Date   

Re: 2465B Branding Question

Ken, WA2LBI
 

Tony,

FYI, Tektronix produced a number of 2465 model "packages" that included
certain options. I have 2465DVS and it has a DMM.

*Model Includes options*
2465 CTS 9, 10, 22
2465 DMS 1, 9, 10, 22
2465 DVS 1, 5, 9, 10, 22
2465A CT 9, 10, 22
2465A DM 1, 9, 10, 22
2465A DV 1, 5, 9, 10, 22
2465B CT 9, 10, 22
2465B DM 1, 9, 10, 22
2465B DV 1, 5, 9, 10, 22



Ken
WA2LBI

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:03 PM Tony Fleming <czecht@gmail.com> wrote:

My scope is 2465 DMS and it has DMM also - not an add-on.
Someone said that mine is 2465 CTS (but I think all CRT scopes can be
called that).
As per catalog Tektronix put out, I could not find my model either!
But there are many catalogs that are incomplete, I think.
If your scope works, the manual for 2465B should be the same.
Also, look at the back of your scope and find a silver tape that has
options printed on it with small holes punched out, if you have that
option.
That is how mine has options 1, 9, 10 and GPIB port.
See if on the back is any other "model number".

I'm looking for the software that would communicate with my computer - does
anyone have the software and or manual for it?
Also, I have a port for P6407 - I also need as much help with that and
software that, I assume, it will need.

Tony

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:45 PM Dave Daniel <kc0wjn@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

I have a Trektronix 2465B that has the DMM option physically present.
Looking at the TekWki web page for the 2465B, I see photos that show
this 'scope branded as "2465BVD". My 'scope is branded as "2465B".

The DVM does not appear to have been an add-on.

Can anyone explain how a 2465B with the DMM option would not be branded
as a 2465BDV?

Thanks

DaveD








Re: Calibration and full checkout needed - Tek 7000 series

nonIonizing EMF
 

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 03:39 PM, Dave Daniel wrote:


the ultimate source of the standard instruments used
From what the 067-0587-02 manual states on pg.5-3 under "Notes" the use of NSB, or now day NIST, traceable standards for the frequency response as the ultimate source.

Wondering what that SRM or whatever is called is as well as is for the other test requirements and test equipment?

Is there a NIST reference that is in general someone is aware of or otherwise?

Thanks in advance.


Re: My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00 Cable has been REVISED

Reginald Beardsley
 

Thank you all for the compliments. This is slightly off topic, but I think the context makes it useful.

My major project for the next 2-3 years is FOSS DSO FW for COTS Zynq and Cyclone V based instruments. I bought my 11801 so I could measure bit skew across various FIR and IIR filter topologies, It's a long slog getting set up, but I'm getting there. Not helped though by new toys like the 8566B which came yesterday. Or the 7x14 Chinese mini-lathe I bought to make go/no-go gauges for checking RF connectors. Teaching that to hold 0.0001" tolerances will be a chore. Doable, but time consuming. And first I have to fix the damage UPS did.

I started to work on building a rack from some scrap angle which had been hastily dumped in the drive to my shop. After carrying the 2nd load to the concrete part of the drive to wash it off I reached down to find a ft long copperhead making threatening moves not far from my hand. Fortunately it was not close enough to strike, so I proceeded to kill it. I don't mind snakes, but poisonous ones close to houses are bad news.

I've bought an FT-991A and an FT-818ND and hope eventually to get around to getting licensed and an antenna put up. But my real passion is T&M.

My frustration 30 years ago trying to do RF work without basic instruments or any chance of access to them is still palpable. So my biggest interest is cheap alternatives to expensive gear. I'll turn 66 in 2 weeks. In the last 18 months or so I've spent about $15K on old HP and Tek gear. I now have a lab that would have cost well over $200K 30 years ago. I feel incredibly lucky to have it. My sole bad experience was an SD-32 which came with an SMA F-F adapter soldered to the 2.4 mm input. I got full credit on the return today.

I'd much rather be working in the oil industry, but the work I did is only economic if oil is over $100/bbl. So I have no hope of ever working again. But if life hands you a lemon, it's time to look for lemonade recipes. So time to buy the bench of my dreams and get serious about electronics.

I'd thought of doing the TDR VNA program before I bought the 11801, but once I got that I was absolutely bewitched. The software is trivial to write, but there is a huge amount of stuff you can do just looking at the TDR trace. I'm reluctant to make pronouncements until I've actually verified the derivations. That will be painful. I was looking at a text by Robinson and Treitel, the stars of Norbert Wiener's GAG and rather befuddled by it. The depressing part is all the way through I checked off the equations as I verified them. So I *really* did understand that notation once upon a time. But over time you start using other notation for various reasons. The concepts don't change, but it's hard to double check something if the notation is not familiar.

Joel Dunsmore's book on VNA measurements impressed upon me how foreign the time domain is to many EEs when working in RF.

You really can't go past the BW of a DSO the way you could with an analog instrument. They've already gone too far. Keysight is selling 750 MHz DSOs as 1 GHz DSOs as is pretty much everyone else so far as I have seen. That and all the bugs is the motivation for the DSO FW project.

Spectrum flattening of the system response is the cornerstone of the work by GAG, the Wiener inverse filter, aka prediction error filter. Sadly in seismic processing shops it is often done improperly. When I started with Amoco I got concerned that what we were doing was not correct. So I called Sven Treitel at the Tulsa research lab and asked him. He said that my understanding was correct. What we were doing was wrong. And remarked, "Sometimes the prophet is not heeded in his own country."

For the sake of the wider audience I'm going to do the posts on EEVblog, but this and the HPAK list are much more congenial and more the sort of people I'm accustomed to working with. So I'd like you to hold my feet to the fire if I explain something badly.

I've worked for 7 oil companies, 6 of which no longer exist. I swear it's not my fault. Every place I worked it took about 6 months to learn the local jargon. When you're switching from time to frequency with each sentence it gets messy and everyone develops a local shorthand to save time.

The formulation for going from TDR to VNA is:

Collect multiple reflection events from an impulsive or square wave source

Window the reflection segments

Phase shift each window so the phases match

Sum the time domain traces

Fourier transform

Compute magnitude and phase

QED sort of...

You have to account for losses due to reflections from previous interfaces. Dunsmore calls this "the masking effect". There are a number of other details which one can run afoul of. As I have the 8753B and 11801 to compare the results from a 200 MHz Instek 8 bit DSO and a 100 MHz Owon 12 bit DSO using Leo's signal sources I'll be able to do good demonstrations of the finer details. There are a lot of retired EEs with top grade skills on this and the HPAK list. You are my referees of choice.

I'm not big on cyber space. I much preferred having the Stanford PhD across the hall wander in my office and start scribbling on my white board. Not because they were better company. I just like face to face better. But I live in rural Arkansas. There aren't many people like that to be found in a town of 7,000. So yu are all very important to me.

So again, thank you and...

Have Fun!
Reg


Re: 475A with High +110 rail

Harvey White
 

On Wed, 01 May 2019 08:31:39 -0700, you wrote:

Harvey,

That is another critical factor, one that I took into serious consideration. I used carbon comp resistors only as a temporary measure, simply to test the rest of the system, a "proof of concept" if you will. The ones I used were 5% accuracy, so way too little precision for the job. This was evidenced by the pair having a "calculated value" of 60K and an actual resistance measured at 58.8K, so still a ways off from the desired 60.4K (+/-1%).
Once you find a carbon comp resistor of the exact value, well, it's
still the exact value until it drifts.


It was simply not worth the time to try to come up with 2,3 or 4 carbon comps that theoretically could have been grouped to give the 60.4k that was specified. Much easier to just buy the right parts and fix it permanently and correctly.
Agreed. Worth the time and effort to do it right.

