Breaking News

Assessing scope accuracy

View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
User Rank
re: Assessing scope accuracy
sharps_eng   2/20/2012 9:57:12 PM
You have to be careful when doing differential measurements (x-y) with the iNVERT function, there is no standard for where the summing takes place. Many (all?) cheap LCD scopes just subtract the pixels, so although what you see is what you get, if one of the signals clips the screen edge the diff signal is meaningless. Decent analog scopes (and some were quite cheap also) used to let you have seriously high gains which would overload each channel on their own, but when summed, cancelled the inputs so that you could get a good high-resolution view of a small signal which was superimposed on a large one (like a 100mVp-p crosstalk transient on a 24V DC supply). Its worth checking this on any scope purchase. Of course, you will eventually build a decent diff pre-amp yourself, but until then, a good ADD-plus-INVERT on your scope is very handy.

User Rank
re: Assessing scope accuracy
Bert22306   2/20/2012 9:01:23 PM
That's kind of an age-old question. It's not JUST about accuracy. It's also about whether you change the measurement appreciably by just touching probes to the circuit. IMO, every EE who's actually an EE has had this drilled into him throughout school and career, and has been bitten when he ignored the issue. Sometimes the absolute number isn't all that important, but what always matters is whether the scope, voltmeter, ammeter, whatever, is making the measurements irrelevant. Sort of a macro version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

More Blogs
Winning products can have viable production lifetimes of decades, despite our "here today, obsolete tomorrow" thinking.
Customized displays don't need to be a complicated and expensive choice for designers and procurement professionals.
This quiz will make you think even more about how and when to use decoupling capacitors in high-speed circuits.
You'd think that the dissonance between excitement over IoT opportunities on one hand and concern about IoT security on the other would yield a rich breeding ground for companies targeting IoT security.
What do all the latest M&A events in the chip industry mean to semiconductor IP companies?
Most Recent Comments
Most Recent Messages
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,... Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed