8341B Sweep Time Accy

[PurelyNonsense]

Good 'morrow my fellow calibrators. I have a question for you any K3/K4 experts out there. The HP 8341B has a swept frequency accuracy check with a bonkers set up. When I run it, I don't see much of a difference in how it looks on the o-scope. The procedure is 33K4-4-277-1 and it's step 4.3. If you can, please look over it and let me know what I'm supposed to look for. We use an Agilent PSA E4448A Spectrum Analyzer and a Tektronix for the x-y function. If you need any more info, let me know. Thanks

[dminesinger]

You have to have option 124 video out on your PSA E4448A for you to get the hookup right. A 8563E works better.

[griff61]

Analog scope is better than digital for locating the chirp

[CalLabSolutions]

I haven't tested it on an 834x Sweeper...
But we have it 100% automated in Metrology.NET for both the PSG's and the 83600 Series generators...

*** I think that was the hardest price of automation I ever wrote... The hardest part was determining if the signal was not tuned correctly or failing...

Mike

[PurelyNonsense]

Griff, I'm using the analog Tektronix and I'm using the method in the AF procedure that makes the line go upsies and downsies. I know what TB method your talking about. I'm just wondering why, if using the AF procedure (With the video out option) does the line not move if I change the frequency on the spec an? I'm having trouble understanding the set up. I like knowing why I'm doing what I'm doing.
Also, Mike, I'm an Army lab so no way can I get your software. We at best can get Met/CAL ONLY if we get ISO accreditation (Which won't happen anytime soon).

[griff61]

Griff, I'm using the analog Tektronix and I'm using the method in the AF procedure that makes the line go upsies and downsies. I know what TB method your talking about. I'm just wondering why, if using the AF procedure (With the video out option) does the line not move if I change the frequency on the spec an? I'm having trouble understanding the set up. I like knowing why I'm doing what I'm doing.
Also, Mike, I'm an Army lab so no way can I get your software. We at best can get Met/CAL ONLY if we get ISO accreditation (Which won't happen anytime soon).

If you're in a USATA lab, you have authorization to get NextGen, we managed to get permission from HQ. There's a process, but you can get it. And it's much friendlier than the other option.

[PurelyNonsense]

Griff, we have NextGen but I had a nice "discussion" with the Redstone guys about when we can use it. Unfortunately, no NextGen procedures are available for this POS. And also, you can't use NextGen for attenuators, splitters, and so on. I was told that, despite that Accurate Times article, NextGen is "inadequate" for Army cal.

[griff61]

Griff, we have NextGen but I had a nice "discussion" with the Redstone guys about when we can use it. Unfortunately, no NextGen procedures are available for this POS. And also, you can't use NextGen for attenuators, splitters, and so on. I was told that, despite that Accurate Times article, NextGen is "inadequate" for Army cal.

We use NextGen for just about anything with a TO, we also use it for attenuators, splitters etc. Far better than ICE or PIMAT. You can build and keep tables for just about any attenuator. Things get easier if you get an HP11812A. Not sure who you spoke with, but we have the go ahead, that article was a stripped down version of a White Sands submission. PM me if you like. But we use it in Transfer and Reference
ICE and PIMAT are about as inadequate as they come, in my opinion. There is still some push back from some people up higher against NextGen, but for anyone up there to say that an AF program that uses AF standards is inadequate for Army use is pretty ridiculous, given what we are required to use, and the meticulous nature of the AF program.
The main block that we have found is that we will have to have some of our standards calibrated to tighter specs in order to perform some TO cals
My two and half cents worth