MessageView 421F schematic

[Terry]

Owain wrote:

No, the klaxon on the alarm clock has that effect. I'm out of bed and
standing before I wake up!

Reminds me of my (very much) younger days (I was still at school) and
listening to AFN after Radio Luxembourg closed down - yes! I am going
back a very long time!

(For the benefit of younger listeners: AFN was the American Forces
Network, Europe.)

Closedown procedure varied from station to station and I can't remember
now if it was Frankfurt, Munich or Stuttgart, (I think Frankfurt) but
it went something like this:

"At the sound of the last tone, Central European Time will be One Hour
..... AFN Frankfurt broadcasts on an assigned frequency of Eight
Hundred, Seventy Two kilocycles per second, Three Hunded, Fourty-Four
meters in the Medium Waveband with a power of One Hundred, Fifty
Thousand Watts! ... AFN is now closing down and will return to the air
at six hours this morning ... Ladies and Gentlemen: Our National
Anthem!..."

.... at which point, as a 14 year old listening under the bedcovers (as
we all did, didn't we?) I had this mental picture of all these yanks
jumping out of bed just after 1am, snapping smartly to attention and
saluting (possibly to the flag propped up in the corner of the
bedroom!)

Terry

 

[philo]

Unless those are of exotic construction, won't they have
self-discharged within a couple years' time?

You bet they will discharge...
that's why I keep them on a hysteresis-loop charger
(it's built into the UPS)

 

[John]

For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting for

a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down - it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


--

--
John

 

[kony]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:17 GMT, "John"
<john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down - it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.

I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

 

[GB]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:u65ar2tk156857vjj63ku8cufj2uqjt9jl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:17 GMT, "John"
john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:


For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and
the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

The transmitter is only consuming power for a few seconds at a time, when
somebody presses the button. The receiver is on 24/7, and it has to power
the bell/buzzer.

 

[kony]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:37:46 -0000, "GB"
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:u65ar2tk156857vjj63ku8cufj2uqjt9jl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:17 GMT, "John"
john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:


For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and
the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

The transmitter is only consuming power for a few seconds at a time, when
somebody presses the button. The receiver is on 24/7, and it has to power
the bell/buzzer.

While that is true, that doesn't mean it necessarily
consumes a lot of current. Take an LCD watch for example,
it runs years from a tiny battery. How long do you think it
would run from 2 x C cells? It is an irrelevant question
because the cells will have self discharged faster than the
watch would have drained them.

As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

 

[John]

Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned
down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

The transmitter is only consuming power for a few seconds at a time, when
somebody presses the button. The receiver is on 24/7, and it has to power
the bell/buzzer.



While that is true, that doesn't mean it necessarily
consumes a lot of current. Take an LCD watch for example,
it runs years from a tiny battery. How long do you think it
would run from 2 x C cells? It is an irrelevant question
because the cells will have self discharged faster than the
watch would have drained them.

As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

I stand by my point - the bell unit is acting as a radio receiver all the
time - ready to ring if it receives the correct input. It is bound to use a
significant amount of power. I would only consider having a mains powered
one - as many have a 13 amp plug through facility you are not even losing a
socket.
Battery quality is also an obvious factor.

 

[kony]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:07:16 GMT, "John"
<john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

I stand by my point - the bell unit is acting as a radio receiver all the
time - ready to ring if it receives the correct input. It is bound to use a
significant amount of power. I would only consider having a mains powered
one - as many have a 13 amp plug through facility you are not even losing a
socket.
Battery quality is also an obvious factor.

Define "significant amount of power". Since the batteries
in mine are plain old Duracell alkalines rated for 7800mAh,
http://www.duracell.com/oem/Pdf/others/ATB-full.pdf
and since it's already ran for over a year (but let's round
down to 1 year for simplicities' sake), 24/7 constantly,
that's already an absolute maximum possible avg. current of

7800 / [24 * 365] = 0.9mA

.... and it only goes lower every day it continues to run off
same pair of cells. It may be that those Duracells can
produce more than 7800mAh at such a slow drain rate, but not
enough to make much of a difference in the calculations,
we're still looking at a sub-1mA range considering those
cells aren't dead yet and may not be any day soon.

