PMEL Forum

Looking to automate RF cals, any opinions out there as to which one is superior  would be greatly appreciated. :-D

   I had heard that SureCal was going away, and that they weren't going to develope any more procedures for/with it, at least for AF labs.  They are going to "NextGen" software. 

   I can't confirm this, so it's just rumour. 

I can vouch for what you have heard Freezer.  I had the opportunity to chat with a reliable source from AFMETCAL a while back, and I asked him what was going on up there with the NextGen stuff I saw in the newsletter.  I told him that I thought SureCal was the answer to all of our automated needs, at least that was what I was told.  He informed me that it was not, and that they were now developing NextGen to replace SureCal.  Wow, that was fast

I told him that I didn't believe it.  I told him that we, in the field, would probably never see a finished automated product.  It is always one thing after another.  I have been hearing the same line for 12 years now.  "It's right around the corner."  First it was Labview, which each lab had to purchase and develop individually.  Yeah, right.  That had 'Big Problem' written all over it.  Then it was SureCal, which would solve all the inconsistancies of the Labview fiasco by centralizing the control of each file with AFMETCAL.  And now its NextGen.  It seems to me that if this is true, then SureCal, for what little (if no) benefit, has been a big waste of time and money.

Anyway, I seriously doubt if this will be the end of the automated saga, and I'll only believe it when I see it.

Sorry to take this off-topic with a rant, but it just really irritates me that we can't come up with a decent solution for the AF labs.

We have both where I'm at and I have to tip my hat to Surecal. The interface is friendlier but the downside is that you have to purchase a license for each model you want to test. I believe METCAL has a deal to where you pay a yearly fee and get access to all the procedures you need. But METCAL is a bit of a PITA to setup.

SureCal is going away? Or is it just the USAF that's dropping support? I work at a civilian cal lab that is in the hunt for upgraded software (we are currently using our own hand-rolled DOS software!  :-o ) We were looking at SureCal to automate our RF station (imagine calibrating thermistor mounts manually!) Tegam (www.tegam.com) took over the System II power sensor calibration system from Weinschel and they are a distributor of SureCal to operate the setup, that's why we were looking at it.

MET/CAL is the industry standard calibration software, and from what I understand they are supporting RF calibrations more and more (I wonder if they will support power sensor calibrations). They already have hundreds of procedures available for the Wavetek 9500 series oscilloscope calibrators. Yes, Fluke has a plan called MET/Support Gold where you can download unlimited procedures for a monthly fee, otherwise they would charge by the procedure for "warranted" procedures (which can run anywhere from $750 for hand held meters to $1500 or more for scopes, etc.) And there are thousands of user-contributed procedures. At last count they have >4000 procedures for electronic equipment alone, but many people use MET/CAL for dimensional, force and pressure calibrations (I guess the readings are manually entered!)

So what is this "NextGen" software? Is it available commercially off-the-shelf, or is it something being developed specifically for the military? If so, reckon they'll let civilian labs have access to it the way they have access to T.O. 33K# procedures through GIDEP?

   I think it's just the USAF that's dropping SureCal.  My opinion, after limited use, is that SureCal was a good product.  We didn't have any trouble with it, but other labs did.  We only used it a few times here because we don't have many of the things it supported, but I liked it when I used it! 
   The NextGen stuff looks like Air Force only product, it doesn't require a license like SureCal did.   Maybe it's open source. :wink:

   I haven't had an opportunity to use NextGen yet, it currently only supports LeCroy scopes, but I'm looking forward to giving it a try!

We use both. I thought the AirForce only had a couple of SureCal programs with a CPIN anyway. We use SureCal for our power sensors and a few SigGens otherwise it's MetCal on everything else. I would go with MetCal only because writing your own automated procedures is easier. I think you will find that most people will agree. Using SureCal may seem easier, but once you master MetCal it's a better software.

I've never used Surecal, I've only used METCAL.  It works well for the RF work I do.  Fluke doesn't have a lot of RF procedures out yet, but I've been writing my own and have had few problems.

We basically right now only use the SureCal to calibrate our 8566A/B's , 8902's and  8903's (which by the way cuts down the calibration time considerably...love fire and forget procedures).  I believe the NEXTGEN procedure is to encompass 8340's and the like which again may help us in the long run.  SureCal for all its faults does help out and here is how we set it up run a test, go calibrate something else, run next test, rinse repeat.  Production has increased with the introduction of it to the field.  Now if they can only upgrade the PMCS to a windows based program and then I would be happy.

90% of our RF is automated. All our calibrators are cal'd with automation as well.

If you intend on getting MET/CAL, don't get it straight from Fluke, but instead get it from On Time Support (http://www.ontimesupport.com). They know their stuff about MET/CAL, and their "hot-rodded" version that they sold to General Motors, some NASA labs and other big name companies can let customers access their data and certificates via the web, sync up a mobile lab with the main lab, work order tracking with bar code support, etc.

