Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- From: "Arie de Muynck" <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:57:01 +0100
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fmlpjp$hoa$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:20:16 -0600) it happened "amdx"
<amdx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in <c6b88$478e657c$18d6b40c$15711@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Multiplying in your head is easy with the numbers 1, 2 or 5 but
1.28, 2.56 or 5.12 would tax my patience and make me question
why I bought that @$^*@ binary scope.
3.3 units x 200mv is a lot easier than 4.125 x 160mv.
Just my one, two or four cents worth. :-)
Mike
Very wise words.
Yes, but the idea is also to read voltages from the digital display
(as 1.55Vpp for example).
In such a case one could even use continuous variable gain to set
sensitivity.
I assume you will need to multiply values somewhere in the chain by a
calibration value anyway, so the input attentuators can be loosely coupled
with the readout steps. The gain switching could do 1/2/4/8/16/... while the
display would readout 1/2/5/10 sequence. For each display scale setting you
would use the best available gain range.
Arie de Muijnck
.
- References:
- Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- From: amdx
- Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- Prev by Date: Re: computers
- Next by Date: Re: effect of shot noise on measurement
- Previous by thread: Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- Next by thread: Re: Scope attenuators 1,2,5, why bother?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|