The repair also looks more professional as a major benefit. I have been buying Metal film resistors, whenever possible, since they do not cost that much more, they are more stable and more reliable. Thanks for your comment.
Glad to help. I use metal film for precision, and frankly, have not
replaced all that many carbon comp resistors. They generally get
replaced by film resistors since that's what I normally bought.

Harvey


Re: 2465B Branding Question

Tony Fleming
 

My scope is 2465 DMS and it has DMM also - not an add-on.
Someone said that mine is 2465 CTS (but I think all CRT scopes can be
called that).
As per catalog Tektronix put out, I could not find my model either!
But there are many catalogs that are incomplete, I think.
If your scope works, the manual for 2465B should be the same.
Also, look at the back of your scope and find a silver tape that has
options printed on it with small holes punched out, if you have that option.
That is how mine has options 1, 9, 10 and GPIB port.
See if on the back is any other "model number".

I'm looking for the software that would communicate with my computer - does
anyone have the software and or manual for it?
Also, I have a port for P6407 - I also need as much help with that and
software that, I assume, it will need.

Tony

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:45 PM Dave Daniel <kc0wjn@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

I have a Trektronix 2465B that has the DMM option physically present.
Looking at the TekWki web page for the 2465B, I see photos that show
this 'scope branded as "2465BVD". My 'scope is branded as "2465B".

The DVM does not appear to have been an add-on.

Can anyone explain how a 2465B with the DMM option would not be branded
as a 2465BDV?

Thanks

DaveD






2465B Branding Question

Dave Daniel
 

All,

I have a Trektronix 2465B that has the DMM option physically present.  Looking at the TekWki web page for the 2465B, I see photos that show this 'scope branded as "2465BVD".  My 'scope is branded as "2465B".

The DVM does not appear to have been an add-on.

Can anyone explain how a 2465B with the DMM option would not be branded as a 2465BDV?

Thanks

DaveD


Re: Calibration and full checkout needed - Tek 7000 series

Dave Daniel
 

Yes, that has always been my question. I had my 2465B calibrated a few years ago by another forum member and have relied on that to provide reasonably accurate relative measurement comparisons with all of my other (uncalibrated)  'scopes, but seeing as it is all relative to the ultimate source of the standard instruments used, it's kind of a guess. I'm always reminded of the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" which means, more or less, "who guards the guards".

Re standardizers, one only needs the one that matches the bandwidth of the 'scope being calibrated. IIRC, a -01 is sufficient for all 400 MHz and 500 MHz 'scopes; the -00 is for 250 MHz 'scopes and the -02 is for, basically, the 7104. TekWiki is your friend.

$77 for a standardizer is a really good deal, assuming it works (and maybe even if it doesn't word but can be repaired).

DaveD

On 5/1/2019 6:15 PM, Richard Solomon wrote:
And who calibrates the Calibrator ?

And so, on it goes ....

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:13 PM David Berlind <david@berlind.org> wrote:

With four 7000 series scopes in my lab, I've been patiently waiting for
a 067-0587-00,01, or 02 signal standardizer for about a year now and I
finally grabbed one today. They've been going for pretty big money (worth
more than the scope itself) but I managed to snag it for $77 (with
shipping) off of eBay.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-067-0587-01-signal-standardizer-calibration-fixture-for-7000-serie/312578936230

My one concern of course is that it works and doesn't need some form of
rehabilitation.

I will soon find out.


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:13 AM Harvey White <madyn@dragonworks.info>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:47:26 -0700, you wrote:

Hi All,

I need one, good working scope to get started on repairing the other 30
or so scopes around here. I have a multitude of Tek 7000 frames to
choose
from but I think the 7904 (or 7904A) is a good place to start. Once
that's
working + cal'ed I can at least troubleshoot and maybe repair the
others.
Where can I get one professionally calibrated in the greater Detroit
area? I can drive a fair distance, but I'm scared to ship. I've had two
7934's, a 7834, and a 7704A crushed in separate shipping mishaps.