I understand that the Navy is ditching Micro$haft for Linux based systems and developed a calibration software called METBENCH... Anybody ever seen that?

I use Met/Cal to calibrate a wide range of equipment. It is fairly easy to program in as well. I give it a 10/10.

Shane

I'm at a beta test site for the Metbench system.  It's a good conscept and has potential.  But, it has a very limited procedure base and needs to ramp up the procedure development.

Quote from: scottbp on 05-19-2006 -- 08:32:32
If you intend on getting MET/CAL, don't get it straight from Fluke, but instead get it from On Time Support (http://www.ontimesupport.com). They know their stuff about MET/CAL, and their "hot-rodded" version that they sold to General Motors, some NASA labs and other big name companies can let customers access their data and certificates via the web, sync up a mobile lab with the main lab, work order tracking with bar code support, etc.

I understand that the Navy is ditching Micro$haft for Linux based systems and developed a calibration software called METBENCH... Anybody ever seen that?

Quote from: scottbp link=topic=417. msg4830#msg4830 date=1148045552
If you intend on getting MET/CAL, don't get it straight from Fluke, but instead get it from On Time Support (http://www.ontimesupport.com).  They know their stuff about MET/CAL, and their "hot-rodded" version that they sold to General Motors, some NASA labs and other big name companies can let customers access their data and certificates via the web, sync up a mobile lab with the main lab, work order tracking with bar code support, etc. 

I understand that the Navy is ditching Micro$haft for Linux based systems and developed a calibration software called METBENCH. . .  Anybody ever seen that?

Good advice Scott.

I love MetCal, we are a 'Gold' user, but straight from Fluke it took a LOT of tweaking. 

Yeah, I'm still banging my head on the wall with MET/CAL. We bought it about midway through last year, and have yet to have the On-Time Support gang come fix it up for us (our management is holding back for other projects at the moment). So I've been piddling with it here and there when I can, learning the procedures, trying to get some of the bugs worked out, hacking the reports, and in general trying to bend it to fit our needs, but one man can't go it alone... :|

I've had Fluke fokls on the phone for hours, Scott.  But it's worth it when it's all said and done.  I'd have rather had someone come to our location, but at least I know the inner workings enough now, that I can handle any future issues in regard to compatibility with UUT.

Still, I hear ya.  I'm not interested in being a Beta test mouse, especially when you've paid over $10K for a software package.

Both Met/Cal and SureCal have their places.    

I've been using both for years.    For scopes, meters, and writing code to the down right dirty (in the good sense), you can't beat metcal. 
       
Fluke wants you use certain standards, and as long as you have the common dc/low equip, no probs.
RF/uW is a different matter, SureCal can subsitute standards, but its up to the tech to know the limitation/specs of that equip.        Alot of labs have different gens, specans, etc, and that is the strong point of Surecal, substitution of standards.                           

With all that said, I surely would drather be using automation than punching and writing all that data.                            .                            

New member here, greetings, X-AF PMEL, I'm not familiar with SureCal but am self-taught in MetCal and I like it.   The latest version 7. 2 will now allow for standards to be in a family.   An example would be a HP 8642B and a Fluke 6071A would both be members of the same RF Generator family and could use the same Standard driver.   We haven't upgraded to the latest yet but from the sales pitch I've heard it should make MetCal alot more flexible.

As ArmyPMEL said, for scopes and meters MetCal is pretty hard to beat.   If the new flexible standards work as advertised, RF cals are going to take off.

Getting ready to fire off a Cal of an HP 8563E in SureCal and then turn around and fire the 8563E Cal off in MetCal 7. 2.  Yes, Fluke posted the HP 8563E! We have the HP Basic 8563E program as well but we have to keep kick starting our old HP Basic computer and the HP program will not run in HT Basic.  We are a Fluke Gold member and we do download alot of MetCal procedures.  The Tek TDS and TPS procedures are alot of fun.  Both SureCal and MetCal have drivers and use the N5531S.  Looks like Fluke MetCal is now competing with SureCal. 

GIMP---

Being a gold member intitles you to the ISO disks of their procedures.  Fluke started about 1/2 year ago providing a disk with all their waranted procedures, which can be d/led from their support page, so much better than d/ling each procedure from their site.  One thing to point out, the ISO disk is 'suppose' to contain all the warranted procs, but it doesn't, so if you dont find it on the disk, check their page.


As for programming SureCal, there is a little you can do to customize without the scorce code.  'But' with the source (@4X the price of ea proc!) & their 'programmers package' (another $2600), you can do practically do anything you want.

SC is written in HTBasic, which is very very close to HPBasic.  Alot of HPBasic programs will run under HTBasic (SC) in the windows environment with some tweaking. . . .  hmmm. .  all those old HP instruments alignment/verification programs running in windows. . . .  life is good!

