运行N5244A PNA-X固件A.09.90.01得到了尖锐

您可以通过执行以下操作编写一个小宏来“更新”IMD校准：“打开IMD频道上的Rx调平”“打开'更新源功率校准与rx电平偏移'”“”扫描“”关闭Rx
在IMD频道上练级“。
这将获得适当的功率设置。
它们可能只在通道中设置，而不是在calset中设置，所以如果你不应用然后重新应用calset，你必须再次执行它。
并且，当你这样做时，如果你在（功率计头部）的端口上有负载会很好。



     以下为原文

  You can write a little macro to "update" the IMD cal by doing the following:

"Turn on Rx leveling on IMD channels"
"turn on 'update source power cal with rx level offsets' "
"take a sweep"
"turn off Rx leveling on IMD channels".  

This gets the proper power set. They might only be set in the channel, however, not the calset, so if you unapply then re-apply the calset, you have to do it again.

And, it would be good if you had a load on the port (of the power meter head) when you did this.

和p.s。;
rx练级修复了这个问题吗？



     以下为原文

  and p.s.; did rx leveling fix the issue?

很抱歉继续询问更多信息，但我发现真正的问题似乎不是平稳的电源（电源主显示小尖峰），这将导致IMD变化高达3倍。
你可以重新发布Cal All的情节，但是这次把PowerMainHi，PowerMainLo和PwrInHi和PwrInLo一起放了吗？
我想知道输入和输出功率是否均为平坦。
有时我看到这个错误，因为它们是输入功率的一些限制。
通常情况下，Rx调平应该会使功率变平，因此看到Rx调平时的任何尖峰都是奇怪的。
这可能只是两个来源中的一个，这就是为什么我想看到个人的高权力和低权力。
有没有机会你也可以保存一个csa文件并发布，或通过电子邮件发送给我。
如果你能提醒我你的固件版本。
最近Cal All有一些小的变化，可能会产生一些影响。
我们可以检查calset，看看这些区域中的某些错误术语是否有些奇怪。



     以下为原文

  sorry to keep asking for more information, but I see that it appears the real problem is not smooth power (power main shows small spikes) which will cause the IMD to vary up to 3x as much.

Can you repost the plots of the Cal All, but this time put up PowerMainHi, PowerMainLo, along with PwrInHi and PwrInLo?

I want to see if the input and output power are each flat.  Sometimes I've seen this error when their is some limitation of the inputput power.  Normally, Rx leveling should flatten the power so seeing any spikyness with Rx leveling on is odd.  This might be on only one of the two sources, which is why I want to see the individual high and lo powers.  

Is there any chance you can also save a csa file and post that, or email it to me.  And if you can remind me of your firmware revision.  There were some small changes recently to Cal All that might have some effect.  We can inspect the calset to see if some of the error terms look odd in those regions.

我想知道是否已经执行了具有独立源和频谱分析仪的相关性测试......实际数字是什么？
我们和我们的客户仍然希望看到固定频率的C / 3IM测量值.....



     以下为原文

  I am wondering if a correlation test, with separate sources and spectrum analyzer, has been performed... whats the real number?

We, and our customers, still prefer to see fixed frequency C/3IM measurements.....

同意，但这种测量的“spikeyness”完全在信号源和SA测量的正常不确定性范围内。
单独的不匹配效应可能导致驱动功率的1 dB不确定性（即，即使您使用完美的功率计校准信号源，DUT和信号源以及连接电缆的不匹配也会导致DUT的实际功率达到
从预期的1 dB变化，因此IMD也将改变，SA精度也在1 dB的量级，在更宽的范围内更差。
这个计量器需要花费1000倍的时间来获得。
如果您真的想要一个单点SA图，您可以打开任何标记位置的IM频谱通道。



     以下为原文

  Agreed, but the "spikeyness" of this measurment is well within the normal uncertainty of a measurment with signal sources and an SA.  The mismatch effects alone contribute to perhaps 1 dB of uncertainty in the drive power (that is, even  if you calibrate a source with a perfect power meter, the mismatch of the DUT and source and connecting cables will cause the actual power to the DUT to vary from expected by 1 dB) and thus the IMD will change as well, further the SA accuracy is on the order of 1 dB as well, worse at wider ranges.  And this measurent would take 1000 times longer to acquire.  And if you really want a single point SA plot, you can turn on the IM spectrum channel for any marker position.

嗨，Joel博士，附件是用于分析的.csa文件。
我正在使用A.09.90.01固件。
数据可能看起来与之前显示的图不同，但是尖峰行为仍然存在于基于“Cal All”的IMD校准。
对于rfelectek：感谢您的回复。
现在，我并不关心IM3的实际实际值，而是在使用2种不同的校准方法时，扫描IM3波形的波形形状差异。
（定期单独校准与校准所有技术）。
理想情况下，它们应该大致相同。
我更喜欢使用'Cal All'方法，因为在同时校准多个测量类时，我可以节省大量时间。
但是当它与单独的校准方法产生明显不同的结果时。
希望有所帮助，rok



     以下为原文

  Hi Dr Joel,

Attached is the .csa file for your analysis. I'm using the A.09.90.01 firmware. The data may look different from the plots shown before, but the spiky behavior is still there with the 'Cal All' -based IMD calibration.