Can't help you there, I'm in the southeast. However...
Also...which plug ins are recommended to cal for building my golden
scope? I have a collection...

The typical plugins for a 7904 (and that's a good choice, IMHO) are at
least one if not two 7A26, and a 7B92A (which I happen to like). If
you want the flexibility of two sweep plugins, the 7B80 and 7B85 will
do. If you have a 7103/4 and a 7B10 and 7B15, you could use them but
the sweep is not calibrated at the highest frequencies, but those
could be moved over to the 7103/4 when needed.

For things you'd want:

067-0587-01 signal standardizer. The 01 is intended for 500 mhz
scopes, the 00 is for lower bandwidth, and the 02 is for the 1GHz
bandwidth scopes. Needed to keep the mainframes all agreeing with
each other as well as provides some nice linearity and gain signals.
You could use the 00, but it wouldn't allow you to check out the
frequency response to the limit of the scope's bandwidth for higher
bandwidth scopes.

PG506/TG501 SG503/SG504 TM500 plugins that provide calibration
signals for vertical and timebase checking, as well as frequency
response. Those will do any scope. The signal standardizer is
specifically for 7000 series mainframes.

You could also go with a CG501 (TM500) or a CG5001 (TM5000) module
with the appropriate frame. Note that the CG series may need a
specific head to supply the right signals. Those heads may be
difficult to find.

My favorite (depending) setup in a 7904 is a 7A26 (or 7A24 if I need
more bandwidth and can tolerate a 50 ohm input plugin), a 7D12 with an
M2 (sampling) module, a 7D15 counter, and a 7B92A sweep.

Harvey








Re: Calibration and full checkout needed - Tek 7000 series

Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz@...>
 

And who calibrates the Calibrator ?

And so, on it goes ....

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:13 PM David Berlind <david@berlind.org> wrote:

With four 7000 series scopes in my lab, I've been patiently waiting for
a 067-0587-00,01, or 02 signal standardizer for about a year now and I
finally grabbed one today. They've been going for pretty big money (worth
more than the scope itself) but I managed to snag it for $77 (with
shipping) off of eBay.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-067-0587-01-signal-standardizer-calibration-fixture-for-7000-serie/312578936230

My one concern of course is that it works and doesn't need some form of
rehabilitation.

I will soon find out.


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:13 AM Harvey White <madyn@dragonworks.info>
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:47:26 -0700, you wrote:

Hi All,

I need one, good working scope to get started on repairing the other 30
or so scopes around here. I have a multitude of Tek 7000 frames to
choose
from but I think the 7904 (or 7904A) is a good place to start. Once
that's
working + cal'ed I can at least troubleshoot and maybe repair the
others.

Where can I get one professionally calibrated in the greater Detroit
area? I can drive a fair distance, but I'm scared to ship. I've had two
7934's, a 7834, and a 7704A crushed in separate shipping mishaps.

Can't help you there, I'm in the southeast. However...

Also...which plug ins are recommended to cal for building my golden
scope? I have a collection...

The typical plugins for a 7904 (and that's a good choice, IMHO) are at
least one if not two 7A26, and a 7B92A (which I happen to like). If
you want the flexibility of two sweep plugins, the 7B80 and 7B85 will
do. If you have a 7103/4 and a 7B10 and 7B15, you could use them but
the sweep is not calibrated at the highest frequencies, but those
could be moved over to the 7103/4 when needed.

For things you'd want:

067-0587-01 signal standardizer. The 01 is intended for 500 mhz
scopes, the 00 is for lower bandwidth, and the 02 is for the 1GHz
bandwidth scopes. Needed to keep the mainframes all agreeing with
each other as well as provides some nice linearity and gain signals.
You could use the 00, but it wouldn't allow you to check out the
frequency response to the limit of the scope's bandwidth for higher
bandwidth scopes.