.

Hey Gimp---

I was interested in how the SureCAL 8563E compared to the Met Cal procedure time wise.   I'm interested because I wrote it.   I write all the SureCAL Spec An procedures.   I also do most of the RF sig gens.   Wrote the drivers for the N5531S & FSMR too.   Unlike our commercial customers, I rarely get calls from military labs, but I'll take feedback any way I can get it.   I love to tweak code.   They stripped away the old school management that used to penalized engineers for making software changes.   Nothing stays the same anymore.   Improvements, even on fielded software is high priority.   Recently I shaved about an hour off the 26. 5 GHz PSA test time and I'm attempting the same with the ESA series too.   And just for the record, SureCAL is not going away.  We are working on a new GUI and other enhancements.   

-Todd

Tetter868... and all..
I have never ran SureCal  so I have absolutly no frame of reference..

But I can say we have an 8565E\EC procedure that is able to test a UUT from end to end in less than 1 hour and 20 minutes.  That is all the test points per the manufacturer's written procedure.. NO SHORT CUTS, NO SKIPPED OPTIONS.  100% by the book.

I know it is by the book because the last QA hit one of my customers thought they found as the EC come standard from the manufacture with option 007..  Those companies that are slapping in the color screens and calliing it an EC are not installing that option.   Our procedure was correct and tested the unit like an E without option 007. (Agilent did not change the ID / Options querries over the GPIB Buss)

It took me quite a while to develop this procedure in Met/Cal.  The hardest part was finding all the options and option configuration that made a difference in the procedure.  But once it was done it really cut the calibration time down. 

--Mike Schwartz
-- Cal Lab Solutions

 

MetCal by far,but get procedures from Cal Lab Solutions NOT FLUKE!!

Another source for quality MET/CAL procedure is Cal Lab Solutions.  We have been working hard to provide our customers with best procedures on the market.  We have a huge library of automated calibration procedures for HP and Agilent equipment.  With our recent Agilent Channel Partnership we are now able to offer our customer Turn-Key custom solutions both hardware and software.

We like MET/CAL, thought it is an old technology, it is still the great choice for metrology based automation.  We have used it to develop procedure for customers who use both MET/CAL and SureCal.  Side by-side, I always here the same complaints about MET/CAL when compared to SureCal.  One, there is no support flexible standards.  And two MET/CAL does not allow the user to select the test they want to run.

Over the past few years we have been able to overcome both of those obstacles. 
1)   We have created an interchangeable driver model, where we can change a standard by simply changing one line of code in a configuration sub.  This allows us to change from an HP 8902A to an Agilent N5531A or even the R&S FSMR in ONE line of code.
2)   We have also created a tool called MultiChoice, this tool allows us to write procedure that run in End-to-End mode (with minimized connections) or in test selection mode where the operator is able to choose the test they want to run and the order.  (This is standard on all RF and microwave procedures)

Some of our customers prefer to run our procedure over the SureCal procedures, because we customize the procedure to meet their exact needs, using their existing lab standards.  We cover all the options in the manual and MET/CAL is able to calculate the uncertainties. 
Our support is the best in the industry.  All of our procedures are 100% tested, but if one of our customers has a problem we usually get them an update within 24 hours.  With some customers we are able to remote into their compute and fix the problem on the spot.

Http:\\www.CalLabSolutions.com (//http://Http:%5C%5Cwww.CalLabSolutions.com)

I may be stepping over the line here, But sounds like there are some users here who could use some assitance when it comes to MET/CAL.

If you have any questions you can Email me directly [email protected]

tetter,

just curious, you have a cal procedure for the 26.5 PSA? What standards are you using? Just curious, and you can PM me if you would rather. I think we are getting Agilent's off the shelf system to cal them and am curious as to what I am gonna be looking at. Last I heard the 4419 in the system, the power ref is insanely spec'd from Agilent!

PSA E444xA Procedure are available free for Fluke Gold users.

Fluke had us at Cal Lab Solutions write this procedure and license it to all Fluke Gold members. Fluke had us write it around the Fluke 9640, the replacement for the HP 3335.

We are able to write verification procedures for any of the PSA's based on you labs existing standards.  Our procedures are written to your labs specification and there are no anual subscription fees.  For some labs this can be a huge savings.

Mike
Cal Lab Solutions
www.callabsolutions.com (http://www.callabsolutions.com) 

ROFL, has anyone here actually looked at the Measurement Uncertainty provided for an accredited cal of a  Fluke 9640.   They are lucky if they hit 2:1 on most of the calibration.   The important paramters of this instrument like the power output is 1:1. 2 throughout most of the range.   The specs on this instrument are fantastic, the problem is that Fluke cannot provide a calibration that supports the specs they have published.   If you gaurdband the tolerances of this instrument to compensate for the uncertainty issues in the calibration it can't compete with Agilent, or R&S middle of the line gear.   An Agilent PSG signal generator will eat that Fluke for lunch.

