Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 1 Apr 2010 20:33 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. I was just using my 1052E with external trigger and a fast-rise step on channel 1. At 5 ns/div, with a very fast, clean input step (30 ps, actually) the reported risetime is 6.1 ns and the step is slightly overdamped (which soft shoulder costs 10-90 risetime), maybe the result of the varicap adding a 1st order rolloff to what should be a Gaussian system. The 20 MHz step is definitely exponential, Tr 17.5. What's impressive is that jitter is well below 1 ns p-p, which means they are quantizing the trigger time to well below 1 ns and adjusting the effective sample clock to a fraction of one sample. Neat for a $550 scope. I wonder why they didn't do the bw limiting digitally. John
From: krw on 1 Apr 2010 20:51 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:01:03 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Glenn Gundlach wrote: >> On Mar 31, 11:23 am, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> <snip > >> > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and >> > firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts >> of >> > things have different specs and functions differentiated by >> firmware. >> > >> > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took >> advantage >> > of it. I still don't know why. >> > >> > John >> >> I pretty much agree with you but has anybody verified that the >> hardware is indeed identical? They don't install a faster processor or >> A-D or better grade amps? > >By all accounts, no, the 100MHz unit is an identical board. People who tried >to examine the hardware front ends (and other parts) could not find any >differences between the two models. That's what originally prompted me to >suggest there was just a component value difference in the models, but of >course as it turns out it's much simpler than that, they are identical. If >they weren't identical, then there would be no need for the software logic >switch to set the 50MHz limit, they'd simply do it with BOM changes. > >The sample rate and all other performance features are the same between >units, so there is no need for better or faster ADC's or processor in the >100MHz model. I thought the 100MHz scope has another timebase setting, so the firmware would have to know about the BOM change. The component still could have different ratings. It likely is the same, though.
From: Greegor on 1 Apr 2010 22:26 JL > Of course we never bought another Autodesk product, and never will. Is there an alternative product that can touch it?
From: Greegor on 1 Apr 2010 22:31 On Apr 1, 8:48 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...(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 Typo ! How many of the HIGH end scopes do they sell for each LOW end one they sell?
From: John Larkin on 1 Apr 2010 23:47
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >JL > Of course we never bought another Autodesk product, and never >will. > >Is there an alternative product that can touch it? Solidworks. John |