Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 18:00 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:08:19 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:ub77r59i42igsqva44a605ms9fm1cc9fno(a)4ax.com... >> It also does the standard bandwidth limit function, so it would have >> been there anyhow. > >OK, but there's still an extra resistor needed to set it to 50MHz vs. 20MHz. >:-) > >You never did tell us if you'd pursue legal action against someone taking one >of your widgets, completely replacing the firmware, and thereby providing >functionality that you currently charge for? I doubt that would be illegal. It would be illegal if they violated my copyrights. I think it would be legal if they disassembled the code to understand how it works, and then wrote their own, as long as they don't copy my code. If someone bought a baseline unit from me and modified the firmware to enable a feature and then sold it for a profit, I think I would have legal recourse to stop them. I'm not sure. If they used a computer in the process, as they almost certainly would, it may be a DCMA violation. I trust that none of my customers would do that, or purchase a unit from a hacker. I did once design a cryogenic temperature sensor module and sold a bunch to Jefferson Labs. Someone else designed a register-compatible clone, which was probably legal, but Jlabs refused to buy any. I did once do a clone of a LeCroy module for Los Alamos, and LeCroy cut their price in half on the next bid, to kill me, and Los Alamos bought mine anyhow. John > >> Since the ADCs are overclocked, it may be that Rigol selects the best >> scopes to be the 100 MHz versions. > >Good point. > >---Joel
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 18:02 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:00:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 3/31/2010 3:07 PM, Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:38:34 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 3/31/2010 12:46 AM, miso(a)sushi.com wrote: >>>> On Mar 30, 8:03 pm, John Larkin >>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >>>>> >>>>> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >>>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >>>>> >>>>>> Dave. >>>>> >>>>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>>>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to >>>>> perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. >>>>> >>>>> I have some sympathy for Rigol here. Many of our products have an >>>>> option that can be enabled in firmware, and that we charge for. We put >>>>> a lot of engineering effort into the firmware, and need to be paid for >>>>> it. If buyers of my gear can order the cheaper one and make it into >>>>> the expensive one, by copying an EPROM maybe, or setting a bit in >>>>> flash somewhere, I can't recover the cost of the feature. The act is >>>>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. >>>>> >>>>> Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP >>>>> is expensive. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make >>>>> it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both >>>>> versions. >>>>> >>>>> I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital >>>>> filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies >>>>> than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a >>>>> few more. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>> The design cost is amortized over all the units. [Hey, don't worry >>>> what the consults charges, it will go to zero as we sell a million >>>> units.] >>>> >>>> Rigol does themselves a disservice by having to maintain two >>>> products. They should just sell the higher speed scope, bomb the >>>> market, and then own it. >>> >>> >>> Destroying a market isn't usually a good way to make money in the long >>> run. >>> >>> And it's easily possible that Rigol saves a boatload of money by having >>> only one assembly number to design, code, build, and test. Remember >>> that (as Dave discovered earlier) they're actually overclocking the ADCs >>> on the 100 MHz model--so one can argue it's really a 50 MHz scope that >>> Rigol themselves hacked into a 100 MHz one. >>> >>> Companies have been selling crippleware forever--the earliest example I >>> know of was the 6 MHz IBM PC-AT. You changed the crystal and one other >>> thing that I forget, and suddenly you had a blistering fast 8 MHz AT! >>> (Cooler than the coolest thing ever, no?) There were similar howls of >>> outrage over that one. >> >> I did that modification, myself, upon buying an IBM PC/AT >> for, if I recall correctly, $5499! It would work up to about >> 8.5MHz, by the way. I tried 9, but the I/O bus clocked up >> with the CPU (at that time) and some of the add-in boards >> couldn't keep up. However, 8.5MHz worked across the board, >> quite well. I clocked back to 8.0MHz and lived happily ever >> after. >> >> Not for one split second did I believe I was doing something >> wrong, here. Not for one moment. I still think it was fine >> to do. >> >> The Kaypro 286i was the first "truly compatible" IBM PC >> machine built after that and it cost almost $2000 less to >> buy, new. (There were other attempts, but they failed on a >> variety of applications at the time and were crippled in one >> way or another until the Kaypro 286i made it out.) >> >> There was a short period (year?) where the ISA (wasn't known >> as that, at the time, but I'm referring to the 8/16 bit bus >> that came out with the PC/AT) bus had to be separated better >> from the CPU clock and thus was born the ability to clock the >> CPU up higher (10,12,16MHz) without making bus boards fail. >> That led to Chips&Technology developing their IC to save all >> those discrete IC parts populating the boards. And that led >> to Intel deciding (eventually, years later on) to take over >> that market and develop their own chipset. Etc. >> >> But it was morally RIGHT to clock up the system. I still >> think so and if John L. is on the other side of this question >> then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. However, >> he hasn't weighed in on it, so it is hard to know. >> >>> The moral question is actually an interesting one, I think, and the >>> different views seem to hinge on what people think they're buying, and >>> whether a hardware/software combination is more like hardware (which you >>> can hack up as you like) or software (which has a license agreement >>> you're bound by). >>> <snip> >> >> It is an interesting question and made all the more so >> because different people may fall on different sides here. >> That's what makes it interesting. If everyone took the same >> position, it would indeed be dullsville. >> >> Jon > >For hardware, I agree entirely. You bought it, you can hack it up any >way you want. For software, you don't own it, you only license it, and >that restricts what you can do. This last situation is one that _developed_ in the US due to a law suit (or several) that took place around the time when VisiCalc was a "big deal" in and around 1980. Prior to this time, software was bought and sold and the older US laws regarding rights followed that legal lagacy. If you BUY the software, you can loan it to others, etc. What happened is that some software manufacturers (using the term, loosely) decided that they didn't want that legal legacy and tried hard to pony up some "new idea." That new idea was selling licenses to use, not