On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:41 PM, Raymond Domp Frank wrote:
I made a mistake in my earlier reply re. amirb's post.
If you look down this thread, I tried to say the same thing but somebodygot
pissed for some reason!Amirb, do you mean the part where I wrote " BTW, the repetition rate is
completely irrelevant for digital 'scopes"? I should add that it's as
irrelevant for analog 'scopes, apart from the fact that with the latter, trace
intensity suffers too much at lower repetition rates because of the lower duty
Benj3867 seems to know that higher frequencies than specified cannot be used
because the automatic routine cannot handle them.
no, no, of course not you, man!