Cases are deliberately designed like that to prevent stacking anything on top when the device has power dissipation problems.
The ridges seem intended to allow stacking, just while leaving a considerable vent.
Cases are deliberately designed like that to prevent stacking anything on top when the device has power dissipation problems.
The ridges seem intended to allow stacking, just while leaving a considerable vent.
I had to find some other photographs to see that It is still pretty extreme even to cool up to 30 watts passively.
Cases are deliberately designed like that to prevent stacking anything on top when the device has power dissipation problems.
The ridges seem intended to allow stacking, just while leaving a considerable vent.
I had to find some other photographs to see that It is still pretty extreme even to cool up to 30 watts passively.
The intention is clear, only its not very practical. Its for people with indefinite desk space. If every instrument designer does this, we need labs several times as large.
Even if passive cooling is not feasible, a low speed fan with a filter to keep the dust out will move enough air to make a huge difference, be silent, and last for decades.
Yeah, agreed. If the price for pure passive cooling is that all such test equipment must be arranged side by side and cannot be towered, the price is definitely too high. What a lot of manufacturers could also do is implement better fans with less noise. The extra cost is not that high, and the annoyance factor of noisy fans is significant.
Yeah, agreed. If the price for pure passive cooling is that all such test equipment must be arranged side by side and cannot be towered, the price is definitely too high. What a lot of manufacturers could also do is implement better fans with less noise. The extra cost is not that high, and the annoyance factor of noisy fans is significant.
Again, these should be stackable due to the fins providing a surface to put anything flat bottomed on. It seems to be the whole point of the design.
Besides, fanless signal generators are feasible. GW-Instek and others do it without much trouble in regular cases. Fans are a weak point and a nuisance, so fanless designs seem preferable.
Besides, fanless signal generators are feasible. GW-Instek and others do it without much trouble in regular cases. Fans are a weak point and a nuisance, so fanless designs seem preferable.
Usually fans are a weak point and nuisance but at low powers, below 100 watts, and where passive cooling is marginal, they can be used without any compromises. It takes very little airflow to make a huge difference.
Has anyone got a chance to test these function generators, measure pulse jitter or noise spectrum?
Specs are shit compared to the old ones so I skipped buying one recently.
The problem with Siglent SDG2000X series is that it has only one Aux In/Out BNC, whereas a proper generator should have Sync, Modulation, Trigger or even more BNCs for each channel. DG800/900 is a little better, with two BNCs, one for each channel. Keysight 33500 series has three auxiliary BNCs.
And what is it with these generators including a counter? I understand its easy to implement a crappy counter, but why waste a BNC for it? Except for the most basic models, I don't imagine it would be a selling point. Better to use that BNC as a trigger or another function generator control.
The problem with Siglent SDG2000X series is that it has only one Aux In/Out BNC, whereas a proper generator should have Sync, Modulation, Trigger or even more BNCs for each channel. DG800/900 is a little better, with two BNCs, one for each channel. Keysight 33500 series has three auxiliary BNCs.
And what is it with these generators including a counter? I understand its easy to implement a crappy counter, but why waste a BNC for it? Except for the most basic models, I don't imagine it would be a selling point. Better to use that BNC as a trigger or another function generator control.
That was almost exactly
my comment on the AUX capabilities of the SDG6000X. Considering this is Siglent's "top of the line" generator, it's rather poorly equipped. The Rigol DG4000 series offers much more regarding these additional functions though it's got other shortcomings. A merger of several of these generators would probably be what we're looking for...
I got a DG812 a week ago. So far I am very happy with it.
The UI needs a bit getting used to, especially accessing the deeper menus for trigger sync etc. - mainly because using a touch screen on test gear is somewhat counter-intuitive for me.
Let's spice things up a bit!
Maybe they don't look so ugly after alll...
Looks like an Android phone screen as sold in an Indian tech market in 2011
Only joking. I'm still not giving up my DG1022Z for one.
The crack is however impressive if it actually kicks out 100MHz.
What does the attenuator go down to when you set it to 50 ohms impedance?
The crack is however impressive if it actually kicks out 100MHz.
What does the attenuator go down to when you set it to 50 ohms impedance?
No "crack". It's a feature.
Can't do that test right now. But stay tuned...
Let's spice things up a bit!
Maybe they don't look so ugly after alll...
Nice work, so DG811 may be able to be upgraded to DG992 as well?
Will definitely buy one if that is the case.
Nice work, so DG811 may be able to be upgraded to DG992 as well?
Edit: I didn't meant to be disrespectful. I looked at the emoji just by its graphical look: "Hmmmm, let me see..."
The specs between DG811 to DG832 appear to be the same (datasheet quotes 100MHz bandwidth), so the cap is presumably done in software.
edit:
Let's spice things up a bit!
Maybe they don't look so ugly after alll...
Still ugly on the outside, but you make them much nicer on the inside.
No "crack". It's a feature.
Yes, we like features! I actually wasn't expecting the 8xx series to be able to do 250 Msps. It's good to know that "it's in there."
I foresee a sudden spike in 811 sales.
And maybe cans of black paint.
Sooo. Would you mind elaborating on how you got DG992 firmware on the 832? @tv84
I'm sure elaboration will come in good time. Perhaps a thread for it, too.
As soon as I have a DG811 test, I'll post the method. The FW is the one that comes with the SG.
Hi Tv84
I suspect your latest endevours will work with the DG822 as well
Also many thanks for your work with the MSO 5000 to
As soon as I have a DG811 test, I'll post the method. The FW is the one that comes with the SG.
Thank you, I've ordered DG811 so will check back when it arrives if you have not tested it already.
Another thing I noticed is DG800/DG900 both do not come with ethernet as standard, they require a $60 USB to ethernet adapter. Thats not bad, but the adapter looks to be the same as you can get on ebay for $5. We can either open that adapter or test some different chipsets to see what works (chipset might be referenced in the firmware somewhere?).
Well at least they give you an option of an USB Ethernet adapter.
Id guess just check what are the best supported USB network card chipsets in the older Linux kernels and try plugging one of those in, id guess it works with more than just one special "the chosen one" chipset
Oh and careful with cheap chinese USB to Ethernet converters. I seen some pretty dodgy stuff inside of them like completely omitting the isolation transformer or terrible performance because the chip inside is marketed as "USB 2.0 compatible" but its actually a USB 1.1 Full Speed device limiting you to about 10% of full 100Mbit link speed.