PG506/TG501 SG503/SG504 TM500 plugins that provide calibration
signals for vertical and timebase checking, as well as frequency
response. Those will do any scope. The signal standardizer is
specifically for 7000 series mainframes.

You could also go with a CG501 (TM500) or a CG5001 (TM5000) module
with the appropriate frame. Note that the CG series may need a
specific head to supply the right signals. Those heads may be
difficult to find.

My favorite (depending) setup in a 7904 is a 7A26 (or 7A24 if I need
more bandwidth and can tolerate a 50 ohm input plugin), a 7D12 with an
M2 (sampling) module, a 7D15 counter, and a 7B92A sweep.

Harvey











Re: Calibration and full checkout needed - Tek 7000 series

David Berlind
 

With four 7000 series scopes in my lab, I've been patiently waiting for
a 067-0587-00,01, or 02 signal standardizer for about a year now and I
finally grabbed one today. They've been going for pretty big money (worth
more than the scope itself) but I managed to snag it for $77 (with
shipping) off of eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-067-0587-01-signal-standardizer-calibration-fixture-for-7000-serie/312578936230

My one concern of course is that it works and doesn't need some form of
rehabilitation.

I will soon find out.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:13 AM Harvey White <madyn@dragonworks.info> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:47:26 -0700, you wrote:

Hi All,

I need one, good working scope to get started on repairing the other 30
or so scopes around here. I have a multitude of Tek 7000 frames to choose
from but I think the 7904 (or 7904A) is a good place to start. Once that's
working + cal'ed I can at least troubleshoot and maybe repair the others.

Where can I get one professionally calibrated in the greater Detroit
area? I can drive a fair distance, but I'm scared to ship. I've had two
7934's, a 7834, and a 7704A crushed in separate shipping mishaps.

Can't help you there, I'm in the southeast. However...

Also...which plug ins are recommended to cal for building my golden
scope? I have a collection...

The typical plugins for a 7904 (and that's a good choice, IMHO) are at
least one if not two 7A26, and a 7B92A (which I happen to like). If
you want the flexibility of two sweep plugins, the 7B80 and 7B85 will
do. If you have a 7103/4 and a 7B10 and 7B15, you could use them but
the sweep is not calibrated at the highest frequencies, but those
could be moved over to the 7103/4 when needed.

For things you'd want:

067-0587-01 signal standardizer. The 01 is intended for 500 mhz
scopes, the 00 is for lower bandwidth, and the 02 is for the 1GHz
bandwidth scopes. Needed to keep the mainframes all agreeing with
each other as well as provides some nice linearity and gain signals.
You could use the 00, but it wouldn't allow you to check out the
frequency response to the limit of the scope's bandwidth for higher
bandwidth scopes.

PG506/TG501 SG503/SG504 TM500 plugins that provide calibration
signals for vertical and timebase checking, as well as frequency
response. Those will do any scope. The signal standardizer is
specifically for 7000 series mainframes.

You could also go with a CG501 (TM500) or a CG5001 (TM5000) module
with the appropriate frame. Note that the CG series may need a
specific head to supply the right signals. Those heads may be
difficult to find.

My favorite (depending) setup in a 7904 is a 7A26 (or 7A24 if I need
more bandwidth and can tolerate a 50 ohm input plugin), a 7D12 with an
M2 (sampling) module, a 7D15 counter, and a 7B92A sweep.

Harvey









Re: Stan Griffiths Book

David Holland
 

Please do... I've got my mouse all primed and ready. :-)

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:35 PM Dave Brown <davebr@modularsynthesis.com> wrote:

As mentioned previously, Stan gave the museum authorization to reprint his book and we do sell it on CD on our eBay store. We are in the process of reprinting it in softbound. We have our review copy back and are making final tweaks. I'll update the group when we have them available on our eBay store. Our first run will be small as we don't know how much demand there is for this book. When we run out, we will reprint more.

vintageTEK



Re: My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00 Cable has been REVISED

 

Hi Reg,

I will be waiting (and I sure many more of us as well) to see the results of your vector network analysis
Applied to the BW of the DSO. I have been aware for many years that you could take the frequency domain response of a system (a scope and its plugin for example) and use it to push the bandwidth by applying the system response to a signal you were measuring that was at or slightly beyond the bandwidth of the scope. That was the best I could do to describe it. I'm sure you could say it much better.

