Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Ross Vumbaca on 8 Apr 2010 08:44 Hi, On 8/04/2010 10:43, David L. Jones wrote: > Me neither. > Although the low end digitals like the Rigols are no match for an analog > scope for some jobs. So unless you've got a high end digital, it's still > useful to have that analog scope around. When might an analogue scope be better than a low end digital? Regards, Ross..
From: Phil Allison on 8 Apr 2010 09:05 "Ross Vumbaca" > > David L. Jones wrote: > >> Me neither. >> Although the low end digitals like the Rigols are no match for an analog >> scope for some jobs. So unless you've got a high end digital, it's still >> useful to have that analog scope around. > > When might an analogue scope be better than a low end digital? > ** There is no point in responding to this sort of crass stupidity. Anyone dumb enough to ask simply cannot comprehend any answer that can be posted. .... Phil
From: John Larkin on 8 Apr 2010 10:01 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:44:21 +1000, Ross Vumbaca <rossv1(a)au.com.optushome> wrote: >Hi, > >On 8/04/2010 10:43, David L. Jones wrote: > >> Me neither. >> Although the low end digitals like the Rigols are no match for an analog >> scope for some jobs. So unless you've got a high end digital, it's still >> useful to have that analog scope around. > >When might an analogue scope be better than a low end digital? > >Regards, > >Ross.. I can't think of much. Maybe clean X-Y plots; the digitals are sloppy in X-Y mode. ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hills.JPG John
From: John Larkin on 8 Apr 2010 10:09 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:07:03 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:05:25 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:58:46 +1000, "David L. Jones" >><altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:34:32 -0700, >>>> "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:45:57 -0700, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:28:29 -0700, >>>>>> "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:58:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >>>>>>>> in message news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand >>>>>>>>> it and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do >>>>>>>>> you like that for rip-off-ness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a >>>>>>>> lot of people will buy Rigol instead. >>>>>>>> You should have kept this information to yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here >>>>>>> (s.e.d). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog >>>>>>> scopes, they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is >>>>>>> still reasonably available, for about the price of a modest car. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tek 7103s and 7104s, 1 GHz analog scopes with microchannel plate >>>>>> CRTs, are fairly cheap on the used market. >>>>>> >>>>>> An 11801 sampler with a 12 GHz head can be had for under $2K. Nice >>>>>> scopes. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> John, i am talking about brand _new_ analog 'scopes. Probably with >>>>> microchannel faceplates as well. All the old groovy Tektronix >>>>> patents >>>>> have expired. >>>> >>>> The only new analog scopes I know of are minor brands, >>>> B&K/Instek/Kenwood sort of stuff. All the name-brand scopes are >>>> digital now. LeCroy used to sell the 470 MHz Iwatsu scope, but I think >>>> they gave that up. The Iwatsu SS-7840H is around $10K. And not even >>>> color. It looks to me like digital scopes are less expensive at pretty >>>> much every performance point. >>> >>>Yup, economy of scale and other factors. >>> >>>Iwatsu still do a 1GHz analog storage scope at $28K: >>>http://www.tequipment.net/IwatsuTS-81000.html >>> >> >>That's quasi-digital, with a CRT-based scan converter tube. >> >>My friend Bernard still makes this: >> >>http://www.greenfieldtechnology.com/-Data-aquisition-system-.html > >I had a couple pairs of the Tektronix version of this I bought in the late >'70s and early '80s. They had two 7000 series plug-in bays and went for ~$20K >each (don't remember if that included the 7B92 and 7A19, or not). > >>which uses the older kind of scan converter, two electron >>gun/deflection systems facing one another in one tube with some sort >>of charge storage film between them. This is the one Tek used to >>market. Goodness knows where he gets the tubes... probably old stock. > >If it's the Tek tube, it's a 512x512 diode array inbetween the two guns. > >>I don't miss tubes, or meter needles, or analog scopes at all. > >Nope, though I do still like analog scopes, at times. Don't have one, but >that's a different matter. One scope I wish I had is a Tek 519. This was a real monster, a 1 GHz direct-view scope with a 30KV CRT, distributed deflection, and a tiny, roughly 1x2 cm screen, intended for single-shot photography of transient events. It had no vertical amp and ran about 2 volts/div, where a div was like 1 mm. I do have a CRT and the manual. The horizontal circuit is wild... it uses a 4CX250 in the sweep generator. I have some pics if anybody's interested. John
From: markp on 8 Apr 2010 10:51
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:faorr5hvdflvisben3t8ii36ljjh5nragh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:44:21 +1000, Ross Vumbaca > <rossv1(a)au.com.optushome> wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>On 8/04/2010 10:43, David L. Jones wrote: >> >>> Me neither. >>> Although the low end digitals like the Rigols are no match for an analog >>> scope for some jobs. So unless you've got a high end digital, it's still >>> useful to have that analog scope around. >> >>When might an analogue scope be better than a low end digital? >> >>Regards, >> >>Ross.. > > I can't think of much. Maybe clean X-Y plots; the digitals are sloppy > in X-Y mode. > Didn't Dave say in his blog something about gaussian responses? |