I have to disagree..  But, I do want to give the impression the Fluke 9640 is the best thinkg sense sliced bread.  The Fluke 9640 does exactly what it was designed to do.  The PSG is is a great generator but is is not a replacement for the HP 3335A.

You know Fluke built the 9640A for the military as a replacement for the HP 3335A.  Because Agilent did not have any instrument that could replace it.

The millitary wanted an 3335 replacement, mostly becaue they did not want to rewrite all of their procedures..


Agilent has updated their procedure to use a PSG with a calibrated step attenuator.  And yes is works great.  The problem is now you have to track the calibration data on your attenuators.  Because you are now using calibrated values (not the attenuator specification) you have to track the change from each calibration.  If the data changes to much you have to do a recall on everything you calibrated.  Most labs are not doing this.  On paper they are showing good uncertainties, but in reality they are not doing their due diligence to insure they are meeting their confidence requirements. 

Think about it.  If you are using the uncertainties of the calibrated values, and the attenuator comes back with new values that have changed more than the uncertainties you where using in the calibration process, then you have to recalculate you uncertainties (adding in the drift) then recall all the instruments that may have been effected because your attenuator drifted. 

(BIG CAN OF WARMS)

Mike

I had an old 3335A at my previous lab with a flaky attenuator (just a little over a year ago).  I took the internal attenuator assembly apart (more than I probably should have), cleaned all the internal contacts with grain alcohol and q-tips, and it worked great ever since.  I would probably buy an old used 3335A before anything else (until you can't find them any more).

Someone needs to stand outside of Agilent with picket signs and demand they make more 3335A's.  If they can keep making 478A's, I would think (all logic aside) that they could make some more 3335A's.

CalLabSolutions,

No recall would ever be necessary because the Air Force has you chart the attenuator prior to each use. It's not that big of a deal because the tests that use it (Scale Fidelity, Input Attenuator, Reference Level, and RBW), are all done at the same frequency, usually 40 MHz.

They do the same thing with filters too. They are verified prior to each use. That one drives me nuts but that's a topic for another day: AFMETCAL Policies and Procedures and the Nitwits Who Write Them. Some of the guys up there should really consider another line of work.

Hawaii596

I am the biggest fan of the HP 3335A.  It is a great standard (un-matched for reliability).

There are two companies that I know of who are able to rebuild the 3335A. 
Oplink in GA and Nation Test Equipment in southern CA.  Each of these companies are very good a repairing and rebuilding older equipment.

I recomend them to my customers when they have a broken 3335A.

Mike

Quote from: Duckbutta on 02-17-2009 -- 10:45:45
No recall would ever be necessary because the Air Force has you chart the attenuator prior to each use. It's not that big of a deal because the tests that use it (Scale Fidelity, Input Attenuator, Reference Level, and RBW), are all done at the same frequency, usually 40 MHz.

Duckbutta,
I think that is they way to do.  Comparing one measurement to another measurement using the attenuator as a transfer standard.  It is a pain in the butt, but there is little time for the attenuator to change is values.  And if you have a failure you will only have a couple of units that may be effected. 

I would hate to be in the lab that had to recall mounts worth of spectrum analyzer calibrations.

Mike 

Straight scoop from SureCal.

The true statement would be:  They (AF Labs) have chosen to write their own procedures.   SureCAL isn't going away and we still consider them a customer.

Does that answer your question?

Cheryl John
Customer Support Rep
Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. 
SureCAL Products, MS M-21
P. O.  Box 1693
Baltimore, MD  21203-1693  

Metcal is better.More support;you can get a procedure written to the standards you have,not someone else's;Uncertainties can be reported;TUR's will be reported; You don't need a programmer license to change,maintain, or write procedures.
  Just seems better for us.We are strictly Metcal,TME, or HP BASIC

Help me Sure 5.2 Cal.
I did not try a lot of data to run its 5.2 Fluke Cal Sure, brothers and sisters can guide me to write programs for the new model.
Older siblings can have a data source for me please, I sincerely thank you.
your gmail address: [email protected]

Help SureCal 5.2
I'm Drever HTBwin83 faulty Surecal 5.2, I want to run this application for Fluke DMM firms.
Who helped me Drever Fluke DMM (Fluke 8845A, Fluke 187, Fluke 179 ...)
thank you very much
mail: [email protected]

levanthach1985, if you are having trouble running a SureCal Procedure you should contact the people at SureCal for help.  If you have a licensed copy of the software they will be better able to assist you with your problem.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SureCAL/Pages/default.aspx?utm_source=PrintAd&utm_medium=Redirect&utm_campaign=SureCal_Redirect

Mike