But again, you may need the fastest sampling rate so as not to have that
bounce fall between the samples with the digital scope.
Chuck, KE9UW
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amps-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 13:07 PM
> To: amps@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Advice on instruments for ham use
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:41:01 -0500, bill weinel wrote:
>
> >As others have stated, I would go for a good quality analog scope over a
> > digital scope. Digital scopess tend to be harder to fix. Also I don't
> >think digital scopes provide as good a picture of whats happening in an
> >analog signal as an analog scope does. This is due to the
> >sampling/averaging nature of the digital scope. So unless you can afford
> >to purchase one with a very high sampling rate, I would go for a good
> >quality analog scope.
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> To expound a little further on analog vs digital:
>
> Analog scopes are fine for a repeating waveform such as RF, or one
> which changes relatively slowly such as an audio frequency voice
> trace.
>
> Digital scopes are best for a one-time event which is either too fast
> or too slow for the human eye to capture well. One example would be
> capturing a relay or switch contact bounce. They also (usually) have
> the ability to store and print out individual traces.
>
> Each has their place, but for amateur radio purposes, an analog type
> is probably adequate, as well as easier to fix and cheaper to buy.
>
> --
> Bill W6WRT
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.3 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|