| Products > Test Equipment |
| Tektronix Arbitrary Function Generators (and Rigol too) |
| << < (4/6) > >> |
| electronic_eel:
--- Quote from: Electro Fan on November 09, 2014, 09:29:03 pm ---The recall of CVS and parameter files is not supported. Can anyone with a Rigol 2000 confirm whether a CSV file can be loaded via USB into the scope and then display the waveform from the CSV? Thx --- End quote --- You can't load a CSVs into the Rigol scopes, that is true. But as far as I understood you, you want to export the CSV from the scope and import it into a arb generator. The arb generators allow importing CSVs, otherwise the arb function would be nearly useless. So that limitation of the scope shouldn't be a problem for you. |
| Electro Fan:
--- Quote from: electronic_eel on November 10, 2014, 07:57:31 pm --- --- Quote from: Electro Fan on November 09, 2014, 09:29:03 pm ---The recall of CVS and parameter files is not supported. Can anyone with a Rigol 2000 confirm whether a CSV file can be loaded via USB into the scope and then display the waveform from the CSV? Thx --- End quote --- You can't load a CSVs into the Rigol scopes, that is true. But as far as I understood you, you want to export the CSV from the scope and import it into a arb generator. The arb generators allow importing CSVs, otherwise the arb function would be nearly useless. So that limitation of the scope shouldn't be a problem for you. --- End quote --- Yes, correct - thank you and thanks to the other posters for talking this through. I think the summary so far is: With a non-Rigol arb generator it is possible (of course) to send the waveform from the generator to the (Rigol) scope. A waveform on the scope can in turn be exported to CSV and then imported into the arb generator, no doubt. Based on Gertjan's post, with a Rigol arb generator it is possible to not only send the waveform from the generator to the (Rigol) scope (of course) but it is also possible to send the waveform directly back to the Rigol arb generator (bypassing the CSV export/import steps). In my case, since I know I can generate rough approximations of the desired ASCII waveforms on a PC - by starting with ASCII text and then sending the text from the PC to the Rigol scope (which displays the text as waveforms) it might make more sense to go with a Rigol arb generator; I could send the text from the PC to the scope and then send the waveforms directly from the scope into the generator where the waveforms could then be modified as needed. This still assumes that either the modifications could be made from the front panel (which is questionable for long ASCII strings), or the Rigol software might be just barely useable enough to make the modifications, or I'm back to writing software (which is my distant 3rd choice; I like and appreciate good software, I just don't write software beyond the very basics |O). Thus far the choices appear to be either a Rigol DG1032Z or DG1062Z with so-so Rigol software, or the Tektronix 2021 with Arb Express. The Rigol arb gens offer longer arbs, 2 channels, and some other performance and feature advantages including the ability to talk directly to my Rigol scope. The Tek 2021 offers a traditionally thoughtful Tektronix equipment User Interface (almost always a very good thing in my admittedly limited experience) and good software but only 1 channel and no ability to directly import waveforms from a Rigol scope. So, the questions are: 1) how advantageous is it to be able to send waveforms directly from the scope to the generator (without CSV export/import), and 2) is the software going to be off the shelf or self-made |O. (I downloaded the Rigol software and it probably isn't going to get confused with anything made by Apple or Microsoft. Tektronix Arb Express is pretty nice but with a Tek arb generator it looks like I'd lose the ability to send the waveforms directly from the scope to the arb gen.... decisions, decisions.) Thanks in advance for any more thoughts/suggestions. EF |
| Mark_O:
--- Quote from: Electro Fan on November 11, 2014, 02:52:27 am ---In my case, since I know I can generate rough approximations of the desired ASCII waveforms on a PC - by starting with ASCII text and then sending the text from the PC to the Rigol scope (which displays the text as waveforms) it might make more sense to go with a Rigol arb generator; I could send the text from the PC to the scope and then send the waveforms directly from the scope into the generator where the waveforms could then be modified as needed. This still assumes that either the modifications could be made from the front panel (which is questionable for long ASCII strings), or the Rigol software might be just barely useable enough to make the modifications, or