开云体育

Looking for Noise Source Driver Assembly E4401-60123 for E4407B Spectrum Analyzer

DL8EBL All Messages By This Member #148820 Dear All,? I like to extend my Analyzer with the noise measurement option. Does somebody want to sell a E4401-60123 Board + Cables ? If yes please drop me a reply or send a pm.? thanks for reading and best regards , Olaf Kramer
Charles Edmonds All Messages By This Member #148824 Hi Olaf, ? before you pursue this option further you might like to read some of the manufacturer's documentation on that option. An early version of 5989-8056EN included the below plot which includes the ESA with Option 219 to other systems. Basically it shows that Option 219 in the ESA spectrum analysers has such high uncertainties that it is rather useless when measuring modern equipment. I also note, from only a very quick browse, that the current version of 5989-8056EN does not include this chart and in fact makes no mention of Option 219 for the ESA spectrum analysers.?? ? ? ? regards Charles Edmonds VK3CLE ? ?
DL8EBL All Messages By This Member #148825 Dear Charles, thanks for this valuable feedback.? I was not aware of this at all, and yes I agree this makes the option almost useless. I was tempted because of the wide frequency range. Hhwever I now may have to go the classic way and use a external rf-source and mixer? with my NFA not going that high.? thanks again, best regards, Olaf, DL8EBL ?
Razvan Popescu All Messages By This Member #148827 Hello Charles, Can you please share the 5989-8056EN document you have? I cannot find it. I would like to read it since I was also looking for the Option 219 card to add it to my ESA. 73, Razvan toggle quoted message Show quoted text On 02/12/2024 01:56, Charles Edmonds via groups.io wrote: Hi Olaf, before you pursue this option further you might like to read some of the manufacturer's documentation on that option. An early version of 5989-8056EN included the below plot which includes the ESA with Option 219 to other systems. Basically it shows that Option 219 in the ESA spectrum analysers has such high uncertainties that it is rather useless when measuring modern equipment. I also note, from only a very quick browse, that the current version of 5989-8056EN does not include this chart and in fact makes no mention of Option 219 for the ESA spectrum analysers. regards Charles Edmonds VK3CLE
Harke Smits All Messages By This Member #148828 开云体育 Charles, Many thanks for this graph. It is very interesting as it also mentions the good old (and still very useful) HP8970B NFA. Googling the doc number in your message comes up with the doc: "Minimize Noise Figure Uncertainties", apparently a newer version. Same graph but no HP8970B here. The minimum uncertainty is quite a bit higher than what I normally see: +/- 0.1 dB. Interesting stuff: noise figure measurement. Best 73 de Harke PA0HRK On 02/12/2024 01:56, Charles Edmonds via groups.io wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Hi Olaf, ? before you pursue this option further you might like to read some of the manufacturer's documentation on that option. An early version of 5989-8056EN included the below plot which includes the ESA with Option 219 to other systems. Basically it shows that Option 219 in the ESA spectrum analysers has such high uncertainties that it is rather useless when measuring modern equipment. I also note, from only a very quick browse, that the current version of 5989-8056EN does not include this chart and in fact makes no mention of Option 219 for the ESA spectrum analysers.?? ? ? ? regards Charles Edmonds VK3CLE ? ?
jmr All Messages By This Member #148833 In my opinion, the only HPAK spectrum/signal analyser that can be expected to work (very) well with the noise figure option and a 5dB ENR HP 346A noise source is the classic E444xA from about 20 years ago. ? The ESA analysers like the E4407B don't have a fully digital IF and the DANL with the preamp is a few dB worse than the E444xA. This all adds to the uncertainty. I definitely don't recommend using the ESA analysers for noise figure stuff unless you opt for the 346B noise source with its 15dB ENR and you don't expect to ever measure any amplifiers with very low noise figures. ? The more modern PXA, MXA and EXA analysers have a very good digital IF but the RF converter ahead of the digital IF isn't in the same class as the converter in the old E444xA analysers. The DANL of the PXA/MXA/EXA is quite a bit worse and the noise floor rises quite a bit by 3GHz or so. So these analysers are disappointing too. They are better than the ESA in this respect but still not close to the performance of the E444xA when it comes to noise figure measurements. ? The E444xA is the only one that can compete with the dedicated noise figure analysers. In some aspects of its performance it is slightly superior to the dedicated analysers and in others it slightly loses out. Either way, there is very little difference between them although the E444xA preamp only covers up to 3 GHz. So this limits the frequency range that it can deliver good noise figure measurements. ? ?
jmr All Messages By This Member #148834 The E444xA does have the 110 option for a 50 GHz preamp but the noise figure (and presumably also the input VSWR) of the preamp limits the performance across the upper parts of the frequency range.? ? The older version of the 5989-5065EN noise figure selection document can be found here: ? ? This includes graphs for the ESA and the 8970B. ? I think the reason the ESA and 8970B aren't listed in the later version of the above document is that they are now classed as obsolete. So is the E444xA analyser.
Charles Edmonds All Messages By This Member #148836 Hi, ? there is a similar graph of uncertainties, but with VERY different axis scales, in 5989-8056EN dated May 12 2008. It also shows that the NF option for the ESA analyzers to be less than wonderful.?? ? https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/noise_figure_selection.pdf ? ? regards Charles Edmonds VK3CLE
Razvan Popescu All Messages By This Member #148837 Thanks for the PDF, very interesting reading. Do you know what is the difference between the NFA and the ESA? I thought the NFA is just an ESA with the Option 219 card installed and the 2 ports routed to the front panel. I searched on Google images to see some pictures with the NFA hardware shown on the display and I saw they have different boards (part numbers) installed compared to ESA. I guess it is not just the E4401-60123 board installed. I couldn't find any pictures with the NFA hardware to see how it looks inside. toggle quoted message Show quoted text On 02/12/2024 22:21, jmr via groups.io wrote: The E444xA does have the 110 option for a 50 GHz preamp but the noise figure (and presumably also the input VSWR) of the preamp limits the performance across the upper parts of the frequency range. The older version of the 5989-5065EN noise figure selection document can be found here: 5989-8056EN-05-5-10.indd < an/5989-8056EN.pdf> This includes graphs for the ESA and the 8970B. I think the reason the ESA and 8970B aren't listed in the later version of the above document is that they are now classed as obsolete. So is the E444xA analyser.
jmr All Messages By This Member #148849 I'm afraid I've never looked inside any of the NFA units. They do look like an ESA on the outside but I think the internal signal path will have quite a few changes. ? The noise figure of the NFA will be about 4dB up to 500 MHz and the ESA will be more like 7dB. So there will be differences in the front end design. I'd also expect the NFA to have a dedicated noise detector that will have very good linearity. I think that it would also have to have accurate attenuators or at least some way to calibrate the attenuators for accuracy. ? I tried to find a service manual for the N8973A but had no luck. ? ?

Previous Topic Next Topic