Products > Test Equipment
LaPOD: Low cost Logic Analyzer probe for MSO5k, DHO900 and more!
oliv3r:
Oh, lets do some render pr0n too :p (which I couldn't do in the previous post; 10 attachment limit :S)
S. Petrukhin:
Congratulations! I have added a link to the separated topics. :-DMM
oliv3r:
I've done a small tweaks to the files, rotated the pods, so they fit better on paper, switched to kibot 1.6.4 for the pipeline, bunch of erc/drc errors I overlooked. Things are looking really good now. I'll merge this to master, and tag the first release candidate so I can get some PCB's ordered.
Hopefully UK comes along again with some cool 3D designs for the housings :)
I do have to still do a few other PCB's (wanna do one big LCSC order for parts, and need some parts for measurements before ordering PCB's. OTH, they are so cheap, might just order the PCB's anyway ... we'll see.
S. Petrukhin:
My humble opinion about using HDMI connectors.
They are very bulky and, if you use industrial cables, they are heavy.
As a result, we get a large and solid lever on the adapter in the sight to break and pull it out. It may be accidental.
Perhaps Mini-HDMI is more convenient.
But why use HDMI if LVDS works great on a simple flat cable?
After all, the main idea of the probe is to convert a direct signal for transmission over a well-stable differential pair.
If you wanted to divide the 16 inputs into parts, which is reasonable, then flat cables of smaller width and IDC connectors would be quite practical.
And yet, maybe you didn't notice, but the guys at Rigol didn't care about the equal length of the conductors and even put LVDS terninators on the wrong side in the probe, and not in the scope - they discussed it. But it works. :-//
The minuscule differences that arise are very far beyond the scope resolution.
You will get a greater impact from the capacity of connecting the probe to the circuit under study.
We have a proverb: the skin is not worth the dressing. No matter how beautiful your shoes are, they will get dirty on a dirty road. :)
oliv3r:
Thanks for your feedback! It is much appreciated :p
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on February 03, 2024, 08:01:32 pm ---My humble opinion about using HDMI connectors.
They are very bulky and, if you use industrial cables, they are heavy.
As a result, we get a large and solid lever on the adapter in the sight to break and pull it out. It may be accidental.
Perhaps Mini-HDMI is more convenient.
--- End quote ---
Indeed, which is why there is the mini-HDMI variant. But getting mini-hdmi - mini-hdmi cables is probably very expensive/hard to get. I was thinking of even using micro-hdmi, but those connectors are very hard to properly route, due to the pin-pitch, and also don't have through-hole mechnical bits, to keep them in place.
But not sure if I get your thing on 'industrial HDMI connectors'. Why? Nobody is using industrial IDC connectors on any of the pod designs? :) So 'normal' HDMI cables are not so bulky, are cheap and are shielded. But a simple flatcable is enough! Yes it is. The fact that they are shielded is a bonus, not a requirement. What other common, reusable connectors do we have? The thought of using IDE connectors even crossed my mind :p but 40/80 pins is too much, and who has those still :)
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on February 03, 2024, 08:01:32 pm ---But why use HDMI if LVDS works great on a simple flat cable?
After all, the main idea of the probe is to convert a direct signal for transmission over a well-stable differential pair.
--- End quote ---
Sure, but now you have a cable designed for this. isn't HDMI "just LVDS" signal as well? If LVDS is so amazing, why is HDMI shielded? And again, what other convinient connectors do we have? USB-C is an option, but the reversibility is actually at your disadvantage here imo. And lets be fair, the IDC connector is really just butt-ugly :) But sure, I could have gone with those flat cable 'serial' IDC connectors (x4). But still a bigger pain to deal with for a lot of 'slightly less DYI' people :)
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on February 03, 2024, 08:01:32 pm ---If you wanted to divide the 16 inputs into parts, which is reasonable, then flat cables of smaller width and IDC connectors would be quite practical.
--- End quote ---
Yeah but I also don't like the 'robustness' of these flatcables. They are a bit too flappy. I'm sure they'll hold for years of course.
And yet, maybe you didn't notice, but the guys at Rigol didn't care about the equal length of the conductors and even put LVDS terninators on the wrong side in the probe, and not in the scope - they discussed it. But it works. :-//
The minuscule differences that arise are very far beyond the scope resolution.
[/quote]
I'm fully aware. Also, the traces inside the scope ARE length matched :) what I saw in the x-rays anyway. So whoever did the probes didn't care, wasn't aware. And indeed, the difference is miniscule. But, if you build something, build it with pride. Doing length-matched traces was a fun excersize. Sure it was frustrating at times. But it's a labor of love after all :) Might as well polish it a little bit. It's not unheard of to over engineer things :) and it doesn't cost anything extra.
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on February 03, 2024, 08:01:32 pm ---You will get a greater impact from the capacity of connecting the probe to the circuit under study.
We have a proverb: the skin is not worth the dressing. No matter how beautiful your shoes are, they will get dirty on a dirty road. :)
--- End quote ---
You can keep polishing a turd, but it will never become shiny :)
Just kidding, we pride ourselves in what we do, do we not? :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version