| Products > Test Equipment |
| New Scope Demoboard from Batronix |
| << < (54/65) > >> |
| Grandchuck:
Changed the Batronix board to a low glitch frequency. Now it takes a while for them to appear. With a glitch frequency of 0.2 Hz, one trial took a full minute for the first one to show up. |
| Njk:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on March 21, 2024, 12:07:20 pm ---So with good analytical tools, it is not about staring into the screen waiting for something to happen. It is about configuring the scope to do the hunting for you, and automating tedious work. And then having an insight that this, this and this parameter seems to be "wondering around" you can tailor triggers to catch it "red handed" and try to correlate anomaly with other parts of the system to try and catch what causes it. Advantage of this approach is that you quickly start not only to know "something" is wrong, but you start to analyze, understand and quantify signal qualities from the start. --- End quote --- True, but also the other considerations (just to be fair): - It's virtually impossible to construct a trigger that will catch every particular event in the real application case; - One can give many examples when all the advanced capabilities are absolutely necessary, but other one can give at least equal number of examples when all that wonders are entirely optional; - The instrument that I don't know is useless for me. So more overhead by the learning curve, which does not depend on application; - The cost of really advanced instrument can be really high. No way to afford it without having a lot of associated obligations. Imagine a young graduate who is deeply indebted by tuition fees, certification, licensing, etc., so he have to pay his debt during all his career. Not a slavery, but servitude seems a correct word. A modern method for causing an individual to work hard; - In general, reliance on an advanced tool that you can't DIY weakens you because that increases your dependency on a service provided by other people. |
| 2N3055:
--- Quote from: Njk on March 21, 2024, 06:00:36 pm --- --- Quote from: 2N3055 on March 21, 2024, 12:07:20 pm ---So with good analytical tools, it is not about staring into the screen waiting for something to happen. It is about configuring the scope to do the hunting for you, and automating tedious work. And then having an insight that this, this and this parameter seems to be "wondering around" you can tailor triggers to catch it "red handed" and try to correlate anomaly with other parts of the system to try and catch what causes it. Advantage of this approach is that you quickly start not only to know "something" is wrong, but you start to analyze, understand and quantify signal qualities from the start. --- End quote --- True, but also the other considerations (just to be fair): - It's virtually impossible to construct a trigger that will catch every particular event in the real application case; - One can give many examples when all the advanced capabilities are absolutely necessary, but other one can give at least equal number of examples when all that wonders are entirely optional; - The instrument that I don't know is useless for me. So more overhead by the learning curve, which does not depend on application; - The cost of really advanced instrument can be really high. No way to afford it without having a lot of associated obligations. Imagine a young graduate who is deeply indebted by tuition fees, certification, licensing, etc., so he have to pay his debt during all his career. Not a slavery, but servitude seems a correct word. A modern method for causing an individual to work hard; - In general, reliance on an advanced tool that you can't DIY weakens you because that increases your dependency on a service provided by other people. --- End quote --- I'm a bit confused as what are you trying to say, honestly. All the advanced tools I mention (except WaveScan) are actually present on this inexpensive scope. That is why I think it is really a game changer. They don't exist on Rigols, some not even on many R&S and Keysight scopes. And I also mentioned that WaveScan, while very nice and fancy and time saver is not strictly necessary. It merely automates manual process. I think you misunderstood what I meant by advanced tools. I didn't mean automated protocol verification applications and such. I call those specialized tools and they are not necessary most of the time. They are mostly used in industrial environment when you want to make sure process of verification is standardized, and when time saved testing and creating documentation will pay off. As for triggers, I'm pretty sure you can not make single trigger that will catch all possible anomalies. But first you analyze signal and then you go through set (several) of triggers and verifications, that together serve to verify all practical combinations. As for "servitude" and depending on advanced tools... That is slippery slope, thinking like that. That is my opinion. I understand your meaning (as for instance Altium users might sympathize with the sentiment, strongly), but how long you can go before you are simply creating unnecessary problems for yourself. Shall we go back to pen and paper, if you get what I mean? Thank you for interesting post. Best, |
| ebastler:
I understood njk to mainly say that there still is value in looking at the waveform (with the help of persistence, color grading etc.). And I tend to agree; it is often the fastest way to get a first idea of what's wrong. Let's stick with the sine wave example from the demo board: If you didn't know whether it suffers from spikes or dropouts (at whichever levels), or maybe from sporadic phase jitter, I would argue that you can spend a lot of time thinking about the right set of measurements and histograms which will catch and discriminate the various types of potential glitches. While visually most of them will be very easy to make out -- maybe with the help of peak detection to get very short spikes. Those devices are called oscilloscopes for a reason -- in addition to all the analytics, they are pretty handy for looking at wiggly lines. ;) |
| 2N3055:
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 21, 2024, 06:47:31 pm ---I understood njk to mainly say that there still is value in looking at the waveform (with the help of persistence, color grading etc.). And I tend to agree; it is often the fastest way to get a first idea of what's wrong. Let's stick with the sine wave example from the demo board: If you didn't know whether it suffers from spikes or dropouts (at whichever levels), or maybe from sporadic phase jitter, I would argue that you can spend a lot of time thinking about the right set of measurements and histograms which will catch and discriminate the various types of potential glitches. While visually most of them will be very easy to make out -- maybe with the help of peak detection to get very short spikes. Those devices are called oscilloscopes for a reason -- in addition to all the analytics, they are pretty handy for looking at wiggly lines. ;) --- End quote --- Well of course you are looking at the screen. For sure you're not looking into your belly button.... But just staring at waveform is VERY limited in what you can do with it. Trick is to reduce amount of just staring by getting insight into signal. Of course, if you have something happening every 100 periods, that you will catch quickly just by watching. Or shall I say you will notice something is there. Then you still have to correlate that thing you saw into physical world, to the reason why anomaly is there. It is not "stare at your signal". More like "know your signal". Of course , for obvious things, it will be, well, obvious.... |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |