DSOX2000 and 3000 series - licence , have anyone tried to hack that scope ?

[adranp]

The blurring is due to DOF (depth of field). I've had a slight angle when taking these pictures and I have thought that I won't need the ch4 AFE because the CH3 is in perfect quality.

I've linked a lower compression picture with ch3+ch4 AFE.

I'll take a CH4 back AFE picture when I open my scope again.

https://www.idsys.ro/public/IMG_9839_1.jpg

[Howardlong]

To be fair, I find taking good close in board photos to be very time consuming, and usually take multiple attempts before getting it right.

My better ones are done with a tripod, macro lens, tight aperture, long exposure, and ambient light. But that takes time to set up, turning a 10 second phone camera shot into a fifteen minute extravaganza.

[adranp]

:Howardlong Not necessarily time consuming but needs at least a few advanced level tips. My setup is DSLR + tripod + off-bracket (wirelessly triggered lighting) flashes. Macro is not a must. For example I've shot these with 17-40 wide lens which offers 0.28m minimum focusing distance.

The most important thing is lighting. Off camera bracket flash offers different lighting angles and gives the ability to use small aperture (high F-stops) which provides larger DOF and sharpness.

[TheSteve]

In my 3014T this component I'm talking about is missing (not-populated). I've reattached the image maybe you can see it now.

I would think the part in question is a ferrite bead - an ohm meter should be all that is needed to verify.

[Howardlong]

:Howardlong Not necessarily time consuming but needs at least a few advanced level tips. My setup is DSLR + tripod + off-bracket (wirelessly triggered lighting) flashes. Macro is not a must. For example I've shot these with 17-40 wide lens which offers 0.28m minimum focusing distance.

The most important thing is lighting. Off camera bracket flash offers different lighting angles and gives the ability to use small aperture (high F-stops) which provides larger DOF and sharpness.

I think that actually reflects my point perfectly, by the time you've set all that paraphernalia up and have a reasonable shot, then packed it all away again it's easily 15 minutes! ;-)

[memset]

heavy idling is detected on this thread

[cgroen]

heavy idling is detected on this thread

Yeah, would love to (eventually) get my 3024T to work at 500 MHz 

[PA0PBZ]

I'm still happy with my 3000A and I've no T model around, otherwise I would have had a look at the liberation possibilities already.

[adranp]

Personally I was waiting for some CAP / INDUCTOR values 

Still hoping for that..

[TheSteve]

I've been working on a list of component designators for each part that needs to be added, changed or removed between the 200 MHz and 1 GHz versions. Once that is nailed down and easy to follow we can probably get the needed values. Until then if someone opens a 1 GHz scope and measures parts for us an important one might get missed. It's a big enough ask to get someone to open a scope once and measure some values, it's even bigger to want them to do it twice. This is all for the 1 GHz upgrade.

The values to go to 500 MHz should be the same as the A series. Of course at this point they will only get you to 350 MHz as nobody has figured out how to add licences using the telnet login.

The 1 GHz mod seems more ideal as there will be no licenses needed. It won't be cheap though because of the needed Teledyne attenuators.

[Dubbie]

It won't be cheap though because of the needed Teledyne attenuators.

A good deal cheaper than buying a 1Ghz scope. Thats for sure!

[adranp]

:TheSteve "The values to go to 500 MHz should be the same as the A series." -> This has been confirmed by me (100->350Mhz) - It's clear the 350Mhz limiting is done in the fpga as it's exactly there, and not limited by actual hardware. 350->500 is done by software license.

:memset has put a nice list for 1Ghz upgrade, although the values of the caps and inductors are unknown. Hoping for help here. This would be really a beer giving opportunity minimum.

[TheSteve]

Someone who likes to live dangerously will have to experiment with the firmware if they want to enable licenses. I am sure it is possible, but so far it isn't as easy as the 3000A series.

memset did do a nice job of marking parts of interest. It would be easier for everyone involved to reference the mod though if we have consistent component designators we can refer to. A master parts list would also be nice to have as it would show the exact value/part # of each part as we discover them.
There are quite a few changes made between the 200 MHz and 1 GHz versions.
And the easier we make it for someone willing to measure parts for us the better.

:TheSteve "The values to go to 500 MHz should be the same as the A series." -> This has been confirmed by me (100->350Mhz) - It's clear the 350Mhz limiting is done in the fpga as it's exactly there, and not limited by actual hardware. 350->500 is done by software license.

:memset has put a nice list for 1Ghz upgrade, although the values of the caps and inductors are unknown. Hoping for help here. This would be really a beer giving opportunity minimum.

[TheSteve]

Four little Teledyne beauties arrived today. They were the only part I wasn't sure about getting so now that they are here it is time to keep the project moving forward.

I have edited part designators into the pictures that Mike shared of his MSOX3104T. The convention used follows the same as memset originally gave for the 500 MHz A series mod. At some point we can create a table with parts for each bandwidth without duplicate component names.

Here are what I believe are the known components for the 1 GHz mod:

R1 110 ohms
R2 162 ohms
R3 100K
R4 23.7 ohms
R5 23.7 ohms
R6 50 ohms 3024T only
R7 50 ohms 3104T only
R8 68.1 ohms
R9 51.1K
R10 51.1K 3104T only
R11 51.1K 3024T only

C1 ?
C2 ?
C3 ?
C4 ?
C5 ?
C6 ?
C7 ?
C8 ? assume 0.1 uF
C9 ? assume 0.1 uF
C10 ?
C11 ?
C12 ? 3024T only
C13 ?
C14 ? 3024T only

L1 green dot ~ 5 turns 15nH?
L2 red dot ~ 3 turns 6.8nH?
L3 red dot ~ 3 turns 6.8nH?
L4 likely 47nH(based off DSO6104A known values and color dot)
L5 red dot ~ 3 turns 6.8nH?

Q1 MMBF0201NL
D1 HSMP-3892
CR1 BAV99

BD1 - ferrite bead(resistance measurement will confirm)

K1 - Teledyne A150-20-12
K2 - AGQ210S4H 3024T only
K3 - AGQ210S4H 3104T only

Hopefully someone else can double check my work and comment on the values I have indicated. I am guessing several of the capacitors are likely 0.1 uF or similar for noise bypass. Once we have narrowed it down as far as possible and know the bare minimum we need measured I believe HighVoltage will measure the critical needed values for us.
At that point I'll do some performance measurements of my MSOX3024T and modify one channel. If it looks promising I will modify the other three channels and do performance measurements again.
At this point my performance measurements will include the 3dB point, rise time and input impedance vs frequency in 50 ohm mode. If there is anything else I should be checking before/after feel free to make suggestions.

[cgroen]

Very nice!
I hope I have the courage to do this mod on my 3024T at some point !

[Dubbie]

Nice work Steve!

I'm eager to see if this works!

[viki2000]

I find this thread absolutely amazing and awful in the same time.
I spent few hours several of days reading through the pages.
It is an amazing job, knowledge, interactivity and solutions found.
It is awful for a new comer which would like to follow and understand the proposed solutions.
I have read so many times the same words similar with “read few pages back”, “somewhere in thread if you read it through”. It is totally unorganized from my point of view. It is awful.
I can understand that is related with how the solutions evolved based on tests, experiments, trails, communications, but once a solution is found, it should stay somewhere easy to be found by a new reader.
I have seen new comers on the topic asking the same questions and sometimes a good willing older user copied and pasted the solution, because the new user is lost in the forest of trials. After the solution was found, some other guys still had all kind of problems and others not. Then all these important info spread along many pages is a headache. It is like half of job done.
Why is it like that? Is it on purpose? Or is no one able to organize and publish the solution as top line, a header, a new thread, a link with simply steps organized? It would be helpful at least to understand why. In the end are not so many versions of the firmware. The version 2.35 is an important step and then comes later 2.41. Then is USB method for old and LAN card for new. USB requires downgrade for versions above 2.35 to the version 2.35. Then are all kind of tricks and mistakes done by different users. It is a headache.
I was thinking once reading through the pages, why is it so unorganized after the solutions were found and can someone tell if it is true at least the ideas below that came into my mind?
It is spread and unorganized, because:
-   No one care to do it organized.
-   It is easy to hide the solution/hack for the other search engines or other technical people outside the forum (from Agilent?), because they must spend also hours and go through so many pages to understand what solutions have been found here.
-   After so many hours of trails and tests, the experienced users who found the solutions, decided that at least this is what other new readers can do when receive the solution for free without their own brain work: to read the pages back and find the solutions spread along the xx pages. That would be fine, but still is a big headache because is spread and twisted along so many pages. If it is meant to be free for others, then to whom does it help to not be organized?
Reading the pages back to find the solution produces only frustration until you find and understand the procedure.
I have a Rigol DS4034, for which was far easy to read and follow the unlocking procedure. For that I am thankful to the guys that did it and share it. My Rigol has all the functions unlocked.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sniffing-the-rigol's-internal-i2c-bus/msg523679/#msg523679
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/software-tips-and-tricks-for-rigol-ds200040006000-ultravision-dsos/
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso4000-and-ds4000-tests-bugs-firmware-questions-etc/?all

Beside that I have one Agilent DSO-X-2002A, but I never tried yet the proposed solutions.
If I will do it, then I will make a step by step tutorial, if it is necessary with screenshots and video recording, so any new reader will able to follow it in less than 15min, without reading xx pages back.
I have the firmware version 2.36.
https://goo.gl/yvf7Of
If I understood right I have 2 options: I downgrade to 2.35 and I use the USB stick trick, with the proper USB drive – here trials are waiting for me, or the hack with LAN card and telnet software/commands.
After so much reading I still have some basic questions:
-   What do I lose if I downgrade to 2.35 from 2.36 or any other firmware higher than 2.35? I mean besides the advantage of being able to unlock the oscilloscope when I have the firmware 2.35, what do I miss? What advantages offers 2.36 or 2.37 or the latest 2.41? Is it really important to have the latest 2.41 unlocked? Or are the people happy with downgrade to 2.35 and being unlocked with all the features?
-   Agilent offers LAN/VGA card at over 400€. Is that card that is needed? Or do I need a special hand-made one? If I need a special made one, who is selling it here on forum and at around what price?

[viki2000]

One question is answered.
What do I miss if I will have firmware version 2.35 compared with latest 2.41, what is the difference?
Below are a link and the pdf file with changes from one version to another.
http://www.keysight.com/upload/cmc_upload/All/Keysight_2000A_3000A_X_Series_Oscilloscope_Release_Notes_02_41.pdf

[Howardlong]

I find this thread absolutely amazing and awful in the same time.
I spent few hours several of days reading through the pages.
It is an amazing job, knowledge, interactivity and solutions found.
It is awful for a new comer which would like to follow and understand the proposed solutions.
I have read so many times the same words similar with “read few pages back”, “somewhere in thread if you read it through”. It is totally unorganized from my point of view. It is awful.
I can understand that is related with how the solutions evolved based on tests, experiments, trails, communications, but once a solution is found, it should stay somewhere easy to be found by a new reader.
I have seen new comers on the topic asking the same questions and sometimes a good willing older user copied and pasted the solution, because the new user is lost in the forest of trials. After the solution was found, some other guys still had all kind of problems and others not. Then all these important info spread along many pages is a headache. It is like half of job done.
Why is it like that? Is it on purpose? Or is no one able to organize and publish the solution as top line, a header, a new thread, a link with simply steps organized? It would be helpful at least to understand why. In the end are not so many versions of the firmware. The version 2.35 is an important step and then comes later 2.41. Then is USB method for old and LAN card for new. USB requires downgrade for versions above 2.35 to the version 2.35. Then are all kind of tricks and mistakes done by different users. It is a headache.
I was thinking once reading through the pages, why is it so unorganized after the solutions were found and can someone tell if it is true at least the ideas below that came into my mind?
It is spread and unorganized, because:
-   No one care to do it organized.
-   It is easy to hide the solution/hack for the other search engines or other technical people outside the forum (from Agilent?), because they must spend also hours and go through so many pages to understand what solutions have been found here.
-   After so many hours of trails and tests, the experienced users who found the solutions, decided that at least this is what other new readers can do when receive the solution for free without their own brain work: to read the pages back and find the solutions spread along the xx pages. That would be fine, but still is a big headache because is spread and twisted along so many pages. If it is meant to be free for others, then to whom does it help to not be organized?
Reading the pages back to find the solution produces only frustration until you find and understand the procedure.
....

While I understand your frustration, here are two reasons. Firstly, a forum simply doesn't work like a wiki does, where multiple editors can modify a single resource. Second, much of this is work in progress by several contributors. As you will have seen, over time solutions become more tailored, and there is usually room for further continuous improvement.

This is not the only forum thread like this. Almost all hacking threads end up this way. If you've found one or two that don't then you have been lucky. I'm not excusing it, it's just that there isn't really a mechanism that allows several individuals to edit the first post of a thread in the same way that multiple editors can manage a wiki.