I'm back to writing software (which is my distant 3rd choice; I like and appreciate good software, I just don't write software beyond the very basics |O). --- End quote --- EF, I'm still not completely clear what your actual purpose is for this exercise. I assume, from what I've read, that you'd like to do some sort of noise-susceptibility/immunity testing on RS-232 links, decoding partially corrupted ASCII strings on your Rigol, and seeing how they're interpreted on some serial receiving device(s). So you're spending a lot of time to generate, capture, hand-modify, then retransmit those bit streams. If that's the case, it just seems to me there are easier ways to skin that cat. You could just build a small piece of hardware to stick at the output of a PC serial port, that allows you to inject bursts of noise (or whatever type or duration you like), or trim the signal amplitude (to measure detection thresholds), or gate the signal level to create runt pulses, etc. Or limit the slew-rate to narrow the pulse-width, and so on. Something simple like this (serial in/serial out) shouldn't be hard to build, but a whole lot easier to use than what you've been proposing. And a lot less expensive to boot. Perhaps you could clarify your requirements/motivations a bit more? If you're just trying to concoct some reason to justify getting an Arb gen, then that's OK too. ;) |
| Electro Fan:
--- Quote from: Mark_O on November 11, 2014, 06:12:40 am --- EF, I'm still not completely clear what your actual purpose is for this exercise. I assume, from what I've read, that you'd like to do some sort of noise-susceptibility/immunity testing on RS-232 links, decoding partially corrupted ASCII strings on your Rigol, and seeing how they're interpreted on some serial receiving device(s). So you're spending a lot of time to generate, capture, hand-modify, then retransmit those bit streams. If you're just trying to concoct some reason to justify getting an Arb gen, then that's OK too. ;) --- End quote --- Mark_O - your always good analytic skills have hit the mark again. :-+ I'm just experimenting with (as you say) "immunity testing on RS-232 links" - looking to see at what thresholds for various parameters decoding works or doesn't. And to top it off, you hit the very center of the issue - I am concocting some reason to justify getting an Arb gen. :-+ :-+ Seriously, you hit it squarely on both notions - but I would like to invest in a tool that lasts awhile before it's superceded by something markedly better for the same price or less. If Rigol could just add some Arb Express quality software to the DG1000Z models it would be an easy decision; as an alternative the Tek 2021 is a thinker. On a related question, anyone out there able to confirm that USB-TMC works not just on the very newest Rigol scopes but on a garden variety DS2072? I saw some threads that indicated USB-TMC might not have been completely dialed-in for a DS072, or vice versa. It would be great to hear from anyone with a DG1000 and a DS2000 who has used USB-TMC to move waveforms from the scope to the generator. Thanks, EF |
| lern01:
--- Quote from: w2aew on November 09, 2014, 01:46:09 am ---I use my AFG3000 all of the time. Of course, I work for Tek, but the AFG3000 I own personally. The "C" versions include a newer uP which boots faster, and features an active matrix display which is a vast improvement over the passive matrix displays on the non-C models. The viewing angle was pretty limited on the non-C, but is great on the C models. The ARBExpress software is very handy. If you have a Tek scope, it can help you easily pull a waveform from the scope, modify it if you like, then push it to the ARB waveform memory in the AFG for playback. The AFG2000's lack the modulation and burst features of the 3000, which I've found very handy too. The large display and the larger array of dedicated buttons mean that there are fewer menus to navigate when setting things up. Sure, the basic design has been around a while, but it's ease of use and performance are still very good. Lots of nice features like being able to adjust phase between two channels, as well as being able to have the two channels doing completely different things. In the end, it's a personal choice and you'll have to choose what you'll be most comfortable with in terms of features, ease of use, price, availability, performance, etc. --- End quote --- I also have an AFG3101, a high-power patch resistor burned, see the picture below, can you tell me how much resistance value? In addition, error is reported in diagnosis and calibration. The error code is diagnosis: 2303, calibration: 1103. Hope you can help. Thank you very much! |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |