modern scopes

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/07/2014 1:07 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

Money is a bit tight right now, but if things pick up I might just
take you up on that. Six hundred megahertz ? Analog ? (I don't know
and don't feel like looking it up mid-post)

**Oops. Typo. It is actually *only* 400MHz. Limited by plug-ins, of
course. The 7854 accepts 4 7000 series plug-in modules. 7000 series
plug-ins are plentiful and readily available. Mine is fitted with:

7A26 - Dual trace, 5mV, 200MHz
7A19 - Single trace, 10mV, 600MHz, 50 Ohm input
7B85 - Delaying time base
7B87 - Delaying time base with pre-trigger

Thus my 7854 is presently a 3 channel 'scope. I may be able supply two
additional plug-ins:

7A26 - Providing the 7854 with 4 vertical channels, if required.
7A22 - 10uV, 100MHz, differential amplifier.

Naturally, my 7854 comes standard with the keyboard and GPIB interface.
This allows quite sophisticated programming and waveform analysis.

Here's a pic of a 7854 and a range of plug-ins:

http://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/7854



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[dave]

On 06/27/2014 09:32 AM, jeanyves wrote:

On 2014-06-27 17:12:41 +0200, Cydrome Leader said:

I was at a trade show yesterday and got to play with expensive looking
digital oscilloscopes from teledyne lecroy. I think these were something
that started at like 8000 and worked their way up with options.

For the life of me, I wasn't able to even display the square wave from
the calibration point. The interface was a combination of truly cheap
looking and feeling knobs, buttons and a touch screen.

Even the teledyne sales guy had a hard time just displaying 1 waveform
from 1 channel. he was easily able to get some weird 3d looking chart to
appear, but I have no idea what the point of that was.

Setting AC or DC coupling required dicking around with a touch screen for
a while. WTF.

It's possible I'm old fashioned, but these devices were just shitty
computers with crappy software in the form factor of a scope, but not
even
usable as a scope unless you have 30 minutes to try to set the thing up.

When did scopes start to get designed by completed idiots?

nowadays, engeneer that knows how to build a high GHz capable scopes
dont know a lot about user interface ...

A DSO is also an FFT analyzer. Two in one!

 

[josephkk]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:12:41 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

I was at a trade show yesterday and got to play with expensive looking
digital oscilloscopes from teledyne lecroy. I think these were something
that started at like 8000 and worked their way up with options.

For the life of me, I wasn't able to even display the square wave from
the calibration point. The interface was a combination of truly cheap
looking and feeling knobs, buttons and a touch screen.

Even the teledyne sales guy had a hard time just displaying 1 waveform
from 1 channel. he was easily able to get some weird 3d looking chart to
appear, but I have no idea what the point of that was.

Setting AC or DC coupling required dicking around with a touch screen for
a while. WTF.

It's possible I'm old fashioned, but these devices were just shitty
computers with crappy software in the form factor of a scope, but not even
usable as a scope unless you have 30 minutes to try to set the thing up.

When did scopes start to get designed by completed idiots?

LeCroy scopes have always had strange to weird user interfaces. Teledyne
did nobody any favors by buying them up. Who know what may have happened
to the already bad user interface if given as a toy to an incompetent
lesser scion.

?-(

 

[josephkk]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:31:17 +0200, Uffe Bćrentsen
<leiti_FJERNES_@hotmail.com> wrote:

Den 27-06-2014 17:12, Cydrome Leader skrev:

When did scopes start to get designed by completed idiots?

When they decided to use Windows in a scope :-(

Both Tek and Agilent have made that error and backed away from it.

?-/

 

[josephkk]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:32:57 +0200, jeanyves <jeanyves@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2014-06-27 17:12:41 +0200, Cydrome Leader said:

I was at a trade show yesterday and got to play with expensive looking
digital oscilloscopes from teledyne lecroy. I think these were something
that started at like 8000 and worked their way up with options.

For the life of me, I wasn't able to even display the square wave from
the calibration point. The interface was a combination of truly cheap
looking and feeling knobs, buttons and a touch screen.

Even the teledyne sales guy had a hard time just displaying 1 waveform
from 1 channel. he was easily able to get some weird 3d looking chart to
appear, but I have no idea what the point of that was.

Setting AC or DC coupling required dicking around with a touch screen for
a while. WTF.

It's possible I'm old fashioned, but these devices were just shitty
computers with crappy software in the form factor of a scope, but not even
usable as a scope unless you have 30 minutes to try to set the thing up.

When did scopes start to get designed by completed idiots?

nowadays, engeneer that knows how to build a high GHz capable scopes
dont know a lot about user interface ...

Horseshit. Only the scriptkiddies are that bad.

?-/

 

[josephkk]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, it would cost too much to build a scope with the old fashioned switches and all that.

But hey, we got cars with user configurable touch screen dashboards (but you're not supposed to TALK on a cellphone while driving), and in dash DVD players.

Ain't it wonderful ?

I wouldn't take one of those new scopes for free. I don't even like the 2465 ! Turn the knob and hear relays click, bullshit. Plus they forgot how to make a trigger ciuit by then unless the ones I saw had a problem. The old 422 out triggers all of them.

Nope, no interest whatsoever in that new junk.

Well if you have a 2465 you don't want, send it to me. I will give it a
home where it will be respected and used.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

One exception is Amschel Rothschild, who authored a paper that related the economy to an eletronic circuit. I have that. Reading it did not make me rich by any means of course. But the understanding, how he equated capital with capacitance, work with inductance and taxes with resistance, I consider brilliant.

Really?! How about a link or something?

>I digress. And digress, and so on.

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:25:37 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Your car has fuel injectors and a computer, not because it
is better, but because it is cheape.

**Absolute bollocks. Modern fuel injection:

* Offers vastly better starting under adverse conditions.
* MUCH better fuel economy under normal conditions.
* Better driveability under all conditions.
* Until relatively recently, carbys were cheaper than FI.

That is only part of it. The massive drop in cost due to VOLUME
production helped a lot. The real killer is that it is next to impossible
to meet EPA emission standards with a carbureted engine.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:13:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

**Funny. I think of Bill Gates, when you mention the richest guy in the
world. Last I heard, Bill Gates was a pretty decent programmer (way back
when) and exceptional businessman. But yes, you're partly right. To make
a big fortune, being in the right place, at the right time, can be more
valuable than smarts.


What did Gates write, other than some 8008 software? He BOUGHT DOS,
and hired programmers after that.

He wrote an 8086 version of tinyBasic that was included on ROM (remember
that) in the original IBM PC. It helped a lot in making the thing useful
out of the box. Then Visicalc and DB2 hit and some good programmers
editors and WordPerfect hit with NearLetterQuality dot matrix impact
printers. It was a forgone issue in a few years. Few people saw it, but
Bill did.

?-)