Thanks for the replies to this, both on and off list.
Repairs to the wiring turned out to be fairly straightforward and all now
seems to be basically functional, but there still remains the problem of the
lamp.
I am told that the FRK lamp is not a direct replacement, the base is
smaller,
correct !
In a message dated 9/17/2017 1:51:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
cjaysh...@gmail.com writes:
Yes.
An instrument with a calibration certificate is not necessarily accurate
but it's inaccuracies are known and can be compensated for (but only to the
accuracy of the calibration
good point
In a message dated 9/17/2017 2:01:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jim...@earthlink.net writes:
On 9/17/17 9:42 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote:
> Simply call it " Make it to meet specification", N1UL
>
>
> In a message dated 9/17/2017 12:39:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight
On 9/17/17 9:42 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote:
Simply call it " Make it to meet specification", N1UL
In a message dated 9/17/2017 12:39:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org writes:
Hi,
The word "calibration" is overloaded with multiple meanings, and
Yes.
An instrument with a calibration certificate is not necessarily accurate
but it's inaccuracies are known and can be compensated for (but only to the
accuracy of the calibration reference of course.)
On 17 Sep 2017 17:39, "Magnus Danielson" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
Simply call it " Make it to meet specification", N1UL
In a message dated 9/17/2017 12:39:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org writes:
Hi,
The word "calibration" is overloaded with multiple meanings, and
incompatible too.
"calibration" is often used to describe
Hi,
The word "calibration" is overloaded with multiple meanings, and
incompatible too.
"calibration" is often used to describe adjustments to make a device
operate correctly, such as passing the performance checks.
"calibration" in legal traceability is about measure the performance
As to the point most modern instruments have self calibration, Most of the
time 'calibration' is simply the performance check adjustments are not
performed unless necessary
The difference being the instruments used in performance test are traceable to
a national standards body.
So whats
And if the performance is not validated, then they fix it.. I hope.
I do a lot of phase noise measurements , spectrum analysis and power
measurements and S/N ratio measurements so I need correct tool .
In a message dated 9/17/2017 11:23:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Modern test and radio equipment have self calibration capabilities, older
analog do not. Calibration is not always need for just simple test, but
for specification conformation it is useful. A bit of luck also helps.
In a message dated 9/17/2017 8:08:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
On 15 Sep 2017 10:45, "Scott McGrath" wrote:
>
> Precisely my point, But when purchasing i expect to pay for a
calibration at a minimum.
I have on occasions requested sellers to send an item to the manufacturer
(Agilent or Keysight) for calibration *before* shipping it to
I do enjoy the 'chase' of repairing things other people have discarded as
beyond economic repair, my CMU200 came with a rather amusing fault as well
as a good example of poor industrial design choice, it's now a very useful
piece of equipment.
I often scrounge faulty electronic equipment just
I almost always buy equipment that isn't working. It's fixing it that makes
it interesting. What would I do with all the testgear if I didn't use it to
fix the next bit ?
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Michael Prescott MSc <
mike_presc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I second Clint’s statement, most
I second Clint’s statement, most of the test equipment I’ve brought have worked
on switch on. I did buy a R CRTU with no LCD display and paid £400 for
something which didn’t work I had a lot of deep thoughts. It turns out CRTU
was only nine years old and two months out of calibration, the
Precisely my point, But when purchasing i expect to pay for a calibration at
a minimum.
Helps to make friends with the local cal lab though as frequently far better
pricing can be negotiated if you can get your instruments done on a
non-critical basis as most of the business of a lab is
Experience has shown me that you can reasonably purchase good, working test
equipment that's well within calibration tolerances if you are buying the
more 'common' equipment, 6.5 digit meters, frequency counters, even a
Stanford SR620...
I've been very lucky with those, two spectrum analysers and
Its an unrealistic expectation that equipment from the well known auction site
will work and be 'in-cal'
Its realistic to anticipate several the purchase cost to get well priced
instruments back 'in-cal'. But hey if i spend 2 k on a sweeper 3 k to fix and
cal it and BlahTest is charging 10k
To all:
I would highly recommend not to buy used test equipment on e-bay , mine
(R) or HP or similar.
These pieces are mostly out of calibration , defective , just too expensive
to repair. I have 3 XSRM systems, which I co designed in 1970, they came
from e-bay and needed $ 5000 + to be
On 9/12/2017 5:58 AM, GandalfG8--- via time-nuts wrote:
A friend of mine has bought a just out of calibration R & S XSRM Rubidium
standard from one of the so called "recyclers" on Ebay.
Nigel / David,
Sorry to hear of your "bargain". However I doubt very much that the
lamp was made by R
A friend of mine has bought a just out of calibration R & S XSRM Rubidium
standard from one of the so called "recyclers" on Ebay.
Although the price was good, and it came with the off air receiver, phase
meter, and frequency divider, it looks to have been heavily decommissioned
with
20 matches
Mail list logo