Yeah, that I can totally get... there is very little marketing involved in the production of the sensor heads or the thermistor mount; they're not very exciting. The meter itself is where marketing comes in, so every once in a while a more modern-looking model has to happen.
Where I got on the wrong side of this conversation was the prehistoric analog meter still being kept in stock at HPAK; that's what I was originally talking about, not the thermistor/mount as a separate entity (even tho, as I understand it, the mount and thermistor can actually be used by themselves).
I still suspect the old meter lingers there because TPTB know there is/are some large money customer(s) (be it military, manufacturing, scientific or calibration labs) that still have some need for that particular model. And I still suspect that reason is some standards document (maybe internal, maybe external) that is ultimately referred to again and again in which that meter is a requisite. Or maybe they keep it around because it is used to calibrate/validate subsequent models, and they have enough NOS to be able to offer some for sale to calibration labs etc, I dunno. 
But it makes no sense for them to spend the money keeping track of the damn things for 5+ decades if someone who makes these decisions didn't expect to recoup it from somewhere; I mean, FFS, the things outlived that crazy bitch and the HP television years... 
mnem
But it makes no sense for them to spend the money keeping track of the damn things for 5+ decades if someone who makes these decisions didn't expect to recoup it from somewhere; I mean, FFS, the things outlived that crazy bitch and the HP television years...
mnem
Why would they bother to keep manufacturing it (the sensor)? Well, why not if it is good enough and there's a demand? It's surely more expensive to cut a new design and qualify that than to "keep track" as you put it, of an old design. This is all custom manufacture, there's no parts obsolescence to deal with.
The metering bit has been replaced (in 2011), 432A obsoleted and the N432A substituted for it.
RF power measurements aren't particularly high precision or high accuracy by their nature, that they're typically measured and specified on a dB scale gives a clue to that - so an analogue meter is probably always going to be 'good enough'. There's no driving need for a new shiny more accurate or more precise meter - except perhaps the perception by some that a 'digital' meter is somehow more accurate than an 'analogue' one. The need to make automated measurements that one obviously can't with an analogue device would be a sane requirement, and that seems to have now been taken care of with the retirement of the 432A and the introduction of the new shiny digital N432A. The accuracy of the new shiny digital version is 0.1% ±5uW, which makes the 61/2 digit ADC on it ever so slightly overkill. I suspect that the fact that it looks like one of the TrueVolt DVM range is no accident, but without schematics I can't prove my suspicion that it's a 34461 DVM with the input circuitry ripped out and replaced with interfacing to the power sensor.
As to the core measurement technology - a thermistor oven and a balancing bridge. That's probably going to be good enough for its purposes forever. The thermistor bit is easily characterised against primary standards. The bridge as a measurement technique is good enough that it's still being used as the core of measurement of some primary standards to stupid levels of precision.
Dude... come on. I stated very clearly in that very post that I was talking about the prehistoric analog meter. Obviously on some level you recognized that; or you wouldn't have omitted that part of the post. Hence, this entire point is well... pointless. 
And if you weren't sure, it should be obvious that I understand PRECISELY the point you are making here, because I stated the same thing in this post which precedes the one above:
So even HP hasn't come up with anything better in the 60+ years since it was released? What device is specified as the standard by which this device is validated? Bet it's another one of the same, isn't it...?
Also; are we talking about the meter here, or the mount and thermistor? The mount/thermistor I can see; there's no need for that to change, for the same reason the 84xx series sensors remain relevant. The meter itself...? come on; they have to have come up with something better by now.
mnem
mnem
Sorry, I didn't realise that you were looking for an argument not a discussion.
Obviously on some level you recognized that; or you wouldn't have omitted that part of the post. Hence, this entire point is well... pointless.
When you start that sort of accusation, yeah, it's pretty clear that you just want another "Mnem's right" argument. On that point you know what you can do...
You know, I'm kindof sick of this accusation from you C. Let me set you straight...
most of the time when you make this accusation, I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying that if I'm wrong, that's okay. I have a right to be wrong, and I don't need you to fucking correct me. The internet is full of wrong people. Some of us are your friends. We don't need to be corrected
every time we're wrong. We need to be corrected for imagined errors even less so.
When you so
very obviously misquote me to have something to argue against... THAT I have a right to get a bit peeved over, and I'm gonna tell you about it. Suck it up and deal.
All it would have taken from you is a slightly less confrontational approach here... You could have taken any of the above posts where I said the same thing you said, but instead started with something like
"Yes, I'm going to elaborate here for those playing along at home..." and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But no... again, you had to take me to task in a public thread, over something I didn't even say. So now I'm telling you about it.
Maybe next time, try a PM before you smack my paws with a ruler in front of the whole class.
mnem
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
