Talk:Network analyzer (electrical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Split AC network analyzer[edit]

The AC network analyzer section might be split off to something like Power quality meter or Power quality analyzer. The analyzer would be like those from Dranetz, Basic Measuring Instruments, or Reliable Power Meters. Glrx (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, an AC network analyzer is nothing like a power quality instrument; as far as I know, no-one makes AC network analyzers any more and there were never more than a few score around. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I too think it should be split off, as it is totally unrelated to the rest of the article. If there were very few made, does it even need an article? Should the section just be deleted? To m, it just confuses the article Drkirkby (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm ignorant of this material, but it is sourced and might deserve its own article or mention in an article about the power grid. Glrx (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that Network analyzer (AC power) exists, is Network analyzer (electrical) really the best name for this article? And I wish this article had better references than manufacturer's catalogs! --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Should calibration be in a sepparate page?[edit]

Calibration of VNAs is a very complex topic. I wonder if there should be a page devoted to just the calibration of VNAs. Personally I don't have the expertese to write such a page in any detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, it should be a separate article. For now, the calibration section needs to grow before being split off. Glrx (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. a13ean (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think verification should perhaps be combined with calibration. One basically buys a calibration kit, then hopefully a verification kit. I can take some pictures of calibration and verification kits. Unfortunately, I do not have a calibration kit which includes a sliding load. No mention of a sliding load is made in the article, but they do form part of the higher end calibration kits. Drkirkby (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I've got one with a sliding load, and I'll try to remember to take some pictures tomorrow. a13ean (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
And just to follow up if someone can work this in before I get to it:
Add caption here
a13ean (talk)

I've had an attempt to expand the calibration section. I don't know a lot about this topic, and are in the process of learning myself, but I know far more than what is currently in the article. Drkirkby (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced link?[edit]

"See scattering parameters#Measurement of S-parameters."

The above link just after the first paragraph in the Architecture section seems out of context -- does it belong somewhere else? -- Dougher (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs multi-manufacturer info[edit]

Article needs info and references from more than one manufacturer or it will get tagged as biased and/or an advertisement. Right now it's very Agilent focused. -- Dougher (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I probably won't be much help; ours is Agilent. Hopefully we can write it more general terms though. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I spent some time today expanding the vendor coverage to include Anritsu products. I've asked others to contribute as well. Dtwitkowski (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the expanded vendor coverage for a number of reasons.
It broke the link to the Japanese article.
Two Anritsu articles were added to the EL section. The first article about mm wave was not on topic for this article. The second journal article was about a particular Anritsu analyzer. It had some nice, high-end, technical things to say about bands and different mixers (NLT / shockline should get coverage somewhere, but the current article may not even mention SRD harmonic mixers), but the MW&RF article was not for a general audience. The article did not, for example, include any block diagrams showing the instrument architecture.
Making some comments about portable NAs may be appropriate for the article, but I think the proffered comments went too far and got lost. Applications can be common to all NAs -- not just portables. It also sounded like advertising copy.
The picture of a portable NA added little to the article. A lot of the picture is just a pickup bed and grass field. The filter/diplexer is small, so the portability argument suffers.
I also disagree with some statements above about including manufacturers.
WP is not a directory of products or manufacturers. This article has no duty to cover each and every manufacturer. The article has had issues with bias (manufacturers wanting to include their products, make their product more prominent than another's, or replace an existing picture with a less interesting glam shot of a newer model), but that is not solved by letting every manufacturer include its own plug. Bias is about including or excluding something without good reason. References are used for good reason.
The article is about NAs; WP does not care who makes them. What WP wants is reliable sources/reasonable information about NAs. If there are good sources available, then those sources should be used. I know of no WP requirement that says no more than 6 references can be from the same manufacturer. As it happens, Agilent nee HP has written many basic articles and good manuals.
Anritsu also has many good application notes. I just looked though a small group. Time Domain for Vector Network Analyzers, 11410-00206 Rev. C, 2003. Noise Figure Application Note /GIP-E 11410-00210. What is your measurement accuracy? AN/GIP-C 11410-00270. Scorpion Three and Four Port S-parameter Measurements: Calibrations and Mixed-Mode Parameters Application Note /GIP 11410-00279. They are good sources, and there is no reason they should not be used.
Glrx (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the there might be an Agilent bias, but I believe it's inevitable to include more information from Agilent than others, as more VNAs are producted by Agilent than any other make. I just checked the Anritsu site and see they make 12 models, compared to 40 models of Agilent. I've not counted the application notes, but my guess is Agilent produce far more application notes than any other make.
I don't see a picture of a portable VNA, but I think the inclusion of one should be in the article. In fact Agilent produce more portable VNAs (16) than Anritsu produce VNAs in total (12). To only show bench instruments gives the wrong impression. I would also mention the fact that potable VNAs can be combined with spectrum analyers.
I believe a list of the major manufacturers would be useful and not biased. To the best of my knowledge, only Agilent, Anritsu, Copper Mountain and Rohde and Schwarz produce microwave VNAs (above 3 GHz). Below microwave, there are a huge number of manufactuere, and to list them would be silly and impractical. It should also be possible to include the fact many designs for VNAs have been published in the amateur press, which use a PC as the display device, and give reference to them (QEX for example), and state some of thesee have been turned into commerical instruments.
It would be easy to state that Agilent, Anritsu and Rohde and Schwarz have been used in a number of scientific papers and provide third party references to these. There are numerous IEEE papers showing Agilent ones, and I expect one could find them for Anritu and Rohde and Schwarz too. We could also reference the book by Dr. Joel Dunsmore on VNAs
I should state I have never worked for Agilent, and don't know anyone that does. I have however purchased a couple of used HP VNAs (8753 and 8720D), as well as an Agilent portable VNA (N9923A). Why did I chose HP/Agilent - simply because there are more people using them, lots of applicatione notes, and there are a number of support channels for them.
I just done a Google serach on application notes for network analyzers. 57,000 for Agilent, 3000 for Anritsu. Does not tell you something about the dominance of Agilent in this market?
Given all what I have written, I don't think includng more information about Agilent products is a bad thing, and should not be consired as bias, but a reflection of the current state of network analyzers in commerical use Drkirkby (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixup of External links / Notes and References[edit]

If we look at just the Agilent application notes, we see some are listed as notes, some as references, and some as external links. The Agilent application note "Network Analyzer Basics" , is listed in both Notes and External links.

I've added as a reference as book on VNAs, but I've not made a reference to it anywhere in the text simply because I don't know how to do it properly, whilst keeping to the same format as other items in the "References" section. I suspect the references section should be in a difference format, so its possible to put a reference by a name, since it is clear that the same application note can be referenced in many places.

It seems to me the application notes should be references. The lot needs sorting out I feel, but I'm not sure how best to do it. Drkirkby (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say there's no set format on references yet. The general idea is something should not be in the references section unless it has been used (referred to) as a reference -- preferably an inline citation. The simple way to do things is to wrap <ref>...</ref> tags around the cited source. The tags turn into a footnote and source appears in the references section. The source should point to a page number.
If a source is used again, then it can be cited again by essentially Lastname year p. 15. There's a little more to the mechanics, but it's more important to get the references in; they can be massaged later. See {{Citation}}
Glrx (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)