I would agree that battery quality is an obvious factor but
why would someone put low quality batteries in (anything?)
except perhaps for those generic NiMH if the device didn't
need run any longer than those can provide before another
recharge cycle is acceptible - definitely not the case in
this context with a door buzzer.

 

[billh]

I have a deal on a Tek 2465ACT
http://www.eqrentals.com/sale/details/HES2319.html
billh@testequip.com
Instrument Rental Labs
On Jan 27, 7:12 am, edson <e...@eircom.net> wrote:

Greetings.
I would appreciate a few recommendations for repair of Tektronix 465B
'scopes in Republic of Ireland or United Kingdom. I would consider a
Refurbished for old exchange deal if anyone is supplying that service.
TIA.

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Bruce W.1" <sorry@noDirectEmail.com> wrote in
news:Ts5wh.604$gj4.558@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

I'm looking for the very smallest -- panel mount -- LCD voltmeter. My
Google searches have been dissapointing. The smallest I could find is
about 2" wide.

This will be part of a 12V bicycle light system. It will mount in a
small box, probably on the handlebars. It's measurement range should be
about 8 to 20 volts.

A voltmeter is not complicated. I would think that one could easily be
made in a 1/2" square.

Does anyone know of a really tiny voltmeter?

Thanks for your help.

use a couple of LM3914 ICs and 2 10 LED bar displays.
You can make the scale whatever you want.For a 12V system,you don't need
over 15 VFS.

Do they make LM3914 in SMD? You could make a very small meter then.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Michael Kennedy" <Mikek400@remthis.comcast.net> wrote in
newsMydndAOFv2mk1jYnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@comcast.com:

You should look into a 3W Luxeon LED headlight.

I have a luxeon LED flashlight and it is much brigher than any other
flashlight that I own.. It runs on 4 AA batteries for approx 4 hours.

- Mike

you can buy 3 cell 3W Luxeon flashlights at Wal-Mart.
MagLights,either AA or D cell sizes,starting at $20 USD.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Peter A Forbes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:45:46 -0800, John E. <incognito@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've seen a Greenlee T&M catalog. Some looks suspiciously like Fluke.

Does someone know for sure?

Thanks,

There are a lot of Fluke look-alikes on the market, usually Chinese cheapo
models. Can't see Fluke wanting to dilute their own margins so Greenlee can sell
them.

Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
Web: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel

 

[George Kavanagh]

I believe these "noise cancelling" devices work by measuring, and
cancelling, "white noise", that is, the random hiss, rumble, or roar of
engines, etc., and cannot cancel the more modulated sounds of human speech
(no matter what the frequency).

As you say, with the engine noise cancelled out, the human speech comes thru
loud & clear. Drat!

-georgeK KB1HFT


<dontdont@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172537062.577136.272780@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 26, 11:52 am, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Red Fox" <Red...@NoDen.Con> wrote in message
news:zCRBh.11628$gj4.9808@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
I am really getting tired of people shouting into their phones while I
sit
on a bus or train seat near them or even in an outdoor cafe. Is there
any
small gadget that would create very local interference. One or two
blasts
should put a flea in their ears and get them off the phone.

Anyone looking forward to a cross country (or cross ocean) trip in a
plane
where passengers can use their cellphones? Noise cancelling headphones
anyone?

If you have not personally tried these you might be surprised with
this.

Unfortunately in my experience, using three different brands of noise
cancelling headphones over the last 15 years, while they do a
surprisingly good job of whacking low frequency roar and rumble of
engines and road noise, this actually lets the conversations that you
were not previously able to hear come through loud and clear now.
Flip
the switch off and the roaring grumble of the city bus is all you can
hear, flip it on and now two dozen conversations, half on cellphones,
loud and clear is what you get to listen to.

I've asked a number of times if this is just because of the compute
power or battery life or the quality of the microphone limiting the
upper frequency that is effectively cancelled, or if there is really
deeper physics that says it would be exponentially harder for every
higher octave. I tried reading the Handbook of Noise Cancellation and
couldn't get an answer from that either.

I've never gotten what seemed like a really convincing explanation,
but
I have gotten some silly ones. The sales kid at the Bose store, who
was
1/3 my age, told me I would be putting my life at risk if they
cancelled
the speech so this would never be done, strictly them saving my
life.

But I have not tried the $500 Bose small plane pilot noise cancelling
headset on the bus, they didn't want to loan me a set for the
afternoon,
and you don't get to see those at your mall Bose store. Those are
supposedly playing at a completely different level from the consumer
grade Bose and Sharper Image and Philips and two other brands, one of
which I started using over 15 years ago and are now flakey. The
Philips
HN050 were particularly poor compared to others in my opinion, but
they
were cheap when closed out. They claim only 10 dB reduction between
100
and 1500 Hz. If you didn't have experience with noise cancellation I
doubt you would even notice this.

If someone finds a brand that really does cut 40 dB from 20 Hz to 6000
Hz or more and is plausibly priced let me know and I'll buy a pair.

 

On Feb 26, 5:17 pm, "George Kavanagh" <gk05Xsp...@comcast.net> wrote:

I believe these "noise cancelling" devices work by measuring, and
cancelling, "white noise", that is, the random hiss, rumble, or roar of
engines, etc., and cannot cancel the more modulated sounds of human speech
(no matter what the frequency).

As you say, with the engine noise cancelled out, the human speech comes thru
loud & clear. Drat!

-georgeK KB1HFT

I've heard this theory and based on what I've read about the math
I don't believe that is the case.

For a handwaving argument why this doesn't seem to make sense,
imagine you were trying to beat me at a game where I either have
a less random "more modulated" strategy versus where I have just
randomly toss a coin heads or tails. If there is more structure it
would seem to be easier for any sort of computation to be able to
decide what to do to counter my strategy and beat me. The more
random it is the less you can do to cancel anything. But that is
just handwaving and not a boardful of mathematics.

When I spent a week studying that text on active cancellation it
was describing the process of measuring the amplitude and phase
of each frequency, introducing a suitable phase and amplitude shift
to make up for the distance between microphone and earphone and
ear and then generating approximately the needed signal to sum to
zero at the destination.

Now as the frequencies go up the sampling rates need to go up,
the precision of the sampling needs to go up, the number of the
calculations needs to go up, etc, etc, etc. But I still haven't heard
a really convincing argument whether it would be possible to have
tens of dB better cancellation over octaves more frequency range
if I were just willing to carry around three pounds of batteries for a
couple hours of cancellation calculations, instead of a couple of
silly little double-A batteries for dozens of hours of operation.

dontd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172537062.577136.272780@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Anyone looking forward to a cross country (or cross ocean)
trip in a plane where passengers can use their cellphones?
Noise cancelling headphones anyone?

If you have not personally tried these you might be surprised with
this.

Unfortunately in my experience, using three different brands of noise
cancelling headphones over the last 15 years, while they do a
surprisingly good job of whacking low frequency roar and rumble of
engines and road noise, this actually lets the conversations that you
were not previously able to hear come through loud and clear now.
Flip the switch off and the roaring grumble of the city bus is all you
can hear, flip it on and now two dozen conversations, half on
cellphones, loud and clear is what you get to listen to.

 

[George Kavanagh]

Good points. Just after posting I realized that "random" was not going to
cut it.

If more sampling is needed, and more calculations per sample to really cut
down the noise AND spoken word, one can conjecture that a laptop PC
configured with a mic, earphones, and appropriate software might do better
than the QuietComfort(r) and others, albeit at the expense of lugging along
your PC. Perhaps real work could also get done on other threads or
processors...
Does anyone know of any investigations into this possibility?

