Mine also passed such testing while I was building the soldering station... however after a few days it failed without warning, and shorted Vin to Vout exactly as stated. And if you click the link, you'll see this was evidently a well-known fail at the time.
If I were you, I wouldn't trust that module to power anything I give a damn aboot.
mnem
*tzzzt*
I'll give it a soak test. Would a week running at 1.5A make you happy? I'm guessing you were running yours pretty hard if it was in a soldering iron station.
Seems the alignment isn't the best when you get close up...
I was running it a couple volts under max Vin, but small enough current draw it never got "hot to the touch" even running for extended periods. My point was aboot the failure mode; which, at the time, several others in this thread warned me was a known issue and suggested I was better off harvesting passives from the remaining ones rather than implementing them for anything.
Honestly, I mean no disparagement; I was just trying to Pay It Forward and save you the misery I suffered.
mnem
Ok, I set it up to run 14.4V on the i/p as that's the highest I'll likely use any of them at, the o/p is set at 5V and I'm loading it to 1600mA. It's been running for 30 minutes or so and all is tickety-boo.
The reg ic is at 67°C, the input diode 72°C, and the load resistors at 107°C. Hmm, cup of tea anyone..?
Oh, and all the hot parts are sitting in a big Pyrex bowl, just in case...
Of course, you won't know that it isn't one of the questionable ones until you deliberately push it to the point of failure. Oh, and enough of its brothers to create a statistically significant sample size.
mnem
What is the reasonable protection to get today for Winbloze? (certainly, the answer tomorrow is likely to be different...)
Microsofts own built-in one. And religious patching.
You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them.
I'm convinced that's what got me my 53132A cheaply - other people looked at the display being 'wrong' in the listing and passed it by, not realising that the apparent error was exactly what happens when a multiplexed display and camera shutter interact. That let it sit there for a few days rather than getting snapped up as it ought to have been. Mine came to a total of £400 plus change including carriage and import costs. Mind you, there was no way of anybody knowing from the listing that mine was going to come with the ultra stable oscillator option inside but disconnected and fully functional once it had a single tantalum cap replaced (now fully working and showing drift better than the data sheet spec.).
I may have a budget brand of mobile phone, but I have a good camera that provides a wealth of control over the various settings of the camera, ISO, shutter speed, Exposure, Focus mode and white balance and many more settings, so the above is not strictly correct.
Both my phones are budget ones, a Samsung J5(2016) and Huawei P Smart 2019, both were sub £200, and both have the same control over the camera, so yes, neither would ever replace a DSLR or a decent prosumer camera, but equally they are far more capable than what you seem to be implying.
Nah. You're inferring something that I didn't imply. In my experience shutter speed and aperture settings are absent on most phones or only accessible via third party apps. Not all, just most. I've certainly not had them on any of the camera phones I've had (using the native apps), from cheap to iPhone/iPad. What I did imply is that in the rare cases where they are present they are something that the average user neither finds nor considers using on a phone camera thus 'access to ... a thing of the past'.
Haha, well in that case you're as guilty as me, because what you said just now is not as you wrote it in the original, in which it reads like what I said
Anyway, let's not score brownie points against each other, as that is never my intention. What I did find intriguing from your last statement is about more perceived upmarket phones like the iPhone for instance don't have on their standard stock camera apps the functions that I have on my bog-standard bargain-basement phones using the native camera app. I can even do time-lapse photos as well as self-timers and time-lapse videos, whereas my iPad can only manage time-lapse videos. So it would seem that you do not always get more by buying the perceived market leading products.
What I was looking for is advice with real verifiable tangible benefits for having either kind of address that would make supplier A therefore worthy of a premium over supplier B.
Do you listen to radio via the internet and would it annoy you if once daily you'd be missing a few seconds of an interesting broadcast or if a programmed recording wouldn't start? This is the one reason I can think of for getting a fixed address. Maybe there are others.
Haha, well in that case you're as guilty as me, because what you said just now is not as you wrote it in the original, in which it reads like what I said
I said that I'd implied it. If I had actually written it in the original it couldn't have been
implied, innit?