The important thing is we are going to be eagerly waiting to see your results. Ideally you would provide enough of a tutorial so that we could try it for ourselves.

Dennis Tillman W7PF

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of
Reginald Beardsley via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00
Cable has been REVISED

Albert,

Pretty much. To increase the dynamic range I'll break up the trace from
the DSO, window, align and sum the reflections before doing the FFT.

My professional background is reflection seismology in the oil industry.
Typically impulsive sources are used, but Vibroseis is widely used,
though generally on land. However, I did process a marine Vibroseis
line in 1982-83 when I started work for Amoco. The data quality was
very impressive. They had put a truck or two on a barge and pushed it
around with a tow boat. (Despite the name, tow boats push barges)
Vibroseis is just FDR at low frequencies using elastic waves. It's very
popular where setting off dynamite charges would not be acceptable. So
it's the standard source in urban areas.

Because drilling a single deepwater well is a $150 million undertaking
and evaluating a discovery requires drilling 3-4 wells, oil companies
spend very large sums on seismic data acquisition and processing. A
rough estimate for a modern survey is $10-15 million for acquisition and
$5-10 million for processing. What's more that's just the first of many
surveys over the producing life of an oil field.

No entity spends as much money or applies as sophisticated DSP as the
oil industry. Though as processing power increases and data BW
increases, DoD is moving into the same space. They'll never catch up
because seismic has the luxury of working in recorded time acquiring
data over many weeks and processing it over many months using warehouses
full of computers.

I am often bemused by EEs telling me I don't understand DSP. It all
started with Norbert Wiener's Geophysical Analysis Group in the 1950's.
The oil industry had a major problem with reverberation in the near
surface, especially offshore Middle East. And they could live with 16
bit 250 Sa/s DAQ on 24 channels. TI was formed as a subsidiary of
Geophysical Services Inc. for the express purpose of building seismic
data recording systems. TI is still around, but they sold off their
parent which is now long gone. The sole claim to fame of my PhD
supervisor at UT Austin was putting a 2nd playback head on an analog
drum recorder and adjusting it to suppress reverberation by inverting it
and summing in the late 50's before digital gear became available. He
was one of the last of Wiener's students and later became head of
research at GSI before moving to academia.

The point of the preceding narrative being that when I say I can take
one of Leo's square wave generators and provide vector network analysis
to the BW of the DSO and >100 dB dynamic range I know what I am talking
about. And correcting for the screwball AFEs on DSOs is not a problem,
just another algorithm.

Have Fun!
Reg


--
Dennis Tillman W7PF
TekScopes Moderator


Re: Compressed air

 

Hi Damian,

This is a simple subject to learn more about on your own and IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO TEKSCOPES. If you want to know more, I know you are smart enough to search out compressor filters on google yourself rather than posting off topic questions to TekScopes.

Compressed air from a compressor contain whatever happens to be in the compressor tank. That is almost water which can easily be seen in the compressed air coming out. There is a little valve at the bottom of the tank to drain all the water from the tank. There can be other things in the tank as well such as hydrocarbons from the compressor's motor or from the pump (depending on what type and size of compressor) plus whatever particles are in the air that was sucked in by the compressor.

At the very least anyone with a compressed air system will have an inline water trap or air-dryer in their system. In addition you can also find reasons to install an air filter to catch particles. For example take a look at this inexpensive PneumaticPlus SAU4030M-N06DG-MEP Three Stage Air Drying System - Air Particulate Filter, 0.3 Micron Coalescing Filter & Air Pressure Regulator
https://www.pneumaticplus.com/pneumaticplus-sau-series-three-stage-air-drying-system-3-4-npt/

Dennis Tillman W7PF

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of
David Kuhn
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 7:18 AM
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] Compressed air

I plumb the shop with a compressed air (and a compressor in the garage).
I use a small dryer in-line with the spray naucial (sp).