-georgeK


<dontdont@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172551341.835959.142550@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 26, 5:17 pm, "George Kavanagh" <gk05Xsp...@comcast.net> wrote:
I believe these "noise cancelling" devices work by measuring, and
cancelling, "white noise", that is, the random hiss, rumble, or roar of
engines, etc., and cannot cancel the more modulated sounds of human
speech
(no matter what the frequency).

As you say, with the engine noise cancelled out, the human speech comes
thru
loud & clear. Drat!

-georgeK KB1HFT

I've heard this theory and based on what I've read about the math
I don't believe that is the case.

For a handwaving argument why this doesn't seem to make sense,
imagine you were trying to beat me at a game where I either have
a less random "more modulated" strategy versus where I have just
randomly toss a coin heads or tails. If there is more structure it
would seem to be easier for any sort of computation to be able to
decide what to do to counter my strategy and beat me. The more
random it is the less you can do to cancel anything. But that is
just handwaving and not a boardful of mathematics.

When I spent a week studying that text on active cancellation it
was describing the process of measuring the amplitude and phase
of each frequency, introducing a suitable phase and amplitude shift
to make up for the distance between microphone and earphone and
ear and then generating approximately the needed signal to sum to
zero at the destination.

Now as the frequencies go up the sampling rates need to go up,
the precision of the sampling needs to go up, the number of the
calculations needs to go up, etc, etc, etc. But I still haven't heard
a really convincing argument whether it would be possible to have
tens of dB better cancellation over octaves more frequency range
if I were just willing to carry around three pounds of batteries for a
couple hours of cancellation calculations, instead of a couple of
silly little double-A batteries for dozens of hours of operation.

dontd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172537062.577136.272780@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Anyone looking forward to a cross country (or cross ocean)
trip in a plane where passengers can use their cellphones?
Noise cancelling headphones anyone?

If you have not personally tried these you might be surprised with
this.

Unfortunately in my experience, using three different brands of noise
cancelling headphones over the last 15 years, while they do a
surprisingly good job of whacking low frequency roar and rumble of
engines and road noise, this actually lets the conversations that you
were not previously able to hear come through loud and clear now.
Flip the switch off and the roaring grumble of the city bus is all you
can hear, flip it on and now two dozen conversations, half on
cellphones, loud and clear is what you get to listen to.

 

[Terran Melconian]

On 2007-02-27, Anthony Fremont <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote:

Anybody got one?

Yes.

Do they suck?

Yes. Then again, almost everything sucks to some extent, and they are a
good value for what they cost.

bit shy about trying something new but they certainly look handy. Any
advice?

The TDS1000 (or 2000) series is the oscilloscope equivaltent of tools
from Harbor Freight. They work, but there's nothing particularly
elegant, enjoyable, high-quality, or "right" about them. You don't feel
inspired when you pick one up. You buy them to get a job done, but not
to derive pleasure from the use of them.

I say this as someone who has a TDS1002 (non-B) sitting on my desk right
now, which I bought for about $700 earlier this year. For the project I
was doing I absolutely had to have a digital scope to see nonrepeating
events. The budget did not allow anything much more expensive and the
schedule did not allow waiting for something rare to show up on Ebay.

Here are some specific problems which bother me:

* The display quality is poor. The resolution is low (320x240), and
it's viewable only from one angle. I don't know about the 2000
series.

* There is no ability to average samples in a single acquisition, even
when the desired rate is 1000x slower than the scope can sample. I
guess it can't add and right-shift.

* 2500 samples isn't enough to zoom very far.

* "roll" mode doesn't actually roll, but scans left to right and then
repeats.

* It doesn't have a duty cycle measurement, even though it has
period and both positive/negative pulse width. Clearly it just
can't do arithmetic.

