A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: Tim Williams on 7 Dec 2009 23:21 "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 -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: DA on 8 Dec 2009 01:33 DA had written this in response to http://www.electrondepot.com/electrodesign/A-good-digital-oscilloscope-442160-.htm : DA wrote: > Hi all, > I think I'm going to try and treat myself to an oscilloscope this > Christmas. Thank you for all your great suggestions, guys! I got some brand names here, Tektronix I knew from years back, other names like Instek are new to me. Rigol still looks like a great scope for light use. Although you never know, maybe I'll like it so much that I'll use it to measure voltages :) Anyways, it might just all come down to price vs. useability. Rigol is the cheapest brand I could find (which is usually scary) but it seems to have developed some following, so it looks like a good deal. I'm going to look around some more but it does not look like there is any brand that's even remotely close to Rigol's prices so I'm most likely going to get their 2CH 50MHz model. Thanks again! ------------------------------------- /_/ ((@v@)) ():::() VV-VV ##-----------------------------------------------## Delivered via http://www.electrondepot.com/ Electronics Enthusiasts' Community of the Net Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup - sci.electronics.design - 360395 messages and counting! ##-----------------------------------------------##
From: Jan Panteltje on 8 Dec 2009 07:42 On a sunny day (Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:21:56 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <upkrh5lpbge5a690oth9tsaqp7san0nnj6(a)4ax.com>: >>But the higher end ones with long-delay phosphor glow in the dark. Once >>I slept here in the lab on a make-shift bed. There was this eerie blue >>glow from over yonder. >> >>Digital ones are easier with the colors, of course. If they just hadn't >>picked blood red for the FFT and bonbon purple for Ch3 on mine. > > >This is a 4FP7 airborne radar display tube, ca WWII. It has a fast >blue phosphor that excites a slow yellow one. Blasted with electrons >(or a flashlight) it will glow for several minutes. > >ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/4FP7.jpg > >John Nothing special, my DVD remote does the same: ftp://panteltje.com/pub/DVD_remote_fluorescent_buttons_img_1676.jpg
From: Jan Panteltje on 8 Dec 2009 08:30 On a sunny day (Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:29:59 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <hfk360$i5i$1(a)news.albasani.net>: >Just be studying that diagram, there is an intensity preset pot, good, >maybe that is all I need to tweak, (it is too bright, cannot dim it). >Could accidently have turned that during calibration... Yes that was it, VR108, scope is as new again :-)
From: George Herold on 8 Dec 2009 09:11
On Dec 7, 2:56 pm, qrk <SpamT...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:29:24 -0800, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:18:04 -0600, "Tim Williams" > ><tmoran...(a)charter.net> wrote: > > >>I never was too impressed with digital scopes. None of them have nearly > >>enough buttons, so you spend all your time wading through menus. The Rigol > >>I've used (don't remember the number) has awful menus, they are not always > >>quite what they say they are, and they take forever to go away. > > >>Some digital scopes have better refresh than others. The HP (Agilent??) > >>54622D's in all the labs at school here work fairly well, though at least > >>two button presses are required to reach any given menu option. Refresh is > >>okay, though still chunky on slower sweeps (>1ms/div). > > >>My impression of the cheapass Tek TDS's (the thin rectangular ones) is > >>similar to the Rigol. > > >>I'm most familiar with my Tek 475, but it would be nice to have storage, > >>single sweep* and averaging. One of those intermediate scopes, the ones > >>with analog AND digital, they're perfect for everything. > > >>*Just because it's an analog scope doesn't mean you don't get storage or > >>single sweep type readings, it just means it takes more setup. This > >>photograph was taken with a 10 second exposure, capturing three photoflash > >>discharges: > >>http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/Images/Photoflash_Discharge2_sm.jpg > > >>Tim > > >I like my TDS2012. I rarely use an analog scope any more. > > >John > > I find that I use an analog scope (Tek 465) for analog stuff. Can't > get a feeling for noise issues with a digital scope. For pulse > amplifier stuff and when you need arithmetic, digital is the way to > go. > > -- > Mark- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not sure what sort of noise you are looking at, but I love my digital scope for looking at noise. The trick I use is to trigger right up at the top of the noise. Then I put the scope in average mode and you get an image that looks like the auto correlation function. My colleague has dubbed this the Quasi auto- correlation function, Quacf for short and of course pronounced quaff. (Ahh, nothing like a good beer.) If you ask for the FFT of this trace you get a much better picture. But Ive become very good at reading quacfs. George H. |