imperfect exponential

I only print. Nobody, including myself, can read my handwriting.

Some electronics is quantitative, some less so. I need to measure delta-times between edges, pulse widths, rise and fall times, duty cycles, frequencies, pulse amplitudes, RMS values. Analog scopes don't do those things well.

Sometimes I blow up parts on purpose and only get one chance to capture the waveform and measure things. A digital scope is great for that.

The FFT on digital scopes are usually mediocre, but can be handy now and then when hinting for noise or oscillations.

Sharp flat color LCDs are great. An old CRT scope looks like an old fuzzy round-tube b+w TV set.

One thing that I sorta miss is that analog scopes (sometimes) had analog sweep and vertical signal outputs. The Tek 545 series had a (as I recall) 150 volt sweep output. I don't miss schlepping 70 pound oscilloscopes around on carts.

That seems a bit silly. He made a note purely for the camera, but made is so illegible it read as the wrong thing. It wasn't illegible, it looks like a pretty well made 'p'. If I wrote a note like that I would toss it and make another before I made the photo.

BTW, I'm not "dissing" him, I'm stating a simple truth. If your hands won't let you write, then use a printer! I was also responding in kind to John's remark.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, John. I was kind of foxed by krw's use of the word "manipulate" and clearly wrongly assumed it to mean *editing* the trace.

My printing isn't much better. I only take notes because I tend to remember better if I do. I certainly can't read them after.

He knows what it said, even if you can't do the arithmetic.

What a waste of time.

I used one once to prove that a transistor was going into secondary breakdown rather than avalanching. The supplier was all wet. With a proper circuit design, it wouldn't have been a problem but it was.

FFT is useful at times but I find that averaging is often quite useful for pulling signals out of noise.

OTOH, they tended to say put. Someone is always swiping my Agilent MSO3104.

All sorts of manipulations like FFT, signal average, integrate, differentiate, add, subtract, multiply.

Sonds like it's designing you.......

RL

That's cool: take the notes and immediately throw them away!

I never doubted that it was 47 uF.

Pretty much. I use a clipboard for note taking (and doodling). When the top page gets full, I tear it off and into the trash it goes.

Only the whiny little old ladies who wanted to prove you wrong, did.

So is bitching about everything you don't like. Keep it to yourself.

Since we're picking on form over substance, someone should point out that first of the 10k resistor's five serpentine reversals is shorted out too, making it only 8k.

HTH,

James Arthur

P.S. Thanks for the cool pic.

I don't bitch about "everything" I don't like - I got into this thread because I though John Larkin had written 47p where he claims to have intended 47u.

That created considerable cognitive dissonance in my brain, and several others, which has now been cleared up. I find your comment less useful. Maybe you should have kept it to yourself.

The difference between 47p and 47u is more substantial - about six orders of magnitude - and did tend to obscure what John Larkin was bitching about (the extreme voltage dependence of the capacitance of the capacitor being tested.

But Bastiat would be proud of you.

I have a notebook and scribble things there, instead of on loose bits of paper. But mostly I scrawl on my whiteboard and take pics. It's immediately to the right of my bench, so as I breadboard or measure stuff, I note it and then photograph it.

The problem then becomes organizing all those pics.

Doodles go on to blue-line-grid pads, 99.7% of which wind up in the trash. What happened to the paperless society?

But there are actually a couple of people here who are interested in capacitors.