I don't know about the 2000 series, but I know that the 3000 series
improves to at least some extent on all those points. However, it then
introduces its own problems, such as random screen display glitches when
trying to display too many points at once, and having one set of
vertical controls for all channels (awful UI).

In spite of all that, if you must have a digital scope, I don't think
you can do better for the price. However, if you can do what you need
with an analog scope, you can buy some of the best that ever existed for
that. Maybe two of them. Plus, they'll feel like serious pieces of
engineering equipment, suitably representative of thousands of years of
technological progress, not plastic "product" like the modern digital
ones.

I also own four cameras which use a strange obsolete technology called
"film" and an analog voltmeter, though, so maybe you shouldn't listen to
me.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Terran Melconian wrote:

On 2007-02-27, Anthony Fremont <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote:
Anybody got one?

Yes.

Do they suck?

Yes. Then again, almost everything sucks to some extent, and they
are a good value for what they cost.

bit shy about trying something new but they certainly look handy.
Any advice?

The TDS1000 (or 2000) series is the oscilloscope equivaltent of tools
from Harbor Freight. They work, but there's nothing particularly
elegant, enjoyable, high-quality, or "right" about them. You don't
feel inspired when you pick one up. You buy them to get a job done,
but not to derive pleasure from the use of them.

I say this as someone who has a TDS1002 (non-B) sitting on my desk
right now, which I bought for about $700 earlier this year. For the
project I was doing I absolutely had to have a digital scope to see
nonrepeating events. The budget did not allow anything much more
expensive and the schedule did not allow waiting for something rare
to show up on Ebay.

Here are some specific problems which bother me:

* The display quality is poor. The resolution is low (320x240), and
it's viewable only from one angle. I don't know about the 2000
series.

* There is no ability to average samples in a single acquisition,
even when the desired rate is 1000x slower than the scope can
sample. I guess it can't add and right-shift.

* 2500 samples isn't enough to zoom very far.

* "roll" mode doesn't actually roll, but scans left to right and then
repeats.

* It doesn't have a duty cycle measurement, even though it has
period and both positive/negative pulse width. Clearly it just
can't do arithmetic.

I don't know about the 2000 series, but I know that the 3000 series
improves to at least some extent on all those points. However, it
then introduces its own problems, such as random screen display
glitches when trying to display too many points at once, and having
one set of vertical controls for all channels (awful UI).

Great reply, just what I was looking for; first hand experience.

In spite of all that, if you must have a digital scope, I don't think
you can do better for the price. However, if you can do what you need
with an analog scope, you can buy some of the best that ever existed
for that. Maybe two of them. Plus, they'll feel like serious pieces
of engineering equipment, suitably representative of thousands of
years of technological progress, not plastic "product" like the
modern digital ones.

I understand what you're saying. I have an old scope that I still like and
I'm sure that I would continue to use it. OTOH, I really think that I could
make use of storage features too.

I also own four cameras which use a strange obsolete technology called
"film" and an analog voltmeter, though, so maybe you shouldn't listen
to me.

Not only do I have a film camera, I wear watches that need to be wound. I
understand. ;-)

Thanks for your honest opinion.

 

[doug]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

Terran Melconian wrote:

On 2007-02-27, Anthony Fremont <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote:

Anybody got one?

Yes.


Do they suck?

Yes. Then again, almost everything sucks to some extent, and they
are a good value for what they cost.


bit shy about trying something new but they certainly look handy.
Any advice?

The TDS1000 (or 2000) series is the oscilloscope equivaltent of tools
from Harbor Freight. They work, but there's nothing particularly
elegant, enjoyable, high-quality, or "right" about them. You don't
feel inspired when you pick one up. You buy them to get a job done,
but not to derive pleasure from the use of them.

I say this as someone who has a TDS1002 (non-B) sitting on my desk
right now, which I bought for about $700 earlier this year. For the
project I was doing I absolutely had to have a digital scope to see
nonrepeating events. The budget did not allow anything much more
expensive and the schedule did not allow waiting for something rare
to show up on Ebay.

Here are some specific problems which bother me:

* The display quality is poor. The resolution is low (320x240), and
it's viewable only from one angle. I don't know about the 2000
series.

* There is no ability to average samples in a single acquisition,
even when the desired rate is 1000x slower than the scope can
sample. I guess it can't add and right-shift.

* 2500 samples isn't enough to zoom very far.

* "roll" mode doesn't actually roll, but scans left to right and then
repeats.

* It doesn't have a duty cycle measurement, even though it has
period and both positive/negative pulse width. Clearly it just
can't do arithmetic.

I don't know about the 2000 series, but I know that the 3000 series
improves to at least some extent on all those points. However, it
then introduces its own problems, such as random screen display
glitches when trying to display too many points at once, and having
one set of vertical controls for all channels (awful UI).


Great reply, just what I was looking for; first hand experience.


In spite of all that, if you must have a digital scope, I don't think
you can do better for the price. However, if you can do what you need
with an analog scope, you can buy some of the best that ever existed
for that. Maybe two of them. Plus, they'll feel like serious pieces
of engineering equipment, suitably representative of thousands of
years of technological progress, not plastic "product" like the
modern digital ones.


I understand what you're saying. I have an old scope that I still like and
I'm sure that I would continue to use it. OTOH, I really think that I could
make use of storage features too.


I also own four cameras which use a strange obsolete technology called
"film" and an analog voltmeter, though, so maybe you shouldn't listen
to me.


Not only do I have a film camera, I wear watches that need to be wound. I
understand. ;-)

Thanks for your honest opinion.


I end up using a variety of scopes depending on which bench I am at.

There is a tds220, a tds3032, a 2465, a 2432, a tds540 and one of the
tek tds2000 series.
My favorite of the bunch is the tds3032. It is great for everything
that I do. I have no complaints about analog work and for digital
work it is mandantory. You get very used to having a constant intensity
even with low duty cycle signals. Transients and such are very hard
with an analog scope.

The user interface on the 2465 and 2432 (old digital) are better and
they are nice scopes but the 2465 is useless for low duty cycle and
the 2432 updates a bit slow although it is quite useable.

The tds540 is nice for higher frequencies and it has four channels.
The a/d goes to 20Gs/s with an equivalent time sampling mode. The
user interface is almost identical to the tds3032.

The tds220 is ok. It is much better than an analog scope for digital
signals and not as good for analog ones. The scope does not feel
rugged but we have not had any problems with them.

I only rarely use the tds2000 series scope but it has seemed as good
as the tds3032 for a lot of functions.

The color spoils you quickly and I like it a lot.

The service issues for personal use are very important. If the tds3032
dies, I will have to throw it out which is very sad. It does not like
to start when the room is cold so there is that heart stopping failure
on occasion. The proper procedure for the 2432 and 2465 is to buy two
and use the second for parts so I have a parts unit for each of them.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

doug wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:

Thanks for your honest opinion.


I end up using a variety of scopes depending on which bench I am at.
There is a tds220, a tds3032, a 2465, a 2432, a tds540 and one of the
tek tds2000 series.
My favorite of the bunch is the tds3032. It is great for everything
that I do. I have no complaints about analog work and for digital
work it is mandantory. You get very used to having a constant
intensity even with low duty cycle signals. Transients and such are
very hard with an analog scope.

The user interface on the 2465 and 2432 (old digital) are better and
they are nice scopes but the 2465 is useless for low duty cycle and
the 2432 updates a bit slow although it is quite useable.

The tds540 is nice for higher frequencies and it has four channels.
The a/d goes to 20Gs/s with an equivalent time sampling mode. The
user interface is almost identical to the tds3032.

The tds220 is ok. It is much better than an analog scope for digital
signals and not as good for analog ones. The scope does not feel
rugged but we have not had any problems with them.

I only rarely use the tds2000 series scope but it has seemed as good
as the tds3032 for a lot of functions.

