Is the 0 GHz interpolation B. S. or what? The manufacturer says to set the meter to 50 MHz and apply a precision 50 MHz 1mW ref and compare. The USAF decided in its infinite wisdom that we should interpolate a "0" GHz cal factor from 30 and 500 MHz which makes not f-ing since. So lets sound off as to how stupid our USAF tech writers sound.
Forgive my ignorance but what is the 16934A? Power sensor?
It's the peak pulse sensor used with the 8502 peak power meter..mostly used with Navaids..
I don't know what the beef is..interpolation can be fun...
Why not contact the AFPSL guru on this and ask him his solution...
Mike
Oh my! Where to start. I've waited a few day from your original post airbud to see if anyone else will comment on your obvious lack of understanding.
Firstly; I would think if you are going to diss someone, especially someone who deals with words, that you at least check your work. Because "makes not since" makes no sense to me.
Secondly; If you actually read the procedure you're commenting on you would realize the word you're searching for is extrapolate not interpolate. There is a difference. Both extrapolation and interpolation of specifications are used extensively throughout the Metrology field in all disciplines.
Thirdly; The process you're commenting on has been in the procedure since at least the March 2006 publication without the submission of any AFTO 22s questioning the validity of the process. Are you implying that every technician that has verified a 16934A during this time frame has no idea what they're doing and you're the only one who understands this situation.
Lastly; I think you should understand the Calibration Procedure process. A procedure is developed using the available data and standards at the time, written by Technical Writers and verified by Engineers, Technical Content Managers (TCMs) and Government Quality Assurance Personnel. If problems are identified by the field an AFTO 22 is submitted, reviewed by the Engineers, and the TCMs and if valid the Technical Writers are directed to make the changes required. So when you make the comment regarding how stupid the Technical Writers sound, you are basically saying all of AFMETCAL/AFPSL is stupid.
I'm sure a Staff Sergeant that posts this on a public board, with his Air Force e-mail address listed, is in for a long, enjoyable career in the Air Force Metrology field. Reading through some of your other posts on this website, may I also suggest that if you're interested in promotion you also learn how to spell Chief correctly. I can hardly wait to hear the results from the next visit from the Evaluation Team to wherever you're stationed at that time. Be sure to keep posting here, I'm always looking to be entertained.
ethantre
:-o
oh that's gonna hurt :-o
Dude, what else can be said, you make me proud to be a metrologist. Oh yea, NOT. I hope the rest of the world doesn't think we are all the same, a lot of us actually know what is going on
Uh, I don't wanna come rushing to anyone's aid, but, ok I will, kinda.
Judging from what ethantre said, AirBud is a SSGT in the Air Force. Got it. So, don't you think it might be possible that this young SSGT could use some help maybe?
How often in your early career did you ever hear the words interpolate and extrapolate? And I am not EVEN gonna argue on about any military technicians being considered Metrologists. Anyone can be taught to read and move some dials, but understanding what you read and why you are moving those dials and making those extrapolations and interpolations makes ALL the difference.
Maybe if someone would explain why it is done that way and not beat the guy up for making a little out of place comment would make more sense :?
IMHO the poor guy, probably a newly promoted SSGT in the precarious position of not wanting to get beat up by folks at work for asking the question, is probably scared off and next time he has a question he probably won't come to one of the very very few areas where he can pull from an enormous wealth of knowledge. Or I could be completely wrong.
Better watch it folks, never know who is hiding behind the water cooler.......
Oh, and back to the original question, I have no idea how the Air Force does their peak power sensors, but I am told the cal factors are not changed unless they are out of tolerance or whatever. I really don't want to get going on that argument, the whole "well we just ran the numbers, so why don't we update the factors on our sensors since we have them" argument. Oh, that's right, cause it makes sense.
There's an old adage "Good enough for Goverment work".
You have to consider the typical characteristics of the piece, the time that will be designated for testing and the skill level of the techs targeted by the TO writer/developer. Somewhere someone probably has a pile of paperwork documenting that the testing is good enough for what the USAF has in mind for it.
Interpolation is a time honored tradition.
Looking at an Agilent 8482A I have sitting here cal factors fom 100KHz to 3 GHz vary from a low of 95.5 to a high of 99.5, if I'm looking to measure within 0.25 db I could set it to 97.5 and use it any where in that frequency, good enough.
Agilent made a series of counters 5347/5348A that had a power meter built in. Rather than enter cal factors they had a switch setting for the type of sensor, I theorized they probably had a "characteristic curve" in them meaning that at some frequency the cal factor is typically an amount more or less than the 50 MHz cal level.
Then again, as always I could be full of poop.
That's a good point Bryan.. They millitary buys test equipemnt and they write cal procedure to test the measurement functions against the paramaters IAW their metrology needs.