PMEL Forum

Non-Equipment Areas => Quality Assurance => Topic started by: LarryH on 12-15-2005 -- 18:58:40

Title: One of the top QR failures
Post by: LarryH on 12-15-2005 -- 18:58:40
It seems a good percentage of young PMEL techs have a bad habit of limiting equipment IAW the K-procedure STEP and not IAW the table 1 specifications.  Example: "Third Order Intermodulation not cal'd at 8.4 GHz."  8.4 GHz was one of three frequencies called for - the problem was the unit was spec'd for TOI from 2-12.4 GHz for this 8.4 check point.  THis would not be a QR failure since it passed at 8 GHz but it was a PR failure as the technician could not explain any error and just carried over the previous limitation.  Moral:  Be VERY, VERY careful when using the word "AT" in a limitation. 
A K1 example that was a QR failure was a 3400A limited as "NOt cal'd at 10 MHz".  When tested at 9 MHz, it failed.  A proper limitation would have been, "Not Cal'd above 5 MHz".
Title: Re: One of the top QR failures
Post by: flamy78 on 12-15-2005 -- 23:52:58
Good examples.
They should also be in terms that the user can relate to or see in their TO/commercial data. This is a bad one I had recently.

"Harmonics of center frequencies greater than 40 MHz are less than 25 dBc" - or very close to that. As a tech we understand where they were going but most people don't and its completely unrelated to table 1 wording.
Title: Re: One of the top QR failures
Post by: LarryH on 12-20-2005 -- 12:47:15
That "dBc" is a real tough one to phrase.  It technicially means "dB below carrier".  As such, there is no such thing as MINUS dBc since it is relative.  Other mistatements are "< 40 dBc" which would mean between 0 and 39 dB below carrier.  "> 40 dBc" would be the more proper statement.

Adding to the confusion is every method (greater than, less than, minus, plus and combinations of the these) of stating dBc are found in K-procedures, T.O.s and OEM manuals.  This is aa area that NIST and AFMETCAL need to clarify for the industry.  As QA, I suggested the technicians use the phrasing found in the calibration procedure to determine the proper phrasing of limitations in these areas.
Title: Re: One of the top QR failures
Post by: flamy78 on 12-20-2005 -- 23:24:57
Until recently when I asked myself what does it really mean I wouldn't have argued but it does not actually mean below carrier. Its deciBel related to the Carrier.

I'll quote some website

"Another common usage is dBc, which is essentially a relative term with a variable reference, like dB alone. It is usually taken to mean "dB referenced to a carrier level" and is most commonly seen in radio receiver specifications regarding spurious signals or images. For example, "Spurious signals shall not exceed -50 dBc" means that spurious signals will always be at least 50 dB less than some specified carrier level present (which could mean "50 dB less than the desired signal").

"

I always thought it could mean either but I think that was because of training or a CDC typo that said below.

like dB sound - its all relative. dBm is an actual value - sorta it represents a power level.

I'm just a rookie. We can let flewdacoup the expert share his 2 cents though.

Where I come from we use robogrips on 3.5 connectors*










No we don't but it has been alluded to that we do.
Title: Re: One of the top QR failures
Post by: jimmyc on 05-30-2007 -- 15:20:59
man i miss AF calibration  lol