Hello Nigel,
and hello Rick,
thank you for the hint to and the remarks concerning
the 3 GHz extender from SQ5ESM.
I ordered one unit and got it within a few days last week.
I am very happy with it in my 53132A, looks like the original
from HP in detail. Also the manufacturing quality seem to
be
To be correct,
I was a bit fast with my statement before
and I have to add, that the sensitivity in
fact is higher at the lower frequencies:
@ 50 MHz -- -31 dBm
@ 100 MHz -- -40 dBm
@ 200 MHz -- -50 dBm
@ 250 MHz -- -50 dBm
@ 500 MHz -- -50 dBm
@ 1000 MHz -- -44 dBm
@ 2000 MHz -- -37 dBm
@ 2500
Hi Arnold,
I was just about to reply to your first message and ask at what frequency
you'd measured the sensitivity, but then found your follow up:-)
I was very happy with the first one so bought a second one for my other HP
counter and both seem to be very similar.
I've just checked the
Hi Rick
Thanks for the clarification.
I'd thought at first you were suggesting these replacements were somehow at
fault in comparison with the original design, which was the bit I couldn't
understand since they seemed to be virtually identical, rather than
commenting on the original
Rick,
Can you point us to a method and schematic of a better way to make such a front
end for a counter?
Peter
On 11/9/2013 6:26 AM, gandal...@aol.com wrote:
Hi Rick
Thanks for the clarification.
I'd thought at first you were suggesting these replacements were somehow at
fault in
Hi
I suspect it starts with an input source stability analysis on the actual chip
and layout used. You would need some pretty good models for the counter chip to
do that. That may only be the first layer to the process...
Bob
On Nov 9, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Peter Gottlieb n...@verizon.net wrote:
I suppose this might be a bit off topic, but for those of us with these HP
counters there's been very good deal running on 3GHz extender boards on
Ebay for the past few weeks.
These aren't HP originals but they are new plug 'n play alternatives,
certainly a very good clone, and excellent
On 2013-11-08 15:49, gandal...@aol.com wrote:
At 1000 MHz, the highest frequency I can generate right now, I've
measured
the channel 3 input sensitivity as -50dBm with a sinusoidal signal.
Regards
Nigel
GM8PZR
This high sensitivity is probably a bad thing, not a good thing.
It is
Wouldn't an attenuator solve that?
On 11/8/2013 7:03 PM, Richard Karlquist wrote:
On 2013-11-08 15:49, gandal...@aol.com wrote:
At 1000 MHz, the highest frequency I can generate right now, I've measured
the channel 3 input sensitivity as -50dBm with a sinusoidal signal.
Regards
Nigel
Hi Rick
As far as I'm aware this is pretty much a copy of the HP original which
used a Fujitsu, or similar, MB510-PF prescaler, so a sort of what you see is
what you get situation:-)
Regards
Nigel
GM8PZR
In a message dated 09/11/2013 00:03:58 GMT Standard Time,
rich...@karlquist.com said:
This high sensitivity is probably a bad thing, not a good thing. It is
indicative of a dynamic divider. For a frequency counter prescaler, you
want a static divider, such as the HP5386 used. Dynamic dividers make errors
if the signal being measured has a broadband
In a message dated 09/11/2013 01:30:14 GMT Standard Time,
hmur...@megapathdsl.net writes:
rich...@karlquist.com said:
This high sensitivity is probably a bad thing, not a good thing. It is
indicative of a dynamic divider. For a frequency counter prescaler, you
want a static divider,
On 2013-11-08 17:38, gandal...@aol.com wrote:
What do static and dynamic mean in that context? Is it the same as
DRAM
vs
SRAM? If so, I don't see any obvious way that translates into one
works
The MB510 looks to be a series of flip-flops so presumably would be
classified as a static
Maybe he means fixed vs. automatic gain (or threshold)? Perhaps a worry about
picking up higher frequency noise on a lower frequency but larger signal you are
looking to measure?
Peter
On 11/8/2013 8:38 PM, gandal...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 09/11/2013 01:30:14 GMT Standard Time,
On 2013-11-08 18:07, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
Maybe he means fixed vs. automatic gain (or threshold)? Perhaps a
worry about picking up higher frequency noise on a lower frequency but
larger signal you are looking to measure?
Peter
The problem is the opposite. Low frequency noise will wipe
out
15 matches
Mail list logo
