Topics

OT - Any interest in starting a Tektronix Logic Analyzer Group? (with added bonus question!)


jslcanuck
 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 04:33 PM, vhdlman wrote:

For manuals related to test equipment (including logic analyzers), I usually
start looking at bitsavers.org and to a lesser extent at w140.com/tekwiki. I
think I would find it very convenient to upload logic analyzer related files
here than elsewhere; at the present time, such files may appear to be
out-of-place.
Absolutely - Al's got a great resource there, but he can be spread a little thin
because he takes everything and (I suspect) doesn't have enough time to vet
it all. And hearing recently from him that TI was busting his chops over their
stuff being there was a shock. I'd forgotten about w140.com - that certainly
looks like a good place to pinch some useful stuff from.

Can't wait to see what you have to contribute!

Jonathan


jslcanuck
 

Then let's get the party started.

https://groups.io/g/logicanalyzers

I wanna see how fast we can hit that 1G file allocation with manuals and software.


Paul Birkel <pbirkel@...>
 

+1 from this interested bystander :->.

-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of jslcanuck
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2020 11:48 AM
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] OT - Any interest in starting a Tektronix Logic Analyzer Group? (with added bonus question!)

Egge:

*Finally* the right answer! Thank you very much, and the price on these is right, so I'm stocking up.

All:

As David pointed out, what started as a small question kind of exploded, so I'd like to reorient it for
just a moment. Whether there's a need for a *discussion* forum is open to endless (and, probably,
increasingly tedious) debate, and the conversations will (it's reasonable to speculate) range across
a spectrum between "tool itself" and "application", I think we can agree. 'Nuff said on that point.

So perhaps I should have been a little clearer: My experience in the other group I alluded to (which
I share with David) is that the forum proper isn't enough; to a very large extent it's about the "files"
section, which has become its centerpiece. We've amassed a considerable archive of the user
manuals, software, firmware images, and schematics necessary not only for using and maintaining,
but augmenting those systems. Users are replicating (otherwise-unavailable or expensive) component
modules thanks to the collective effort to gather documentation *and* reverse-engineer.

While I'm not suggesting anyone's going to go *that* far wrt analyzers, if you pick something up at
a smokin' deal (dead or alive) and want to get some use out of it, there oughta be a central repository
for all its related material. No manuals? Got 'em. Bad firmware? Download an image and burn your
own replacements - and maybe upgrade to latest rev while you're at it. And the reason to make it
general (rather than manufacturer-specific) is that (to the best of my knowledge, at least) the previous
efforts to create and/or sustain an exclusive group (in this case *Tek* analyzers) have flopped or stalled.

So let's go another way. We can toe-chew the usefulness of such a group endlessly, but it's going to
be more informative to actually *try* and see what happens.

Jonathan


vhdlman
 

For manuals related to test equipment (including logic analyzers), I usually start looking at bitsavers.org and to a lesser extent at w140.com/tekwiki. I think I would find it very convenient to upload logic analyzer related files here than elsewhere; at the present time, such files may appear to be out-of-place.


jslcanuck
 

What, no snappy retort to put me in my place?

You talk about redundancy like it's a bad thing. Lemme tell you about redundancy:
It gives you error detection and it gives you fault tolerance. And a search function is
only as good as the nature and consistency of the data set you're searching within,
which in the case of 7000 not-particularly-organized contributors is always going to
be less than stellar.

So taxonomy and hierarchy are your best friends if you want to have a hope of finding
what you're looking for without extensive, repetitive, and increasingly-speculative
searching in a big flat swamp of files and directories. And if you think that's somehow
superior to having a directory called "465", then you're in possession of some new
magic which has not yet been brought to my attention.

Now, I don't claim to know everything about the capabilities of the groups.io system,
but what I do know is that they provide a blockheaded and ham-handed set of tools that
constantly presents new surprises in what it *can't* do, for example, the inability to
create a file hierarchy in the photos section or to cleanly embed a link in the files section.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Jonathan


jslcanuck
 

Only the group's owners can sort it out, and of course they are far too busy.
Nobody else has the necessary permissions, except the people who uploaded the
original data in each case.

You don't seem to know much about how these groups actually work.
I'm smiling, but there are undoubtedly a number of members of this group who are
also members of the other group I alluded to, who know what I've been doing over
there for the last year or so, and who are laughing like hell at you right now for that
bellicose declaration.

No, you don't need to be a group owner to manage files. You just need "moderator"
status and you can push the files around all you want. Any one of the nearly 7000
of you could do it... if anyone cared to, and the group owner(s) trusted you.