Oh, come on C... are you deliberately tweaking my tail on this one...?
As always, context is everything.
The context you laid out was one of actually spending considerable money on having a scope cal'd. In that context, I agree there are definitely better ways to spend your money unless you are in some business where it needs to be cal'd for... reasons.
The context we were originally discussing is whether it is not worth considering the value of that already-paid-for cal on a scope that is in good nick and was bought at a bargain price, when deciding whether to part it out to maybe fix a scope of somewhat higher value and some better specs.
I think in that context, it is definitely worth considering.
mnem
No, no, I'm trying very hard not to, and to appear not to too. You say one thing, then you say it's exactly not what what you're saying. Context? I'm not ignoring it, I even restated what I understood it to be:
You were asking about the perceived value in the cal, as an additional factor to consider, or at least that's how you've presented it and that's all I'm commenting on.
If you're trying to be clear about what you're saying, saying "one thing" and then saying that, with context, spread back over several messages, not even included in the quoted string when you originally said "one thing", you meant exactly not "one thing", you're sewing lack of understanding from the very beginning.
I don't think it's too much to claim confusion when someone says "A" and then says they really meant "not A". If I were the writer, then I think I would have to claim the blame for lack of clarity there. Not trying to start an argument here, just saying you could have been a lot clearer in what you meant.
At the risk of being shot to pieces here, but to my mind, as has been pointed out, voltages the accuracy at best is 3%, even the cheapest DMM's manage way better than that, but to me the real advantage of a scope is the visualization of what is going with the signal and in many service manuals, it shows at various test points on a device what the signal should appear as and that for me is priceless.
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
Nope. Not getting sucked back into this; I barely escaped with my context intact.
mnem
...and I am outta heeere!!!
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
To be fair 2.5 digits is plenty for most measurements.
I shall now run away after tossing that hand grenade into a thread containing voltnuts
At the risk of being shot to pieces here, but to my mind, as has been pointed out, voltages the accuracy at best is 3%, even the cheapest DMM's manage way better than that, but to me the real advantage of a scope is the visualization of what is going with the signal and in many service manuals, it shows at various test points on a device what the signal should appear as and that for me is priceless.
My favourite example for this is the following story that happened to me years ago:
I had just converted a studio tape recorder from mono hollow state to a home-made stereo circuit with semiconductors. The circuit was meant for opamps type 709 which by the time weren't state of the art anymore so I thought it a clever idea to use NE5532 instead.
Once everything was completed and mounted, next step was adjusting the playback gain and equalisation. Out came the really expensive reference tape for 15 ips (a few hundred deutschmarks at the time) with the recorder connected to a AF voltmeter. The first pass looked ok but there should have been some room for improvement. Rewind and next pass. Funny, though, the frequency response showed yet more roll-off at the upper end. Cranked up the EQ to compensate, rewound the tape, next pass. Still more roll-off at the upper end. By then, the EQ pots were at max. Lots of head-scratching...
That's when I decided to heat up the scope and things instantly became devastatingly clear. With the much faster opamps the whole playback amp was oscillating like mad. So much that it slightly erased my reference tape via the playback head - a little more with each pass.
A few picofarads across the opamps cured the oscillation and the EQ worked as intended. Just my expensive reference tape was ruined.
My AF voltmeter has an ouput for a scope and I've never again done anything without watching the signal on the screen as well.
Haha, well in that case you're as guilty as me, because what you said just now is not as you wrote it in the original, in which it reads like what I said
I said that I'd implied it. If I had actually written it in the original it couldn't have been implied, innit?
Now you're tweaking my tail as well, in your original post you did actually write
"You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them."That to me means that people using a phone camera do not have access to controls like shutter speeds, aperture etc, which is just not true, most Android phones have that as standard.
What is the reasonable protection to get today for Winbloze? (certainly, the answer tomorrow is likely to be different...)
Microsofts own built-in one. And religious patching.
And
almost any browser
not offered by Microsoft, just to be reasonably certain it doesn't have unseen hooks into the underlying OS.
mnem
"it's the same as it ever was... same as it ever was..."
