How confident are you in your scope's accuracy in measuring the signal? Since all scopes have resistance and capacitance, how concerned should we be about the effect of the measurement on the signal? I expect this is especially a concern for those of us with older or entry-level scopes. When I am troubleshooting for an error and hook up my probe, what happens if the probe "fixes" the problem (even if I have calibrated it)?
Over at scopejunction I was blogging about accuracy and wondering what steps you take to improve accuracy? If you want to see some of the comments, head here. Otherwise, please sound off below on if you think accuracy is taken for granted...
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.
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.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.