可能有几个原因。
不幸的是，我们需要了解更多信息。
1.您是否使用与进行测量时相同的点数来执行开路，短路，负载校准（或ECal）？
如果没有，那么你正在使用插值，这可能会导致问题，尤其是在宽扫描等问题上。
这是大多数迹线上较小的尖刺的原因。
2.您是否启用了步进扫描？
默认情况下，未启用步进扫描，除非启用，否则我们不保证+任何+。
注意：使用1KHz或更低的IFBW将自动使用步进扫描，即使它尚未启用。
大穗可能是由于带交叉造成的。
如果不遵循上述第1项和第2项，这将使情况更糟。
我现在在家，不知道这是不是乐队的交叉。
服务目录中有一个名为ShowBandInfo的程序，它将列出所有的带交叉。
要避免此问题，请在1601,3201或更高的许多点执行用户校准;
特别是这种频率扫描。
使用1KHz或更低的IFBW执行校准。
如果这对你来说太慢了，那么至少打开Stepped Sweep！
完成校准后，您可以以用于校准的点数的子倍数进行测量。
例如，如果您将校准值设置为3201点，则可以在1601,801,401,201等点测量您的测量值。
试试这个，让我们知道结果。
还有其他解决方案，但上面是最简单的。
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
There could be several reasons. Unfortunately we would need to know a bit more information.
1. Did you perform your Open,Short,Load cal (or ECal) using the same number of points as when you made your measurement? If not, then you are using interpolation, which can cause problems, especially on wide sweeps such as this. This is the cause of the smaller spiky-ness on most of the trace.
2. Do you have Step Sweep enabled? By default, step sweep is NOT enabled and we do not guarantee +anything+ unless it is enabled. Note: Using an IFBW of 1KHz or less will automatically use step sweep even if it is not already enabled.
3. The large spike could be due to a band cross. The effect of this will be made worse by not following items 1 and 2 above. I am at home now and do not know if that is a band cross or not. There is a program in the service directory called ShowBandInfo that will list all the band crossings.
To avoid this issue, perform your user calibration at a high number of points such as 1601, 3201, or more; especially with this wide of a frequency sweep. Perform your cal with an IFBW of 1KHz or less. If this is too slow for you, then at least turn on Stepped Sweep! Once your cal is done, you can then take your measurements at a sub-multiple of the number of points that you used for the cal. For example, if you made your cal at 3201 points, you can take your measurement at 1601, 801, 401, 201, etc. number of points.
Try this and let us know the results. There are other solutions also, but the above is the easiest.
可能有几个原因。
不幸的是，我们需要了解更多信息。
1.您是否使用与进行测量时相同的点数来执行开路，短路，负载校准（或ECal）？
如果没有，那么你正在使用插值，这可能会导致问题，尤其是在宽扫描等问题上。
这是大多数迹线上较小的尖刺的原因。
2.您是否启用了步进扫描？
默认情况下，未启用步进扫描，除非启用，否则我们不保证+任何+。
注意：使用1KHz或更低的IFBW将自动使用步进扫描，即使它尚未启用。
大穗可能是由于带交叉造成的。
如果不遵循上述第1项和第2项，这将使情况更糟。
我现在在家，不知道这是不是乐队的交叉。
服务目录中有一个名为ShowBandInfo的程序，它将列出所有的带交叉。
要避免此问题，请在1601,3201或更高的许多点执行用户校准;
特别是这种频率扫描。
使用1KHz或更低的IFBW执行校准。
如果这对你来说太慢了，那么至少打开Stepped Sweep！
完成校准后，您可以以用于校准的点数的子倍数进行测量。
例如，如果您将校准值设置为3201点，则可以在1601,801,401,201等点测量您的测量值。
试试这个，让我们知道结果。
还有其他解决方案，但上面是最简单的。
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
There could be several reasons. Unfortunately we would need to know a bit more information.
1. Did you perform your Open,Short,Load cal (or ECal) using the same number of points as when you made your measurement? If not, then you are using interpolation, which can cause problems, especially on wide sweeps such as this. This is the cause of the smaller spiky-ness on most of the trace.
2. Do you have Step Sweep enabled? By default, step sweep is NOT enabled and we do not guarantee +anything+ unless it is enabled. Note: Using an IFBW of 1KHz or less will automatically use step sweep even if it is not already enabled.
3. The large spike could be due to a band cross. The effect of this will be made worse by not following items 1 and 2 above. I am at home now and do not know if that is a band cross or not. There is a program in the service directory called ShowBandInfo that will list all the band crossings.
To avoid this issue, perform your user calibration at a high number of points such as 1601, 3201, or more; especially with this wide of a frequency sweep. Perform your cal with an IFBW of 1KHz or less. If this is too slow for you, then at least turn on Stepped Sweep! Once your cal is done, you can then take your measurements at a sub-multiple of the number of points that you used for the cal. For example, if you made your cal at 3201 points, you can take your measurement at 1601, 801, 401, 201, etc. number of points.
Try this and let us know the results. There are other solutions also, but the above is the easiest.
举报