We have sometimes seen the first post of a thread being maintained by the OP, but that assumes that the OP's still interested in maintaining it, and will continue to be. It may well be that their original question has already been answered to their satisfaction. Again, this is the limitation of the single editor/post paradigm of a forum.

Sometimes you see well-meaning secondary threads attempting to summarise, but this rarely ends well, typically diluting the information across multiple threads, particularly if it is still a work in progress.

If you have a reasonable solution, then feel free to do it. What this isn't, although it's suggested in your post, is laziness or a deliberate attempt by contributors to obfuscate information. It's simply that a forum format doesn't lend itself to an immediate answer on a plate.

[viki2000]

Thank you for your explanations, which are quite satisfactory.
In my opinion, I still consider it would be very useful if it would be open a dedicated thread only to verified solutions, described in detail by each user who verified/applied that particular solution and is willing to present it nice, monitored and closed by a moderator. Only the moderator would be able to append new verified solutions, if are nice and clear described. Definitely would be shorter and easier to follow.
All the other threads, as the present one for example, can be considered main research work, or the others collateral threads and it should be a final closed thread only with verified solutions.
But maybe no one is willing to invest time to prepare and maintain such thread, which is also understandable when the users are satisfied because already found for themselves a working solution after hours of trial and error.

[luisprata]

Hi all,

Using WaveGen in 2000-x series 2.35 version... it's possible to add noise to signals? The option is there but doesnt seem to work... Any ideas?

Thank you.

[carl_lab]

While I understand your frustration, here are two reasons. Firstly, a forum simply doesn't work like a wiki does, where multiple editors can modify a single resource. Second, much of this is work in progress by several contributors. As you will have seen, over time solutions become more tailored, and there is usually room for further continuous improvement.

This is not the only forum thread like this. Almost all hacking threads end up this way. If you've found one or two that don't then you have been lucky. I'm not excusing it, it's just that there isn't really a mechanism that allows several individuals to edit the first post of a thread in the same way that multiple editors can manage a wiki.

We have sometimes seen the first post of a thread being maintained by the OP, but that assumes that the OP's still interested in maintaining it, and will continue to be. It may well be that their original question has already been answered to their satisfaction. Again, this is the limitation of the single editor/post paradigm of a forum.

Sometimes you see well-meaning secondary threads attempting to summarise, but this rarely ends well, typically diluting the information across multiple threads, particularly if it is still a work in progress.

If you have a reasonable solution, then feel free to do it. What this isn't, although it's suggested in your post, is laziness or a deliberate attempt by contributors to obfuscate information. It's simply that a forum format doesn't lend itself to an immediate answer on a plate.

Everything you said is correct.

You could separate a topic into discussion sub thead and a solutions sub thread.
If you have any questions you can ask in discussion sub thread, if you got some working solutions you can copy/move to solutions sub thread.
Problem: More administrative work to manage it...

[Bud]

 

Problem: More administrative work to manage it...

Exactly, someone still need to do it.

[Howardlong]

Thank you for your explanations, which are quite satisfactory.
In my opinion, I still consider it would be very useful if it would be open a dedicated thread only to verified solutions, described in detail by each user who verified/applied that particular solution and is willing to present it nice, monitored and closed by a moderator. Only the moderator would be able to append new verified solutions, if are nice and clear described. Definitely would be shorter and easier to follow.
All the other threads, as the present one for example, can be considered main research work, or the others collateral threads and it should be a final closed thread only with verified solutions.
But maybe no one is willing to invest time to prepare and maintain such thread, which is also understandable when the users are satisfied because already found for themselves a working solution after hours of trial and error.

Maybe you could do it?

[BFX]

Thank you for your explanations, which are quite satisfactory.
In my opinion, I still consider it would be very useful if it would be open a dedicated thread only to verified solutions, described in detail by each user who verified/applied that particular solution and is willing to present it nice, monitored and closed by a moderator. Only the moderator would be able to append new verified solutions, if are nice and clear described. Definitely would be shorter and easier to follow.
All the other threads, as the present one for example, can be considered main research work, or the others collateral threads and it should be a final closed thread only with verified solutions.
But maybe no one is willing to invest time to prepare and maintain such thread, which is also understandable when the users are satisfied because already found for themselves a working solution after hours of trial and error.

Hi,

there is also another reason for that, I think because it's lot of gamblers which would like to reach lot of money for nothing, like hack some gear a sell for much more, but they are not usualy too much technicaly skilled and it's a litle barrier to do that.