Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 1 Apr 2010 09:35 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(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. Amazing and amusing. Nice to know. I think i will get a 1052. Though i probably will not mod it. There may be other less obvious differences, like selected parts in the input attenuators, and selected diodes in the sampler. Not all mod results may be so pleasing. Though it does make me wonder about getting it to go even faster.
From: Phil Hobbs on 1 Apr 2010 09:43 On 3/31/2010 10:53 PM, terryc wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it >> deprives the IP owner of revenue. > > There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil > chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is > how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The > concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% > bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught > without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). > > In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I know, I know.) Thus it's up to the alleged infringer to prove the patent invalid, and that's one of the forms the defense always takes. In a patent suit, each side has to provide a couple of reports to the other, containing the arguments they intend to present at trial and the evidence they intend to use. (It's actually a pretty good system in its way--otherwise more cases would be wrongly decided due to the good guys [whichever side that is] getting blindsided at the trial.) I've done two expert witness gigs in the last year, one defending an alleged patent infringement and one defending an alleged trade secret misappropriation. It's pretty interesting, and it makes much more sense when you get into it. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: JosephKK on 1 Apr 2010 09:46 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:15:35 +1100, John Tserkezis <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote: >Phil Allison wrote: > >>> Where is the deception? > >> In the FACT that the 100MHz version is NOT actually a different model >> but sells with a very significant price hike - like 40%. > >> If they told buyers THAT simple truth they would not have any sales. > > Oddly enough, this technique is quite frequent, though, the selling >technique is more transparent, unlike Rigol who intentionally obscures >the similarities. > > > > One that comes to mind are multi-processor mainframe computers that are >sold fully kitted out, but only enable the number of processors the >customer pays for. > > The idea is, you have the entire box delivered, you *know* it's the >fully populated box, you call them and say you want x processors >enabled, and you pay accordingly. They connect remotely, and using >complex encrypted communications, your box is reconfigured: Almost >instantly you have the performance you paid for. > > There is a risk to the vendor, who forks out for the entire box and >have clients who never pay for all of it. But it's not all bad, this >results in possible lock-in (depending on product) guaranteeing further >income from clients that would have considered moving in the future, AND >it gets YOUR brand name out there in the market, which is always good news. > > > > Likewise, where I used to work, when questioned about the quite >significant price difference between our lower-speced and higher-speced >acoustic products. We tell the client the control circuitry is >*exactly* the same, and the difference is in the cost of the microphone, >and show them the price list in case they were interested. > If they wanted to upgrade (or downgrade), just swap microphones, make >relevant adjustments, and re-calibrate the instrument, and that's it. > The entire process was transparent. > > > > How is this different from the Rigol situation? Three points: > > Firstly, they have ADDED circuitry to hinder native performance, verses >include, or enable circuitry (or firmware/software) to improve performance. No, they haven't. The 20 MHz bandwidth limiter is common to both scopes and is plainly documented; some find it useful. Using it to produce two models differentiated by bandwidth was perhaps too clever. > > Secondly, they've intentionally obscured this fact (exact same hardware >and firmware), by making it look like two different products. > > And lastly, possibly worst of all, they've made it this easy to hack. This one is the real problem. A mere password could have stopped this.
From: John Fields on 1 Apr 2010 09:48 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The usual presumption for different prices is that >different COSTS are involved. >Is it worth it for Rigol to include the supposedly >higher end parts in the lower end models? >Would using the higher end parts in the >"crippleware" versions pay dividends when >it comes to service and repair, repair parts >inventory and one test jig for both models? >How many of the low end scopes do they >sell for each low end one they sell? --- I'd guess just about one. ;) JF
From: Andrew on 1 Apr 2010 11:24
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >> >>Dave. > > Rigol did the engineering and selected a business model, and you chose > to break it based on some moral judgement of your own. They will have > to react somehow, which will cost them money one way or another. > > Why did you do this? Did you feel that Rigol was cheating the public > and deserved to be exposed and, additionally, deprived of revenue? > > John He exercised his right of free speech. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Andrew |