Working on one of these and wanted to see if anyone has seen this error. it is (and I quote):
"Cross-isolation interface failed. This test verifies that the cross-isolation communications interface is working properly. This test has the I/O processor U105-A) perform an internal self-test and return the result. A failure indicates that I/O processor either timed out or failed its self-test. "
If anyone has seen this, is it maybe some cal point that has drifted way out, and can be adjusted, or repair type failure. Figured this is such a common model, maybe someone has seen it. Last time it says it was cal'd was back in 2008. And I don't want to waste the time running the full cal if this is a hardware failure.
Its a com error. Make sure its clean on the inside then send back to Agilent for repair by replacement
It probably is worth "popping the hood" and check the various connections - reseating things, etc. to see if it makes the error go away. But if not, just have the unit sent to Agilent. They are nice generators. We have a lot of 3325A's and 3325Bs. Be nice to get some of these as replacements.
Honestly Ill keep my 3325A/B before I would trade it on 33XXX anything...
Really... Not disagreeing, just listening to learn... My presumption has always been that the 33120A, 33220A were the "little cheaper" ones, and that the 33250A is the good one that is a drop in replacement for the 3325A/B. My presumption is that 3325A is the old beat up one that gets flaky, and the 3325B is a little newer and more reliable (but still getting old), but that the 33250A is the quite a bit newer and more desirable replacement for the 3325A/B. I've never been in a lab with funds to have the 33250A's. So we use 3325s and get to work on the "nicer" 33250A's that belong to customers, but not us. So you're saying the 33250A is not such a desirable replacement. I hadn't thought of it that way. But again, we don't get to own them. Do the 33250A's have some reliability problems? Just wondering about the comparative quality (to store in my brain).
They are not as reliable as the 3325/26/a/b models, there is not much trade of in specifications except that the 33 series is much more robust than the 333 series.
I mean in the big picture the 33250 is a good function generator, Im just not one to give up best to get good. In my opinion
Most of my 3325A's have already died. We have numerous good 3325B's. But as we do quite a bit of on-sites, it just seems that the 33250A would make a nice replacement. I agree that the 3325B is a very good, reliable, robust generator. And we won't be replacing any of them until we have to. I can't remember the models, but some of my customers who have all the nice stuff have even newer models replacing them.
The main problem I have seen with the 3325B's in the last few years is that the sealed output/attenuator relays get resistive and DC offset gets non-repeatable. The relay is an old Panasonic/Aromat type that has long-since gone out of production. Because we automate almost everything, repeatability is key for us, and to that point we have begun migrating to the 33250A (albeit with some pain).
Problems you may encounter:
- 33250A minimum output is 10mVp-p, so we wind up rewriting the software to accomodate adding an external attenuator that wasn't required with the 3325A;
- No high output option on the 33250A;
- 3325B flatness tends to be a bit better than the 33250A