For rfelectek: Thank for your reply. Right now, I'm not concerned about the actual real value of the IM3, but the waveform shape differences of the swept IM3 waveform when using 2 different calibration methods. (regular individual calibration vs calibration all technique). Ideally, they should be roughly equivalent to each other. I would prefer to utilize the 'Cal All' method, since it is a vast time saver for me when calibrating multiple measurement classes at the same time. But not when it produces noticeably different results vs the individual calibration method.

Hope that helps,
rok

附件

• 08_06_2013 sample imd cal all.csa2.6 MB
  

错误数组讲述了这样一个故事：响应错误术语中存在尖峰，并且它们似乎来自我们在cal中所做的特殊小校准，以便理清IF在IMD通道中稍微移位的事实。
由于复杂的原因，其中之一是添加一个窄带滤波器，以防止两个音调爆炸ADC以改善IF中的TOI，我们在标准通道中进行校准，但我们之前没有看到这种效果。
这可能是由于您使用的特定频率，或由于某些插值错误。
我有我们的Cal-All大师看着这个（她在Cal-All中有各种秘密和模糊的东西让它工作......你会惊讶于获得所有通道和应用程序的类型
校准）。
如果您愿意，可以通过joel_dunsmore@agilent.com向我发送您的详细信息，我会将其传递给她。
它可能会导致更快的解决方案。



     以下为原文

  The error arrays tells the story: there are spikes in the response error terms, and they appear to come from a special little cal we do in cal all to sort out the fact the the IF shifts slightly in the IMD channel.
For complicated reasons, one of which is to add a narrowband filter to keep both tones from blasting the ADC to improve TOI in the IF, and we do the cal-all in the standard channel, but we haven't see this effect before. It might be due to the particualr frequencies you are using, or due to some interpolation error.  I've got our Cal-All guru looking at this (she has all kinds of secret and obscure things going on in Cal-All to make it work...you would be surprised what it takes to get all the channels and applications types calibrated).

If you like, you can email me your details at joel_dunsmore@agilent.com and I will pass them on to her.  It might lead to a quicker resolution.

嗨Joel博士，刚通过电子邮件发给我了我的详细信息。
如果您在接收它时遇到问题，请告诉我。
（即垃圾邮件过滤器？）rok



     以下为原文

  Hi Dr Joel,

Just sent you my details via email. Let me know if you have trouble receiving it. (i.e. spam filter?)

rok

刚给jvall发了一封信，要求他跟进。



     以下为原文

  Just sent a note out to jvall to ask him to follow up.

我已经提交了一份错误报告，但是可能需要一段时间才能对此进行整理......即使您的优秀描述和图表也是如此。
这有多重要？
这是否会妨碍您进行测量，或者只是延长时间来进行测量（因为您现在似乎有一个解决方法。）



     以下为原文

  I have submitted a bug report, but it may take awhile to sort this all out...even with your excellent description and graphs.

How critical is this?  Is this preventing you from making a measurement or is it just extending the time to do it (since you appear to have a work-around for now.)

嗨jvall，这并不重要，因为有一个解决方法。
（即分别执行IMDX校准而不是'全部校准'。）但是我希望它现在可以修复，因为我在6个月前报告并且耐心地等待5次修改。
我甚至发送了一封电子邮件用于之前的修订版（A.09.990.06），表明问题仍然存在于S. Wood和D. Sariaslani，但从未收到回复电子邮件，所以我认为问题正在得到解决。
有一个可以真正校准全部的“全部校准”，而不是我必须给我的操作员校准除imdx以外的所有内容然后分别执行imdx校准的解决方法说明。
韩国



     以下为原文

  Hi jvall,

It's not critical since there is a workaround. (i.e perform the IMDX calibration separately instead of 'Cal All'.) But I was hoping it would be fixed by now, since I reported it 6 months ago and was patiently waiting for 5 revisions now. I even sent email for a previous revision (A.09.990.06) indicating the problem was still there to S. Wood and D. Sariaslani, but never got a reply email, so I assumed the problem was being addressed. It would be nice to have a 'Cal All' that can truly calibrate all, instead of the workaround instructions I have to give to my operators to calibrate all except imdx and then perform the imdx cal separately. 

rok

我能理解没有及时解决这个问题的挫败感。
直接去实验室团队充其量是最好的;
他们有其他优先事项。
此外，我不确定是否曾提交过官方错误报告，但现在已经提交了。
您将很高兴地知道，在发生严重错误之后，客户提交的错误将获得次优先级。



     以下为原文

  I can understand the frustration of not having this fixed in a timely manner.  Going directly to the Lab team is iffy at best; they have other priorities.  Also, I am not sure if an official bug report was ever submitted, but it has been now.  You will be happy to know that, after critical bugs, customer submitted bugs get the next highest priority.