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:13 AM Caveman <digcam1@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Photographer as well as a repair tech here, and I say do not shake
cans of commercially available compressed air used for blowing dust
away. They can splatter whatever is in the can onto lens coatings, or
in the old days negatives, ruining them.

Not knowing what is in the can, but knowing that it can blow droplets
of whatever it is into what you are cleaning means that while you are
blowing dust away, you are also blowing moisture of some kind on what
you are cleaning. If that moisture is oily then it will become a dust
collector.

I’ve heard some say that you can invert the cans of compressed air,
like Dust Off or other dust blowers, to use them for cold testing
components. If so just be sure to clean up afterwards.

FWIW,
Don Kemper


On May 1, 2019, at 9:17 AM, cheater cheater <cheater00@gmail.com>
wrote:

Ah, I somehow lost the first sentence of the email which was:
"should one shake compressed air or not?"

I guess i need to learn how to post!

On Wed, 1 May 2019, 14:53 cheater00 cheater00 <cheater00@gmail.com
wrote:

I hear conflicting reports on what one should do. What's your take?
Are there different types where you should or shouldn't?

Druckluft 67 (aka Dust Off 67) from Kontakt / CRC says not to shake
the can "or otherwise the fluid might come out", but is it always
the case with all types? What is that fluid for, anyways?

I read reviews of some cheaper compressed air products on amazon
and they complained about the quality. What can go wrong with
compressed air? Two things people brought up were one brand
produced very weak pressure, and another produced flammable rather
than inert gas.
Druckluft 67 touts as being oil free. Are there other things that
might go wrong?

Why would someone use canned compressed air rather than an air
compressor?

Thanks.



--
Dennis Tillman W7PF
TekScopes Moderator


Re: My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00 Cable has been REVISED

John Ferguson
 

sorry, of course everyone's posts are marvelous, but especially the one on DSP in the oil industry by Reginald Beardsley

On 5/1/19 3:05 PM, John Ferguson via Groups.Io wrote:
Thank you for your marvelous post.

john ferguson




Re: My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00 Cable has been REVISED

John Ferguson
 

Thank you for your marvelous post.

john ferguson


Re: Tektronix 2465 DMS, P6407 and computer software - I'm also looking for any documentation, video on how to use it

Sean Turner
 

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:23 AM, Tony Fleming wrote:


Thank you Sean for your information!
Did Tektronix made the software or the just used NI?
Have a great day!
Tony
I don't know if there is any Tektronix software. Perhaps someone else will be able to answer that. I do know that you'll probably need NI's drivers at the very least. For HP gear, there is John Mile's (KE5FX) GPIB toolkit. http://www.ke5fx.com/gpib/readme.htm

Perhaps something similar exists for Tek gear?


Re: Tektronix 2465 DMS, P6407 and computer software - I'm also looking for any documentation, video on how to use it

Tony Fleming
 

Thank you Sean for your information!
Did Tektronix made the software or the just used NI?
Have a great day!
Tony

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:01 PM <sdturne@q.com> wrote:

Hi Tony,

I don't know the specifics for using a 2465 with GPIB, but I do have my
eye on the National Instruments GPIB -> USB adapter to use with my HP
spectrum analyzers. The one linked below supports up to 14 GPIB instruments
from one USB connection.
https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.gpib-usb-hs.html

Sean




Re: My TDR Evaluation of the SG503 012-0482-00 Cable has been REVISED

Reginald Beardsley
 

Albert,

Pretty much. To increase the dynamic range I'll break up the trace from the DSO, window, align and sum the reflections before doing the FFT.