Jonathan


EJP
 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 02:45 AM, jslcanuck wrote:

I just took a look at the files section here,
and can there be a
reaction other than "Oh. My. God."? Are you kidding? 6000 files/directories
(and mostly small
stuff, too, since it only totals 800meg) and not organized by type, model, or
anything else?
And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out?
Hard to
believe that in a population that big there's no-one with the required OCD
tendencies to just
wade in and start the cleanup. Or maybe the group's owner(s) like it that
way.
Only the group's owners can sort it out, and of course they are far too busy. Nobody else has the necessary permissions, except the people who uploaded the original data in each case.

And given the existence of the search function, a neat hierarchy of directories isn't actually required. Taxonomy is basically redundant these days,

You don't seem to know much about how these groups actually work.

EJP


jslcanuck
 

As suggested above, whether the group under consideration is/becomes
"moribund" (by whatever definition) or not is immaterial. To me, what matters
is that there's a findable, coherent archive of resources needed for making
use of [obsolete] digital development and debug tools of *all* makes. I submit
that a contributing factor in yours becoming comatose is that it was Tek-specific.

Jonathan


Chuck Harris
 

If you were a marketing guy, you would see that bit of data, and
discourage the suits from wasting resources on a logic analyzer
group.

As I said earlier, John and I started Tektronix-Logic-Analysers,
must have been 10 years ago, and we just got our first new member
yesterday. And a new post too, asking if we should do something
with the group.

I think you have answered your own question:

There really is little interest in a tektronix logic analyzer group.

Don't believe me? Start your own on groups.io. It is free, takes
less than 5 minutes, and you too can own your own moribund group!

-Chuck Harris

jslcanuck wrote:

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:01 AM, hardyhansendk wrote:

I dont see any reason to split the group ---we have all so much TOGETHER
In analog equipment, yes. But my quick search of the terms "TLA", "DAS", "510", "520"
and "9200" in the files section turned up NOTHING relevant to Tek analyzers.

So what is there to split?




jslcanuck
 

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:07 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

There are three problems with splitting things:

1. groups get below a critical mass
2. it becomes ambiguous where to post an article, leading to duplicate
crossposts
3. I don't get to read about things I didn't know I would find interesting

So far the only good reason I've ever come across for splitting is that the
original group has become so big that you can't keep up with it.
I quite agree on all of your points. But see my previous post: When it comes
to logic analyzers, it appears there's little or nothing to split.

Jonathan


jslcanuck
 

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:01 AM, hardyhansendk wrote:

I dont see any reason to split the group ---we have all so much TOGETHER
In analog equipment, yes. But my quick search of the terms "TLA", "DAS", "510", "520"
and "9200" in the files section turned up NOTHING relevant to Tek analyzers.

So what is there to split?


jslcanuck
 

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 09:48 AM, Raymond Domp Frank wrote:

And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out?
It appears we found one.
You funny guy. We eat you last.

Problem (for me) is that there's some truth in what you said... but I have to keep those
tendencies under control or I'd get *nothing* else done. And with summer around here
lasting about 15 minutes, I have far too much to do outside.

But come winter...


Tom Gardner
 

There are three problems with splitting things:

1. groups get below a critical mass
2. it becomes ambiguous where to post an article, leading to duplicate crossposts
3. I don't get to read about things I didn't know I would find interesting

So far the only good reason I've ever come across for splitting is that the original group has become so big that you can't keep up with it.

It is highly unlikely that will ever be the case with a group for "obsolete" test equipment! (No, I don't read every post, but I do see the subject of every post)

On 02/08/20 18:01, hardyhansendk via groups.io wrote:
Hi
I dont see any reason to split the group ---we have all so much TOGETHER
Regards
Hardy

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] På vegne af Raymond Domp Frank
Sendt: 2. august 2020 18:48
Til: TekScopes@groups.io
Emne: Re: [TekScopes] OT - Any interest in starting a Tektronix Logic Analyzer Group? (with added bonus question!)

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 06:45 PM, jslcanuck wrote:

And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out?
It appears we found one.

Raymond


hardyhansendk
 

Hi
I dont see any reason to split the group ---we have all so much TOGETHER
Regards
Hardy

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] På vegne af Raymond Domp Frank
Sendt: 2. august 2020 18:48
Til: TekScopes@groups.io
Emne: Re: [TekScopes] OT - Any interest in starting a Tektronix Logic Analyzer Group? (with added bonus question!)

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 06:45 PM, jslcanuck wrote:


And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out?
It appears we found one.

Raymond




--
Denne mail er kontrolleret for vira af AVG.
http://www.avg.com


 

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 06:45 PM, jslcanuck wrote:


And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out?
It appears we found one.

Raymond


jslcanuck
 

One other comment, if I may: I just took a look at the files section here, and can there be a
reaction other than "Oh. My. God."? Are you kidding? 6000 files/directories (and mostly small
stuff, too, since it only totals 800meg) and not organized by type, model, or anything else?
And nobody in a group of nearly 7000 members who's stepped up to sort it out? Hard to
believe that in a population that big there's no-one with the required OCD tendencies to just
wade in and start the cleanup. Or maybe the group's owner(s) like it that way. Just saying.


jslcanuck
 

Egge:

*Finally* the right answer! Thank you very much, and the price on these is right, so I'm stocking up.

All:

As David pointed out, what started as a small question kind of exploded, so I'd like to reorient it for
just a moment. Whether there's a need for a *discussion* forum is open to endless (and, probably,
increasingly tedious) debate, and the conversations will (it's reasonable to speculate) range across
a spectrum between "tool itself" and "application", I think we can agree. 'Nuff said on that point.

So perhaps I should have been a little clearer: My experience in the other group I alluded to (which
I share with David) is that the forum proper isn't enough; to a very large extent it's about the "files"
section, which has become its centerpiece. We've amassed a considerable archive of the user
manuals, software, firmware images, and schematics necessary not only for using and maintaining,
but augmenting those systems. Users are replicating (otherwise-unavailable or expensive) component
modules thanks to the collective effort to gather documentation *and* reverse-engineer.

While I'm not suggesting anyone's going to go *that* far wrt analyzers, if you pick something up at
a smokin' deal (dead or alive) and want to get some use out of it, there oughta be a central repository
for all its related material. No manuals? Got 'em. Bad firmware? Download an image and burn your
own replacements - and maybe upgrade to latest rev while you're at it. And the reason to make it
general (rather than manufacturer-specific) is that (to the best of my knowledge, at least) the previous
efforts to create and/or sustain an exclusive group (in this case *Tek* analyzers) have flopped or stalled.

So let's go another way. We can toe-chew the usefulness of such a group endlessly, but it's going to
be more informative to actually *try* and see what happens.

Jonathan


Egge Siert
 

Hi jslcanuck,

Regarding your search for KlipChip Interfaces you can use P6417 and P6418 Accessoires (PN:196-3431-00 and 196-3432-00). Even the P6417 8-Channel Podlet Holder is a Black Version of the older Grey Coloured 92A96/92C96 Podlet Holder. Older 196-3431-00 and 196-3432-00's have no label and the cost savings are substantial.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1p-Tektronix-8-Channel-Leadset/352248237662

Greetings,

Egge Siert


saipan59 (Pete)
 

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:30 PM, Harvey White wrote:


I just looked up the price of the Beagle.  I am now giving my wallet CPR....
Fair enough (it is $330 retail I think). I just looked on eBay, and saw a used one for $120 or Offer.
But if you need it regularly, and you have limited bench space, and you need a complete set of features, and if your time is valuable (relative to building your own tool), then isn't it a good investment...? For full disclosure, I should perhaps mention that I got my personal Beagle for free, as a prize in a Microchip design contest. :-)

Canuck wrote:
That argument doesn't hold a drop of water. If I discover my curve tracer is down and I'm trying
to fix it, should I be asking in a forum dedicated to the audio equipment from which the transistor
I want to use it to characterize came from?
If I'm trying to drive to Edmonton to see a play and my car breaks down, should I seek car repair
help in a group specializing in Alberta playwrites?

Point taken, although your counter-examples are a bit extreme. I should not have suggested "application" without more context.
My counter-counter-point is: When your Tek curve tracer is broken, do you need a Curve Tracer forum, or a more general Tek forum (like this one)? The former is impractical I think, just like (I suspect) a L.A. forum would be, for the reasons already discussed.
Car breaks down (you didn't mention which Tool is involved): Would you go looking for a "tool forum"? No, most likely a "Ford forum" is the practical answer. That's my point.

Pete


 

While it's interesting to debate the need for a dedicated LA group (IMHO not needed), what actually impelled Jonathan to post here was his question about the probes.

Sadly his tendency towards OCD pushed the "there needs to be a dedicated group for LAs" issue to the fore, while his immediate need is the answer to the question:

I have a TLA 510/520 I want to press into use. I have the 92C96 acquisition board, cable, and leads - all the way to the individual two-pin signal (+gnd) lead
meant to be plugged into header pins on the target. That's where my problem starts - I need grabber clips (EZ-Hook, KlipChip, etc.), but the grabbers only
have a single pin and the probe cable won't fit onto them. In the manual for this thing (under "optional accessories") they describe:
p/n 020-2108-00: Six 8-channel lead sets, 12 Y-cables, 72 KlipChip Adapters
Are these "Y-cables" little two-wire splitters that go between the probe tip and the grabber?
Does anyone know the answer?

David
-----Original Message-----
From: TekScopes@groups.io [mailto:TekScopes@groups.io] On Behalf Of sdturne@q.com
Sent: 02 August 2020 07:35
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] OT - Any interest in starting a Tektronix Logic Analyzer Group? (with added bonus question!)

FYI for Saleae users...their SDK is open so you can roll your own protocol analyzers.

Sean