[volt-nuts] Agilent 3458A Issues

[Randy Evans]

Problem solved!  As expected, operator error.  When I did the CAL 0, I
shorted the voltage and sense lines separately but did not short them
together.  This caused error 209, which caused the CAL 10V to fail since
the zero was not done correctly.  All is well now.  Still learning.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Randy Evans <randyevans2688 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> When I try to execute a 10V cal, I get an error code "209 HARDWARE FAILURE
> - - INTERNAL OVERLOAD:31" I suspect that the unit has a different
> security code than 3458.  I can't change it without opening up the unit,
> which I don't want to do unless I decide to keep it.  Do you have any other
> suggestions on how to check the A9 card?
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Randy Evans <randyevans2688 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Illya,
>>
>> That is a great idea.  I will give it a try.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Illya Tsemenko <illya at xdevs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since you have 732A, testing should be easy enough. Calibrate faulty
>>> meter for zero and DCV 10V to 732A, record CAL? 2,1 value. This is your LTZ
>>> output. Then leave it running for few days to drift away and calibrate
>>> again to same 732A. Check CAL? 2,1 again. Calculate the difference and if
>>> it matches output drift (that 1.1ppm/day you mention) - you can be 80% sure
>>> that A9 is a problem. Other 19% go to A1 and A3 circuits, as 7V is not used
>>> directly in the meter, and there are still gain parts to get +12 and
>>> -12VREF on A3 and 10Vish bipolar levels on A1. If your CAL? 2,1 stays same
>>> (within 0.3ppm) then A9 is fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> On November 18, 2017 12:59:53 PM GMT+08:00, Randy Evans <
>>> randyevans2688 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just received an Agilent 3458A that has a problem with noise and a
>>>> drifting voltage measurements.  I am using two Fluke 732As to compare
>>>> absolute voltage measurements over time against the Agilent and an HP
>>>> 3458A.  The HP unit has a new A3 ADC card and seems to be very stable and
>>>> low noise, so is being used for comparison.  I have been doing simultaneous
>>>> absolute voltage measurements and DC Cal Constant measurements several
>>>> times a day and then calculating the drift rates of the two units using the
>>>> HP Service Note 18 procedure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The results indicate the Cal Constant drift rate of both units is very
>>>> similar and within spec per Service Note 18.  However, the absolute value
>>>> measurements show the Agilent unit changing 1.1 ppm over a day whereas the
>>>> HP unit is within a tenth of a ppm over a day.  In my way of thinking the
>>>> Cal Constant procedure assumes the voltage reference board in the 3458A is
>>>> stable, hence the absolute value reading should remain essentially constant
>>>> after each ACAL DCV, which is the case with the HP unit.  Since the Agilent
>>>> unit shows a steady drift in the absolute reading, this would indicate to
>>>> me that the voltage reference board is likely the cause of the problem, and
>>>> is also likely the cause of the noisy readings.  If so, this is a
>>>> “relatively” easy fix (I have several 3458A voltage reference boards, one
>>>> of which has been continuously powered up for several years).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is that I have to make a decision to keep or return the Agilent.
>>>> It has a cal seal on it and if I open the unit up to change the voltage
>>>> reference board, I own it and can’t return it.  I would appreciate an
>>>> opinion from the members of the group as to what they think the odds are
>>>> that the voltage reference board is the source of the problems with the
>>>> Agilent 3458A.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Randy Evans
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>