Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Allison on 5 Apr 2010 00:53 "David L. Jones" > John Larkin wrote: > >> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple >> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and >> the compromises it forces. > > I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and also > continued it ad nauseam. > So why don't you just stop ranting and actually discuss that technical > aspect if it interests you? > Or is this just your way of trying to weasel out of the rather silly hole > you found yourself in? :-> ** Weasel Larkin is intent on digging that hole all the way the Sha Hee Town, Beijing . His ugly face will pop up through Rigol's floor at any minute. ...... Phil
From: Michael A. Terrell on 5 Apr 2010 01:29 "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:40:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message > >news:2pcir5p9qc741bnhuh13blhtdoom8ptm7h(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 07:31:58 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> Clueless. > > > >I am humbled by the depth of your arguments. > > > Maybe if you could figure out how your Usenet thingy works... If he did, you'd have to kill him... -- Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
From: George Jefferson on 5 Apr 2010 01:31 "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:81t8m6FhslU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "David L. Jones" >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple >>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and >>> the compromises it forces. >> >> I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and also >> continued it ad nauseam. >> So why don't you just stop ranting and actually discuss that technical >> aspect if it interests you? >> Or is this just your way of trying to weasel out of the rather silly hole >> you found yourself in? :-> > > > ** Weasel Larkin is intent on digging that hole all the way the Sha Hee > Town, Beijing . > > His ugly face will pop up through Rigol's floor at any minute. > > lol... I'm sure he'll fit right in!
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 5 Apr 2010 10:47 Andrew wrote: > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:W6ydndXx5v9eLyXWnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>>>>>Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >>>>>>laws? >>> >>>World would be a better place. >> >>They would have to send bandits or use whatever other non-economic means >>of competition. Problem is not in the patents, problem is with the people. > > > "They" could do it right now. And they do it sometimes. Patent system is an attempt to civilize that. > It is not related to the patents. Of course. Problem is with people. > >>>>The idea of patents is to make it attractive for people to disclose their >>>>trade secrets, and that makes the art advance. >>> >>>The road to hell is paved with good intentions. >>>17 years in US, for starters, is way too long. Patents often used to lock >>>competitors out, thus artificially decresing efficiency. >> >>Write a complaint to the World League for sexual reforms? > > > Patent laws is not the biggest problem US is facing right now. > > As for the options: > > - Use technical means to keep trade secrets rather than legal and sell you > product outside of US. > - Elect someone with at least a crude understanding of the economy. > - Write a complaint to <put one's favorite place here> if it makes one feel > better. > - Wrap oneself in white sheets and slowly crawl to the graveyard. Those are minor technical details. You are missing the main point of the current paradigm: making more stuff is not a goal. The goal is make everybody happy. VLV
From: John Larkin on 5 Apr 2010 11:36
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and >>> 100MHz models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and >>> firmware, I've been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this >>> to an irate customer who contacted them about the issue. >>> >>> Partial Quote from Rigol : >>> "The firmware of the instruments is made >>> to enable capability based on the version purchased just like any >>> software licensed product you would buy." >>> >>> Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed >>> a few weeks ago. >>> >>> Dave. >> >> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple >> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and >> the compromises it forces. > >I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and also >continued it ad nauseam. Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to manufacture. Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for such things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong and provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is like someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it. But they should have used different LC filters for the 50 and 100 MHz signal trains. They probably underdamped the 100 MHz response so that the 50 Mhz wouldn't be too obviously first order; ugly compromise. The 20 MHz thing is very first order, with a long droopy rise. I wonder if there's any harmonic or im distortion from the single varicap. FFTs would tell. Are the 20 MHz rise and fall times different? I'll take a loom when I get back to work. >So why don't you just stop ranting and actually discuss that technical >aspect if it interests you? You might have considered the dynamics of the varicap thing yourself. I guess I just don't like cracks. John |