I also see sometimes these 'clicks' coming at the same frequency in the
measured results. But after a recalibration they are most of the times
gone.But they indeed happen, why I don't understand. I don't know if
editing the .cal file is the way forward (also cumbersome). So I don;t have
a solution, but I recognise these 'clicks'/'bumps'/ticks.
All the best,
Victor
Op vr 29 jul. 2022 om 08:32 schreef F1AMM <18471@...>:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello
I didn't understand the meaning of:
- Number of measurements to average
- Number to discard
- Common values ??are 3/0, 5/5, 9/4 and 25/6
1/ Could you explain to me what you understand about this subject?
I saw that these parameters were also used during the calibration. During
the calibration sequence (short open load), some measurements are marred by
a gross error (click). These errors, despite a 25/6 filtering, remain
present in the produced .cal file. There is nothing more unpleasant than to
find, then, always in the same place, these errors in the normal
measurements using this .cal file
I have to go back, almost by hand, to the raw .cal file to correct its
errors. I detect errors with Excel and I correct them by doing a linear
extrapolation with the previous value and the next value. The result is
satisfying but not very effective.
My questions
-------------
2/ What is the nature of the current filtering algorithm that leaves so
much error
3/ Could this algorithm be improved?
4/ Has anyone ever come up with a spinner, to run on the raw .cal file; to
correct these gross errors
73
--
F1AMM (Fran?ois)
