9500

[MIRCS]

Is anyone having troubles calibrating these units???

[browndav]

I just recently calibrated our lab standard 9500.  Though I ran into no problems with the 9500 itself the heads proved to be the more difficult part of the calibration.  Took a few tweaks to setups to get it to read measurements accurately.  As in while using the 3458 use a 50 ohm BNC cable instead of pumona leads for a better result.  There were a few others but I'd have to look through the calibration procedure.

[MIRCS]

Yeah the heads can be a pain in the arse. Especially the 9550 head on it's 25ps pulse. I have always tried to use the best cables available...I hate pomona leads. had a 22 disapproved for using low emf cables. Reason was that the manufacturer didn't suggest using them....I kid you not that was the response.

[Thraxas]

When in doubt use the best stuff possible!   The 25 pico rise time is a bear to calibrate.  It doesn't help much that our standards are getting a little long in the tooth.  The 284 is a dinosaur!

You guys still use 284's?!?!? I've only seen those in museums.

[mdbuike]

Many things to say on these...

First, got an email from Whiteman, they had a Fluke rep there..seems there is a difference in how Fluke UK and Fluke USA cal the 9500..

Then, there's the issue of the trigger cable provided..the rep admitted it's a piece of crap, and to use the best/shortest cable you have for it...

And then..the 3458A is not designed to measure squarewaves or triangle waves (check the specs and how it measures AC) even in synchonous mode..it doesn't measure like a TC, but takes digital readings on the waveform...I have the email from agilent at work, and will gladly share it..

As to the 9550, because our SD-24 is "apparently" decreasing in accuracy (could be the pulse generator used to cal it, since it's now limited), we just limited it to