My professional background is reflection seismology in the oil industry. Typically impulsive sources are used, but Vibroseis is widely used, though generally on land. However, I did process a marine Vibroseis line in 1982-83 when I started work for Amoco. The data quality was very impressive. They had put a truck or two on a barge and pushed it around with a tow boat. (Despite the name, tow boats push barges) Vibroseis is just FDR at low frequencies using elastic waves. It's very popular where setting off dynamite charges would not be acceptable. So it's the standard source in urban areas.

Because drilling a single deepwater well is a $150 million undertaking and evaluating a discovery requires drilling 3-4 wells, oil companies spend very large sums on seismic data acquisition and processing. A rough estimate for a modern survey is $10-15 million for acquisition and $5-10 million for processing. What's more that's just the first of many surveys over the producing life of an oil field.

No entity spends as much money or applies as sophisticated DSP as the oil industry. Though as processing power increases and data BW increases, DoD is moving into the same space. They'll never catch up because seismic has the luxury of working in recorded time acquiring data over many weeks and processing it over many months using warehouses full of computers.

I am often bemused by EEs telling me I don't understand DSP. It all started with Norbert Wiener's Geophysical Analysis Group in the 1950's. The oil industry had a major problem with reverberation in the near surface, especially offshore Middle East. And they could live with 16 bit 250 Sa/s DAQ on 24 channels. TI was formed as a subsidiary of Geophysical Services Inc. for the express purpose of building seismic data recording systems. TI is still around, but they sold off their parent which is now long gone. The sole claim to fame of my PhD supervisor at UT Austin was putting a 2nd playback head on an analog drum recorder and adjusting it to suppress reverberation by inverting it and summing in the late 50's before digital gear became available. He was one of the last of Wiener's students and later became head of research at GSI before moving to academia.

The point of the preceding narrative being that when I say I can take one of Leo's square wave generators and provide vector network analysis to the BW of the DSO and >100 dB dynamic range I know what I am talking about. And correcting for the screwball AFEs on DSOs is not a problem, just another algorithm.

Have Fun!
Reg


Re: Tektronix 2465 DMS, P6407 and computer software - I'm also looking for any documentation, video on how to use it

Sean Turner
 

Hi Tony,

I don't know the specifics for using a 2465 with GPIB, but I do have my eye on the National Instruments GPIB -> USB adapter to use with my HP spectrum analyzers. The one linked below supports up to 14 GPIB instruments from one USB connection. https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.gpib-usb-hs.html

Sean


Tektronix 2465 DMS, P6407 and computer software - I'm also looking for any documentation, video on how to use it

Tony Fleming
 

I have Tektronix 2465 DMS, with DMM and options #: 01, 09, 10, GPIB connector.
Someone is sending me the P6407 and should arrive by next week, so right now I do not have it in my possession.
Does anyone knows or have the computer software for my scope?
Do I need both P6407 and cable GPIB to PC?
Are there any cables that are made for my scope, or are the GPIB cables same, as long as there is GPIB , for most/all scopes?
I also would like to see a video how to use these options. For now I did not find anything about it on YouTube.com or the Google search.
Thank you all!
Tony


Re: 475A with High +110 rail

Mlynch001
 

Harvey,

That is another critical factor, one that I took into serious consideration. I used carbon comp resistors only as a temporary measure, simply to test the rest of the system, a "proof of concept" if you will. The ones I used were 5% accuracy, so way too little precision for the job. This was evidenced by the pair having a "calculated value" of 60K and an actual resistance measured at 58.8K, so still a ways off from the desired 60.4K (+/-1%). It was simply not worth the time to try to come up with 2,3 or 4 carbon comps that theoretically could have been grouped to give the 60.4k that was specified. Much easier to just buy the right parts and fix it permanently and correctly. The repair also looks more professional as a major benefit. I have been buying Metal film resistors, whenever possible, since they do not cost that much more, they are more stable and more reliable. Thanks for your comment.

--
Michael Lynch
Dardanelle, AR

29841 - 29860 of 186400