A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 11 Dec 2009 18:19 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:55:01 -0800, Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:32:44 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Joel Koltner wrote: >>> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:7ob08jF3oortqU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> But wait, $600 for a Christmas gift? Ain't that a bit over the top? >>> >>> Only a little... I think that $250-$500 per kid for Xmas today is not at >>> all uncommon today... >>> >>>> As a kid I had to work for stuff like that. For example at a meat >>>> factory until I had the $400 for my first used and pretty banged up >>>> HW100 transceiver. >>> >>> I doubt you can legally work at a meat factory unless you're at least 18 >>> today. :-( >>> >>> If you want to see some kids with wealthy parents who are *seriously* >>> spoiled, check this out: >>> http://www.mtv.com/shows/sweet_16/episodes.jhtml . It's not uncommon on >>> that show for the parents to blow $25-$100k on their kid's 16th birthday! >>> >>> If I had the choice between a Lexus and, I dunno, a Civic and a bunch of >>> test equipment, I think it'd be obvious which I'd choose... >>> >> >>What I really don't understand is when a couple goes into big time debt >>just for the wedding ceremony, and often the bride's folks as well. I've >>heard of one couple who "had to" sell their home and move into an >>apartment to give their daughter an "appropriate" wedding. >> >>We made sure that neither of our parents had to pay anything and that >>our wedding ceremony was reasonable and could be comfortably paid from >>our savings (without raiding the account). Credit card use for the >>wedding was zilch. > >Ah, Jeorg, we are so much alike! > >When we got married, we were still in college, so had a small ceremony >there. We paid for the flowers, the photos (a real mess, but then we >were young then, and didn't know to get things in writing!) the cakes, >etc. We didn't even HAVE a credit card at the time! Her folks helped >out on some of the expenses, and her mom made the dress. I just >rented a tux. It was simple, and inexpensive, and still very >memorable! > >Charlie Went to the minister's house and got married for FREE... _50_years_ago_this_coming_March_31_ ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Help save the environment! Please dispose of socialism properly!
From: Rich Grise on 11 Dec 2009 18:21 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:56:44 -0800, Joel Koltner wrote: > > I doubt you can legally work at a meat factory unless you're at least 18 > today. :-( Isn't a "meat factory" also known as a "farm"? ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Joerg on 11 Dec 2009 19:17 Charlie E. wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:36:47 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> In my experience the only engineers who ever wore a tie were the ones >> wanting to become managers. > > Back when I started at Microsim, I decided to wear a full three piece > suit the first week, and then step it down each week till I was in the > usual jeans and tee shirt. My first week, they were having the annual > stockholders meeting, and since I was new, I didn't have any > responsibilities to keep me out of it, so I went with my boss. > > Everyone at the meeting kept wondering who the 'banker' was! > > I still strongly suspect that the respect that I had at the company > might have begun there, where everyone subconsciously remembered me as > a 'suit!' ;-) > The husband of my admin was in the military. One day he swung by just to say hello, in full battle dress. The millisecond he had left people came into my office and nervously asked "Did something happen?" -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 11 Dec 2009 20:01 On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:13:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On 10 Dec 2009 17:26:14 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Joerg wrote: >>> >>>> Back in those days watch dials would be readable all night, not nearly >>>> have that much decay. That is no longer the case, no matter what fancy >>>> material they use. >>> I wonder if the phosphorescence of that radium compound has anything to >>> do with the radium's radioactivity. Maybe the radioactivity helps to get >>> the energy into or back out of the long-term storage states. >>> >>> robert >> >> Of course it does. Radium phosphors will glow in the dark for >> centuries. That's what the radium is for. Tritium too, except its >> half-life is around 12 years. >> > >I remember back in the 60's and 70's that there was the occasional >warning not to wear a wrist watch "upside down" because it's then too >close to your reproductive functions when having the hand in a pocket. Radium is an alpha-emitter and Tritium emits a low energy beta particle. Dead skin will stop either and certainly the watch crystal will. The danger was much like that the mad hatters faced, not those who wore the hats. Chalk that one up to proto-warmingist fear mongering.
From: krw on 11 Dec 2009 20:03
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:16:07 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:12:20 -0800, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:43:31 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:38:37 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:59:11 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:36:53 -0500, Spehro Pefhany >>>>>>>> <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:28:27 -0800, John Larkin >>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:21:43 -0600, "Tim Williams" >>>>>>>>>> <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:oFhTm.36236$kY2.31856(a)newsfe01.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>> My Tek 485 serves me well. I do have a small assortment of digital scopes >>>>>>>>>>>> for portable use to gather basic data and road trip testing how ever, I >>>>>>>>>>>> find that my 485 still gives me nice results at the bench as long as I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't need live digital storage. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's the only scope I have that I can take full advantage of my active >>>>>>>>>>>> Fet probes when I need them. >>>>>>>>>>> 486 is on my Wish List. And 2465. Yessss, my preciousss.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>> I love our TPS2024. 200 MHz, and all four channels and the trigger >>>>>>>>>> input are fully floating. Wanna clip the probe ground lead onto the >>>>>>>>>> source of a fet that's flailing 400 volts off ground? No problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> Shame about that antediluvian CF card slot that can't write to even a >>>>>>>>> 2G card. 8-( >>>>>>>> Beats waiting 3 minutes to write to floppy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> But wouldn't you think a scope of this day and age would come with a USB >>>>>>> stick slot? I mean, it's been years now ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mine did :-) >>>>>> You'd think. AIUI, USB sticks are a PITA to write but the work only >>>>>> has to be done once. >>>>> >>>>> My scope writes a screen shot onto a stick in less than a second. The >>>>> nice thing is that they are ubiquitous, you can plug them into just >>>>> about any PC unless it's really, really old. >>>> If I just save the "screen shot" it doesn't save any settings. The >>>> file can be read back into the scope and the trace restored into >>>> whatever setting are there. IOW, useless. >>>> >>>> The alternative is to dump memory to a CSV, all 64K samples. That >>>> amounts to ~300KB. >>> Photograph the screen, along with any post-its you have plastered >>> around the edge. >> >> Ick! It's difficult to manipulate the data on the photograph. >> > >Maybe some AGW guys can show you how to do that ... Why not? They did the same with pictures of those cuddly white bears. ><ducking for cover> > Sky falling there? ;-) |