direct ownership. This really didn't have a lot of legal history to it and there was a debate as to whether or not one could "sell" a product over the counter, on a wide spread basis. (By this, I mean, sold just like a hammer is and NOT like the usual 'licence to use' was before, which was strictly done between two eyes-open parties who represented themselves on a professional and fully informed basis and wrote a contract which was duly signed by appropriate authorities. Up to that time, there were licenses... yes. But they were strictly done on a written contract basis and done 1-on-1. This was new in the sense that merely "opening" a package was to be taken as a fully-informed legal contract. Which is a very different thing.) A court (in my opinion, wrongly) decided this issue and opened the door that we now find ourselves completely on the other side of. Hardware is as it always was, though. Software went through a dimensional door and we are now in another universe. >So far, so well understood. Yes. >These hardware/software gizmos we're surrounded with are in a bit of a >grey area. If you bought an Apple computer, for instance, you'd own the >hardware but only license the pre-installed software. You don't get a >right to hack/rip off/disassemble their software just because you bought >their hardware. > >I don't like the DMCA in general, and I think it was silly of Rigol to >make hacking it this easy--all they needed was a SSH stack, a hardware >key, or even an obfuscated command--but that doesn't change the moral >position. The hardware is hardware, so you can hack it any way you >like. Cutting traces on the PCB to get the extra vertical bandwidth >would be perfectly fine. > >Disassembling the firmware and ripping it off would not be fine. > >Hacking the firmware as Dave did is a grey area, one that will become >more and more important as we go along. > >As I said, it's a good lesson in product design, and an interesting >moral question that is more complicated than most folks here are willing >to see. I think this is a really interesting topic and I'm glad there are different opinions on it. It makes for some fun. I will read the arguments, but I'm sure like most of us over the age of 40 we aren't likely to make profound changes in our hard-won opinions. But it will be intriguing to see if someone does come up with a solid argument that changes an opinion here or there. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 18:06 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:44:14 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>Jones still hasn't said why he did it. > >Probably because it is possible. The reason why there have been so >many great inventions :-) :) That's my take, as well. Of course, Dave can speak for himself, too! Jon
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 18:12 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:30:18 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:mtq6r5t2e14htcdl9svbr3bt8g95hlpmmc(a)4ax.com... >..... >> Looking at the transient response at 100 MHz, which kinda sucks, I >> wonder if the 50 and 100 MHz scopes are indeed identical except for >> firmware. >> >> John > >Kinda sucks ? >Did you watch the eevblog ??? I don't think you have the slightest clue >about >what fast signals really look like. How about this one: http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T760DS.html That's a real transformer-isolated 100 volt pulse into 50 ohms. We've tweaked it since we took that pic, and rise/fall are now typically under 1 ns. And this is a 1 GHz square wave http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html The undershoot is my fault... a trace is a little too long. I'll fix it next pass. The higher the bandwidth the messier >they look as various resonance effects in the measurement circuit >are revealed - use a 1Ghz 'scope and they REALLY suck. I use a 20 GHz scope, and the calibration and TDR pulses are almost perfect. John
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 18:12
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:13 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:30:53 -0700, Jon Kirwan ><jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>><ggherold(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mar 30, 8:29�pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >>>>> >>>>> Dave. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ================================================ >>>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com >>>> >>>>Excellent, I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E! The best news is that >>>>even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is.... (just >>>>scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.) >>>> >>>>George H. >>> >>>It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70) MHz >>>bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do the hack >>>even if it was morally and legally fine. >>> >>>This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has loads >>>of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the price. >>> >>>Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >> >>It's not Dave's job to protect Rigol. > >He sure didn't protect them. I hope you are not pretending to argue that he should have done so. I would hope you feel he is free to act in his own perceived interests. >He apparently organized One doesn't 'organize' themselves. A person of 1 is not an organization. >an effort to hack their scopes What is wrong with hacking something you buy? >and cost them money, Not by the mere fact of hacking, he didn't. >and went public with it. Ah, you mean "he cost them money __because__ he went public." Different thing. Precision in writing words might help. But I already addressed this pointing out that you can't know this. And I gave a possible alternative view, as well. Which you didn't discuss, at all. So I see no need to re-address myself to something I've already spoken about and which you have not responded to. >>Whether he hurt them or not is a question that isn't clear, >>nor answered yet. If Rigol is forced to make further >>modifications because of Dave, and only because of Dave, then >>you may have a point on that narrow ledge. But it still >>doesn't mean Dave has any responsibility to protect them from >>such actions they may later choose to take. >> >>Besides the issue that Dave is acting as an independent, free >>agent and may choose what is in his own better interests, he >>cannot possibly be expected to consult some personal Ouija >>board about the mind of Rigol about their own business >>interests. Rigol can fend for themselves. And they are >>perfectly able to do so. > >Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves. Of course they have lawyers. At least one. You are (not so) secretly wishing that Dave would get his hands slapped. You certainly have NOT made a very good case as to why, yet. >>In any case, I generally prefer a world where knowledge is >>freely shared, education valued, and the consequences lived >>with more than one where knowledge ie metered out. Dave gave >>information, which is fine. You did too when you commented >>about the "clean transient response" and the fact that you >>don't think it is wise to hack it for your own needs. Which >>is good information, as well. Then just let the end user >>decide for themselves what is better for them. As it should >>be. > >Jones still hasn't said why he did it. So? Jon |