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
To be fair 2.5 digits is plenty for most measurements.
I shall now run away after tossing that hand grenade into a thread containing voltnuts
I've decided to try doing everything I can with the Fluke 27. It's 3200 counts. And I don't need a mallet for me IKEA assembly.
I wonder how long it's going to be before I have to dig something more competent out.
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
The
one measurement that I ever make on a scope with the intention of writing it down as any sort of end product in itself is one that is really quite hard to make on any other instrument that costs less than about £10k. That is DC-20MHz broadband voltage or current noise.
Luckily you can make that ±3% look much more respectable by writing it down as ±0.25dB.
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
To be fair 2.5 digits is plenty for most measurements.
I shall now run away after tossing that hand grenade into a thread containing voltnuts
I agree, as long as you mean the
last 2.5 digits - I don't really usually care about the leading 4-10 digits as long as they're the expected value.
Haha, well in that case you're as guilty as me, because what you said just now is not as you wrote it in the original, in which it reads like what I said
I said that I'd implied it. If I had actually written it in the original it couldn't have been implied, innit?
Now you're tweaking my tail as well, in your original post you did actually write "You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them."
That to me means that people using a phone camera do not have access to controls like shutter speeds, aperture etc, which is just not true, most Android phones have that as standard.
Oh FFS! Go and look up
implied and
inferred in a dictionary.
Honestly. An aside in a comment that was
actually about frequency meters and getting displays to look right in pictures is not worth of this level of literary criticism. If you want to dissect the exact deep meaning of what someone intended when they write something, go and sign up on a English Literature course at University. We seem to have blundered into your obsession with "my cheap gadget is just as good if not better than that Apple gadget over there".
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
To be fair 2.5 digits is plenty for most measurements.
I shall now run away after tossing that hand grenade into a thread containing voltnuts
To add insult to injury, for the high bandwidth scopes (like Keysight UXR) the effective number of bits can be as low as 5.something, making it a 1 1/2 digits meter at 110GHz. Keysight still claims it is useful.
Haha, well in that case you're as guilty as me, because what you said just now is not as you wrote it in the original, in which it reads like what I said
I said that I'd implied it. If I had actually written it in the original it couldn't have been implied, innit?
Now you're tweaking my tail as well, in your original post you did actually write "You need to select a relatively slow shutter speed. That's assuming one has a camera where one can actually do so, one of the downsides of most of the world using phone cameras nowadays is that access to any settings like shutter and aperture is a thing of the past for them."
That to me means that people using a phone camera do not have access to controls like shutter speeds, aperture etc, which is just not true, most Android phones have that as standard.
Oh FFS! Go and look up implied and inferred in a dictionary.
And now I'm going to back away gracefully because this is going nowhere with hairs being split to save faces...I'm gone...
Luckily you can make that ±3% look much more respectable by writing it down as ±0.25dB.
...or ±0.029 Neper.
Better. You get the job of writing the data sheets for my instrument product line.
Regarding the ongoing semantic argument (not the scope one)...
I agree fully. A 'scope is not a precision instrument. Most are only 8 bit. At risk of being obvious, thats basically the same as 21/2 digit meter. Time and frequency is better, but not much. Only reason to calibrate a 'scope is to comply with a quality process. Yes there are exceptions before somone suggests one.
For accurate measurements there are better, instruments.
The one measurement that I ever make on a scope with the intention of writing it down as any sort of end product in itself is one that is really quite hard to make on any other instrument that costs less than about £10k. That is DC-20MHz broadband voltage or current noise.
Luckily you can make that ±3% look much more respectable by writing it down as ±0.25dB.
Fluke 8920 8922 HP3404C or if you prefer analogue HP 3400. All these are thermal RMS meters.
Regarding the ongoing semantic argument (not the scope one)...
You are basically opening up an invitation for someone who doesn't know what syntax is and what semantics are (which in my experience is
every computer programmer ever [except the actual experienced compiler writers]) to start an argument with you that you meant syntax.