Products > Test Equipment
True analog scopes
mawyatt:
Find it interesting that just the mention of the word "scope" in any context, brings out all the repeated opinions, arguments and such :wtf:
For someone that's planning on expanding their knowledge and creating income based upon such, then a more modern "scope" should be considered, since it's likely not to find older analog scopes in use at established labs, companies and universities.
Of course if it's just for home hobby use and "fooling around" then just about anything should prove useful, however will still stand by what we've said earlier that the wiser choice, even if it stretches one's budget, is a modern DSO.
A couple decades ago, one of the major discussions during presentations for securing large company investments (many $100K) for the university WAMI Labs was the students would be learning on some of the more modern equipment rather than the usual hand-me-downs that university labs had. Since these very students would soon become company engineering employees and need to learn how to use modern lab equipment, these WAMI engineers were initially more valuable since they required less "lab learning" and thus less initial company time/$ investment.
Simply they were a better bargain than ones without this WAMI lab experience, and more likely to get hired.
BTW much of the new lab equipment was donated by HP, Tektronix, R&S, Keithley, Anritsu and others, as they also bought into the program figuring when these "former students" were empowered with purchasing decisions, they would lean towards the equipment OEMs that supported their prior university lab experiences. Needless to say the program was highly successful and quickly copied throughout academia :-+
Best,
tggzzz:
--- Quote from: james_s on December 19, 2022, 08:23:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: tautech on December 19, 2022, 07:51:56 pm ---Those that haven't experienced modern equipment are excused for their ignorance as no longer is a scope just a scope but a LA, FRA, SA, Protocol analyser, Logger, FG and a remote capture instrument and all in a single small box at a single new instrument cost. One investment = most of an analysis lab.
How can even the experienced engineer not be seduced by all this capability or is it they are still living in another century ? Maybe all this technology in a single box blinds them. :-//
--- End quote ---
I prefer single purpose standalone instruments in almost every case. I have yet to be impressed with the experience of "Swiss army knife" style test equipment, too often it tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing particularly well.
--- End quote ---
Just so.
But it is less of an issue if you are only doing simple "low end" measurements, and/or being a field technician. I've usually been pushing the envelope in a lab, so it hasn't been relevant to me.
When one bit breaks, you have to at least consider junking the lot or going back to having multiple instruments.
You may only be able to configure it to be a single instrument at one time, which can be a problem when you need two instruments simultaneously. Plus there being weird restrictions/interactions about which subset of capabilities can used simultaneously.I
And for beginners multiple instruments increases the size of the learning curve.
tggzzz:
--- Quote from: mawyatt on December 19, 2022, 08:44:46 pm ---Find it interesting that just the mention of the word "scope" in any context, brings out all the repeated opinions, arguments and such :wtf:
For someone that's planning on expanding their knowledge and creating income based upon such, then a more modern "scope" should be considered, since it's likely not to find older analog scopes in use at established labs, companies and universities.
Of course if it's just for home hobby use and "fooling around" then just about anything should prove useful, however will still stand by what we've said earlier that the wiser choice, even if it stretches one's budget, is a modern DSO.
A couple decades ago, one of the major discussions during presentations for securing large company investments (many $100K) for the university WAMI Labs was the students would be learning on some of the more modern equipment rather than the usual hand-me-downs that university labs had. Since these very students would soon become company engineering employees and need to learn how to use modern lab equipment, these WAMI engineers were initially more valuable since they required less "lab learning" and thus less initial company time/$ investment.
Simply they were a better bargain than ones without this WAMI lab experience, and more likely to get hired.
BTW much of the new lab equipment was donated by HP, Tektronix, R&S, Keithley, Anritsu and others, as they also bought into the program figuring when these "former students" were empowered with purchasing decisions, they would lean towards the equipment OEMs that supported their prior university lab experiences. Needless to say the program was highly successful and quickly copied throughout academia :-+
Best,
--- End quote ---
I agree with that, have never said or implied therwise, and would emphasise the need to balance the cost of buying learning using equipment against the benefits.
In one example I'm familiar with, a division in a highly competent company spent the equivalent of 50 engineers annual salary on a piece of dev kit, simply to get to market 3 months earlier. Good choice in that case :)
tautech:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on December 19, 2022, 08:47:01 pm ---And for beginners multiple instruments increases the size of the learning curve.
--- End quote ---
Certainly and another argument for having multiple functionality in a single box.
This too requires a learning curve but the wise novice expects this and will purchase equipment with multiple capabilities for them to grow into as their skills and understanding develops.
We regularly have customers at all levels of experience selecting a single piece of equipment with LA, FRA, SA, Protocol analyser, Logger, FG and remote capture instrument capabilities and NOT expecting to fully understand the instrument until their skill develops.
Do you imply they are making foolhardy decisions ?
bdunham7:
--- Quote from: james_s on December 19, 2022, 08:23:44 pm ---I prefer single purpose standalone instruments in almost every case. I have yet to be impressed with the experience of "Swiss army knife" style test equipment, too often it tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing particularly well.
--- End quote ---
So a separate ohmmeter, ammeter, DC voltmeter and AC voltmeter then? :box:
I think you have to determine what the core function of the device is to see what is appropriate to package with it and what isn't. A DMM is a DC voltmeter at it's core, so it makes sense to add on current shunts, a current source and an AC converter because those other instruments as standalones would still need the DC voltmeter function.
Where the CRO/DSO debate is concerned, I think the two are fundamentally different instruments at their core. The CRO is a fast chart recorder or vector display depending on the setup while a DSO is a really fast low resolution sampling voltmeter. It makes no obvious sense to 'add' something like spectrum analysis to a CRO because you'd really only be using the CRT as a display. But if you have a high-rate sampling device like a DSO, then you can do all sorts of interesting things with the data without adding any hardware and that makes perfect sense to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version