Breaking News
Blog

It's Time for GPIB to Die

NO RATINGS
2 saves
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
kinsell
User Rank
Author
Re: GPIB cables
kinsell   12/17/2014 2:15:09 PM
NO RATINGS
Very late response, just stumbled across this discussion.

I work for a company that still sells gpib, for Linux and Windows.  When people claim things are flakey, almost always they're using cabling way out of spec.  Originally it was 2 meters per load (generally per device), but in 1987 it was cut back to 1 meter per load, when the speed was jacked up to 1 MB/sec.  After all these years, it's still astonishing how many people get it wrong.  I've seen it wrong in HP/Agilent manuals, in NI documentation, elsewhere.  People want the 'high' speed and the longer cabling, and get upset when it doesn't always work.  There's actually quite a bit of margin in the definition, but some people always push it until it breaks. 

And yes the plastic clips on Ethernet cables, and the friction fit of USB just aren't appropriate for industrial control applications.  Setting dip switches for addresses can be a pain, but it pales in comparison to the frustrations of getting a LAN device working in some environments, particularly when the IT department is half way around the world.

 

 

 

MeasurementBlues
User Rank
Author
I'm not the only one who says GPIB lives
MeasurementBlues   5/13/2014 2:14:19 PM
NO RATINGS
"GIPB continues to amaze people with its persistence.  While so much in the tech world is very fast to change to newer cheaper and better technology,  GPIB remains surprisingly entrenched in the test and measurement arena."

See the rest at
http://info.totaltemptech.com/blog/controlling-instruments-with-gpib-rs-232-or-usb.-what-is-next?

TonyTib
User Rank
Author
Re: USB cables with screws
TonyTib   5/6/2014 1:55:27 PM
NO RATINGS
The problem is that the equipment on the other side also needs thumb screws.


I've played a bit with USB high retention force connectors (available for standard size A and size B); they help.  Even better, Ampenol makes a locking type A (PDF!) connector that works with any standard type A USB cable -- but neither type is very common, although I have seem some industrial equipment advertised with the high retention connectors.


For one customer, we had to add a little machined (which means expensive!) bracket next to the connector so they could cable-tie the USB cable to the bracket.

Measurement.Blues
User Rank
Author
USB cables with screws
Measurement.Blues   5/6/2014 12:46:21 PM
NO RATINGS
@Tom,

Because you seem to hate GPIB so much, here's one for using USB. Some of the complaints about USB have to do with the connectors easily pulled out. I just ran across thumbsrew USB cables.



DrQuine
User Rank
Author
Moving past GPIB
DrQuine   5/3/2014 9:08:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Three decades ago, my home and lab computers required a GPIB interface to the external hard drive and certain other peripherals. As noted, the cord was expensive, inflexible, short, and required an expensive interface. The ability to stack and daisy chain the (bulky) connectors was an advantage. I'd say that for a consumer, USB has rendered the GPIB interface obsolete and irrelevant. Computer manufacturers seem to agree (indeed most laptops are thinner than the connector). In a highly technical instrumentation lab where latency rules, I'll concede they may wish to continue connecting their test and measurement devices with GPIB interfaces. 

tom-ii
User Rank
Author
Re: Not Die, some better word
tom-ii   5/3/2014 6:16:20 PM
NO RATINGS
Perhaps "Pull a Patton?"  (and get run over by a horse cart)

_hm
User Rank
Author
Not Die, some better word
_hm   5/3/2014 4:13:59 PM
NO RATINGS
GPIB served great to Test and Mesaurement communities for over three decades.

Die does not sound proper word for this veteran.

For super hero like GPIB, we should coin better phrase.

Measurement.Blues
User Rank
Author
Re: GPIB
Measurement.Blues   5/2/2014 3:15:15 PM
NO RATINGS
Here's an article I write about how VISA works with GPIB, VXI, PXI, Ethernet, and USB. Same application code, just different hardware bus.

VISA tunnels down to the kernel



Niall Gallagher
User Rank
Author
GPIB's Compelling Advantage.
Niall Gallagher   5/2/2014 11:45:04 AM
NO RATINGS
While I share much of the sentiment regarding GPIB and its disadvantages, I have to disagree with the conclusion that it is ready to die. 

GPIB's ace is latency.   At around 30 times lower than ethernet and 4 times lower than USB, GPIB still wins when speed is critical and data transfer sizes are low.  This is generally the case in production testing.  While 1000 microseconds of latency does not seem like much, a test sequence for a complex wireless device may have up to 20,000 measurement transfers of a few bytes each.  1000us latency each time adds 20 seconds of dead time to the test sequence, reducing the throughput and increasing test cost by as much as 20%.

National Instruments has a number of papers on this subject on its website:  http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3509/en/#toc2


PXI has the advantage of very low latency and high bandwidth PCI Express, which makes it a great choice for speed critical testing such as production test.  For those using discrete instruments while concerned about test times, GPIB is still the way to go.

Kudos to Hewlett-Packard for developing an interface that has endured for over 40 years.  Calls for its demise are somewhat premature.

rob18767
User Rank
Author
Re: GPIB cables
rob18767   5/2/2014 9:38:17 AM
NO RATINGS
That's the issue. We still sell and use GPIB gear. 

The industries that do use GPIB insist on having GPIB. Therefore we have to provide GPIB or they are no longer our customers.

They have no plans to change in the immediate future. 

It's called 'giving customers what they want' as opposed to 'making engineers lives' easier' 

 

Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
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,...

Datasheets.com 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