The color spoils you quickly and I like it a lot.

The service issues for personal use are very important. If the
tds3032 dies, I will have to throw it out which is very sad. It does
not like to start when the room is cold so there is that heart
stopping failure on occasion. The proper procedure for the 2432 and
2465 is to buy two and use the second for parts so I have a parts
unit for each of them.

Thank you for the information. I can certainly see where color would be
nice. I've used analog scopes for a very long time, but I've never once
used a DSO. This is all so overwhelming trying to sift thru the different
models and marketing hype while trying to extract the information that isn't
being presented (limitations).

Tek is nice, but I'm going to have to spend my pennies on an Instek, Rigol
or something a little less expensive. For example, for what a Tek
60MHz/monochrome costs, I can get a Rigol with wayyyyyyy deeper memory (1M
points)/TFT color/100Mhz and a few more features. Not knocking Tek, but I
just don't have the money for a 3000 series. If I did, I'd probably be
asking about Agilent. ;-)

 

[doug]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

doug wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:


Thanks for your honest opinion.



I end up using a variety of scopes depending on which bench I am at.
There is a tds220, a tds3032, a 2465, a 2432, a tds540 and one of the
tek tds2000 series.
My favorite of the bunch is the tds3032. It is great for everything
that I do. I have no complaints about analog work and for digital
work it is mandantory. You get very used to having a constant
intensity even with low duty cycle signals. Transients and such are
very hard with an analog scope.

The user interface on the 2465 and 2432 (old digital) are better and
they are nice scopes but the 2465 is useless for low duty cycle and
the 2432 updates a bit slow although it is quite useable.

The tds540 is nice for higher frequencies and it has four channels.
The a/d goes to 20Gs/s with an equivalent time sampling mode. The
user interface is almost identical to the tds3032.

The tds220 is ok. It is much better than an analog scope for digital
signals and not as good for analog ones. The scope does not feel
rugged but we have not had any problems with them.

I only rarely use the tds2000 series scope but it has seemed as good
as the tds3032 for a lot of functions.

The color spoils you quickly and I like it a lot.

The service issues for personal use are very important. If the
tds3032 dies, I will have to throw it out which is very sad. It does
not like to start when the room is cold so there is that heart
stopping failure on occasion. The proper procedure for the 2432 and
2465 is to buy two and use the second for parts so I have a parts
unit for each of them.


Thank you for the information. I can certainly see where color would be
nice. I've used analog scopes for a very long time, but I've never once
used a DSO. This is all so overwhelming trying to sift thru the different
models and marketing hype while trying to extract the information that isn't
being presented (limitations).

Tek is nice, but I'm going to have to spend my pennies on an Instek, Rigol
or something a little less expensive. For example, for what a Tek
60MHz/monochrome costs, I can get a Rigol with wayyyyyyy deeper memory (1M
points)/TFT color/100Mhz and a few more features. Not knocking Tek, but I
just don't have the money for a 3000 series. If I did, I'd probably be
asking about Agilent. ;-)


Agilent (still HP to us old folk) does a lot of things very nicely but

they never learned to make a decent scope. For many years (not sure if
it is still true) all the low end scopes had 20Msps a/d converters and
so they had to do equivalent time sampling and were not much use for
transients and such. A friend who is the world's biggest HP fan still
uses a Tek scope. On the other hand, Tek never learned much about
making other types of equipment.

A lot of folks make a big deal of a deep capture memory. There have
been very few times where that would have made any difference to me
but others might find situations, such as using it for a logic analyzer
where it does make a difference.

The place where a fair fraction of the money goes is in the mechanical
items. The low end HP scopes had switches that either got dirty or
fell apart and were a mess. The Tek units were much better about that.
I do not think either company suports much in the way of service
anymore.

The cheapest way in is probably from ebay. I got several used scopes
there that I have been happy with (the stack is pretty tall in my
storeroom).

Good luck