients. I have
an always-running instance of Thunderbird on my main desktop system and
one on one of my lab laptops, as well as IMAP mail clients on my mobile
phone, and two tablets. These all hit the same IMAP servers
simultaneously without even thinking about it, and the mobile systems
are disconnected from the network at times, and everything remains
perfectly synchronized. I just "do email", wherever I am, whatever
device I'm on, whether I'm connected or not, and everything all Just
Works, every time.

In my previous life of designing large networks and mail systems at
Internet service providers, and occasional continued work in that field
today, I've encountered no situation in which POP has any advantages
over IMAP. POP really needs to be relegated to the dustbin of protocol
history. It was great in the early 1990s, but past that time there's
just been no point.

People often state the leave-on-server, disconnected operation, and
local message storage aspects of POP as their reasons for adherence, but
the reality is IMAP supports all of this, and far more effectively than
POP ever could. In the ISP world we tried to decommission POP year
after year, and people hollered and screamed because they didn't want to
take five minutes and move to a superior, more functional protocol.
That was twenty years ago!

I myself "bit the bullet" and moved to IMAP for my own mail accounts
in 1997. Starting immediately, and I remember this well, I really had
no idea of how I ever got along without it.

Please, just let POP die, both so folks can have vastly better
functionality and also so network administrators can close port 110/995
forever and have one less protocol to worry about.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

I have an HP3336C Synthesizer/Level Generator which performs beautifully when tuned to a round MHz frequency (e.g. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 MHz), with an output level only a few hundredths of a dB from the nominal value, as set on the instrument panel. This checked both with an HP3586C and a W&G SPM-16, which both agree admirably. ?
But if I tune it to a fractional MHz frequency (e.g.? 11.769 MHz, or 13.392 MHz), the output is lower than what is set by an amount that varies from about -5 to more than -10 dB....
Any clues on what to check ? Unfortunately I don't have the service manual of the instrument.

Thanks

Alberto? I2PHD

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 02:46, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@...> wrote:

How do you download messages with Gmail to archive or read them offline?

One can read Gmail messages with POP3


...and send to Gmail with IMAP


I myself use Thunderbird for this.


73 de Buck, KC2HIZ

I dont think the bouncing is anything to do with web-mail or email clients (You probably never said it did......just drifted off topic)

My experience running several groups.io lists is that they have a policy of suspending members whose ISP bounce their distributed mail. They do this for good reason. The continual bouncing leads to the domain as being marked a spam distributor and it is eventually blacklisted, which stops everything. I have cleared the problem by getting the ISP to add @groups.io to their whitelist. This may be difficult if the won't talk to you, but you could threaten to stop paying if they dont provide the expected service.
:-))

Alan
G3NYK

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:29 AM Carsten Bormann <cabocabo@...> wrote:

On Mar 3, 2019, at 15:45, Mark Wendt <wendt.mark@...> wrote:

I use gmail’s POP ports.

I prefer IMAP, but POP will do.
(IMAP plays better with leaving the messages on the server, which is great if your local copy breaks for some reason.)

IMAP works great as long as you have an internet connection. The messages remain on the server. I much prefer them on my local machine if my internet connection goes down. Living in rural areas like some of us do can make for a less than reliable connection.

IMAP readers (definitely Apple Mail and Thunderbird) can be configured to download all messages (or even all messages and all attachments). Best of both worlds — online *and* offline.

Grü?e, Carsten

You can do that with POP email too. Just set your email reader not to
delete the message after download. I've never felt the need for that
though, since most all email readers store the mail as a flat text
file on the local machines. Text files are almost impossible to
corrupt.

Mark