1.) When using list mode, loading a full list (3201 frequencies) takes over 3 full seconds using GPIB.
Is this typical? Can it be improved by using the Ethernet interface?
2.) Our application requires switching between just a few frequencies (e.g. f0,f1,f2,f3) but over time
adding in a small offset
(e.g: f0,f1,f2,f3,f0,f1,f2,f3,f0+1, f1+1,f2+1,f3+1,f0+1,f1+1,f2+1,f3+1, f0+2, ...)
We currently accomplish this by using list mode, and loading 4 frequencies at a time. The problem is
that updating the four frequencies introduces a significant pause in the measurement. Are there
better methods to accomplish this?
(I've tried just loading 3201 frequencies, but the *very-slow* load time in question #1 above
pretty much precludes that approach.)
Is this typical? Can it be improved by using the Ethernet interface?
2.) Our application requires switching between just a few frequencies (e.g. f0,f1,f2,f3) but over time
adding in a small offset
(e.g: f0,f1,f2,f3,f0,f1,f2,f3,f0+1, f1+1,f2+1,f3+1,f0+1,f1+1,f2+1,f3+1, f0+2, ...)
We currently accomplish this by using list mode, and loading 4 frequencies at a time. The problem is
that updating the four frequencies introduces a significant pause in the measurement. Are there
better methods to accomplish this?
(I've tried just loading 3201 frequencies, but the *very-slow* load time in question #1 above
pretty much precludes that approach.)
Question 1. When loading all 3201 frequency/amplitude/dwell time for sweep points USB is the fastest and LAN is next fastest with GPIB the slowest. For just changing up to four frequency points GPIB may actually be faster than LAN due to the extra overhead of arranging the data in packets, etc. USB will be the fastest of all three for small or large data transfers.
Question 2. For small data transfers GPIB may be easiest and most commonly used. I think USB would be faster in all cases but have not verified for just a few points like this.
Regards -