Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
Dear All,
As Alwyn says: "What really annoys me is the lack of support of equipment which uses older versions of Windows- knowing the policies of that company, I now insist on hearing how long term support will be assured before I buy."
Indeed!!!
I have a Tek TDS7000B series in our group that I am trying to "repair" because its Windows 2000 OS has gone AWOL from a hard drive failure. Tek refuse to supply the Microsoft Windows restore discs "because of licensing issues" which to me seems entity bogus for a piece of equipment that cost well over GBP20,000 in 2003 (i.e. more than a Hi-End VW Golf Turbo).
We have happenchance found an original Restore Manual and set of discs on e$ay which fingers crossed will resolve the issue, but the lack of support from Tek is astounding for such expensive equipment (TDS7154B).
I am now recommanding Pico Technology scopes wherever possible, even though I personally prefer a 'scope with knobs on it the price differentials are to great to ignore.
Best, Susan.
Susan Parker, Laser Consortium, Department of Physics, Imperial College London, UK.
|
On 26/07/19 02:47, Harvey White wrote:
On 7/25/2019 3:50 PM, saipan59 wrote:
I want to suggest that the discussion should include the
trade-offs of an FPGA implementation vs an MCU [I have very
limited experience with the former, but a lot with the latter],
as it relates to the applications we're talking about.
I'll weigh in here.
FPGA:? lots faster, more expensive, extensive I/O.? True
hardware implementation, simultaneous operation of functions.?
Often 3.3 volts for I/O.? Cost (including CPLDS, which are more
limited in scope, cheaper, and generally nonvolatile), will run
from about 2 dollars to 16 dollars for Xilinx parts (what I'm
familiar with).? VHDL is essentially specifying hardware.? If
you want it to respond to different conditions (as in pretending
to have a program in it) then? you need either a state machine
or a processor IP (Picoblaze is possible).? RAM resources are
somewhat limited depending on chip (CPLDs have none).? Best use:
smart hardware and hardware subsystems.? SPI interface may be
programmed in for processor interface.? Programming is in VHDL
or Verilog.?
Microprocessor:? No hardware systems need to be designed.?
Programming is sequential, slower, although DMA and some
subsystems can operate independently.? 3.3 and 5.0 volts
depending on processor.? Cost may run from less than one dollar
to 20 dollars depending on family and manufacturer.?
Microprocessors need external memory, external I/O subsystems.?
Microcontrollers take program and data memory inside, and
provide subsystems (I2C, SPI, Serial, etc.).? Programming is in
any high level language available or assembly.? Operating system
can give illusion of simultaneous operation, but unless more
than one processor core is available, operation is time shared.
I'll add some points about FPGAs:
- short latency and guaranteed latency between
input and/or signals changing, i.e. hard realtime
operation. The operations are performed directly by hardware, so
there are no interrupt service routines, multitasking etc to
"get in the way"
- Xylinx Zync devices have lots of FPGA fabric plus two onboard
very capable ARM A9 processors. The processors can run an RTOS
or Linux, or RTOS+Linux. This allows tight integration between
the processor and custom hardware
There is one processor that is half-way between a standard MCU
and FPGA in terms of performance: the XMOS xCORE devices,
available from Digikey. They have a long and solid pedigree, being
directly descended from Transputers and Occam and Hoare's
Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) formalism.
A single chip can have up to 32 cores (expandable with chips),
run at 4000MIPS, have onboard RAM and flash memory, "FPGA like" IO
(e.g. SERDES etc)? - but that is useless unless you can program
them quickly and effectively. The xC language enables that, being
designed for multiprocessing from the ground up - unlike C. This
makes it surprisingly easy and fun to actually use the devices.
As for hard realtime, the IDE will guarantee the
execution times and latency. That avoids the need to run the code,
make measurements, and piously hope you have stumbled across
worst-case execution times. An example is that you can use some of
the cores to directly grab and process 100Mb/s serial data from an
ethernet or USB interface, while other cores simultaneously get on
with the real work.
Yes, I'm a fan of them, for the right application.
|
Altera was purchased by Intel, so Oracle might have more luck if they wanted to try again.
Xilinx requires a license for their free edition, 1 year long as I recall, which always seems to expire in the middle of a hot project and have to pause to wait for renewal.
Intel offers the Quartus software in 3 versions, Intel Quartus Prime Lite Edition as a free download with no license file required, now up to version 19.1, and Prime Standard and Prime Pro as paid versions.
Xilinx has several different programming modes, so the learning curve to get from compiled VHDL or Verilog code to a programmed part seems so much simpler with Altera.
I also like that the Altera Max 2 parts I use EPM240-EMP1270 don't require a separate memory chip to store the bit map, although that's not a problem if using one of the Chinese FPGA complete modules.
What sort of processing needs to occur in the FPGA? With each different hardware adapter requiring a different driver, and only talking to different software, It's not as simple as simply converting from the serial USB data stream to parallel HPIB.
John
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 7/25/2019 10:46 AM, Dave Daniel wrote: I'm starting anew thread for the FPGA development discussion that veered off from the OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter discussion. Responding to Dave_G0WBX's comment, what development tools are available for the creation synthesis and simulation of code for the Altera parts? We stopped using Altera parts at Oracle a while back because the Oracle and Altera legal departments could not agree on a contract. Even though we had several very large Altera designs in production. DaveD -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Low cost, OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:18:46 -0400 From: Dave Daniel via Groups.Io <kc0wjn@...> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] We need to move the FOGA development discussion to a new thread. DaveD Sent from a small flat thingy On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:49, Dave_G0WBX via Groups.Io <g8kbvdave@... <mailto:g8kbvdave@...>> wrote:
Re:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Altera Max 2 series part (3.3V), mounted on a PC board along with a clock oscillator and 5V to 3.3V voltage regulator would be a good start. EPM240 series along with a USB Blaster programmer for about $12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT does look interesting.?? Thanks for the pointer.
Cheers.
Dave.
-- Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software:
<> Virus-free. www.avast.com <> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
|
Re: HP1349D Display for parts
I have a working HP1349D display with a weak tube for sale. If anyone need parts to fix one, this is a great candidate. Removed from an 8757A. Reply directly if interested.
Regards
Jeff Kruth
|
On 7/25/2019 4:39 PM, Dave Daniel
wrote:
Well, I don't have a problem with that, but I'm just a
contributor to the thread.
I have a lot (~43 years) experience with both embedded hardware
(including large FPGA designs) and embedded software, as well as
embedded system architecture, so I'll add my $.02.
Partitioning an architecture into the hardware and software
components is not always easy (in fact, it almost always is not
easy).
Remember that, at 70,000 ft., and ignoring all of the
development methodology issues, an FPGA or other fixed-hardware
portion of a design is different topologically than the part
that the processor handles. For example, the FPGA design is
fixed, topologically and (ignoring re-programming with different
images for different applications) may be designed to be
deterministic in it's behavior. Aside from design faults that
cause timing and metastability issues. A schematic or other
fixed-topological view of the hardware is the only model needed
to depict the hardware (deciphering it is another issue).
The processor-controlled portion of the design necessarily
involves the execution of code, which has no fixed topology at
run-time, and is not necessarily deterministic. A software based
design requires, at a minimum, both a structural model of the
code and a behavioral model (think UML or SysML) to understand.
It is not necessary to have both elements in an embedded
system, but many embedded systems do have both.
My point is that the determination of whether to use an FPGA or
other fixed-hardware design, or a processor-based design, or a
combination of both, is entirely dependent on the requirements
that dictate how the system behaves and what it is supposed to
do. In the commercial world, that determination also must take
into account fixed production costs and maintenance costs of the
system.
Most (?) very small embedded systems designed by "hobbyists"
today use a single SBC such as an Arduino, Raspberry Pi,
BeagleBone, etc.and there is no need for the amount of fixed
hardware that would make a CPLD or FPGA a reasonable design
option, But, as the GPIB-USB discussion shows, sometimes maybe
using both is a good idea.
Hmmm, well, I may have transgressed "simple".? LED controller
(pulse, pwm brightness), timer and trigger for ultrasonic distance
measurement, Neopixel encoder, SPI interface, programmable pins,
FIFO, usart, I2C to parallel decoder (in the works).
also GPIB encoder, replacement for an 8259 keyboard/led driver,
and support circuitry for a DM5010.?
Harvey
DaveD
On 7/25/2019 3:50 PM, saipan59 wrote:
I want to suggest
that the discussion should include the trade-offs of an FPGA
implementation vs an MCU [I have very limited experience with
the former, but a lot with the latter], as it relates to the
applications we're talking about.
Anecdote: When designing the 'Power-On Reset' features for a
product a few years ago, I planned to use a small MCU. When the
Architect found out, he vetoed it, saying "We can't rely on
running code for a critical start-up function". He was fine with
an FPGA or CPLD (at higher cost, more board real estate, less
flexible behaviors, and HUGE complexity in the 'code' that runs
under the covers). My belief is that he was equating an FPGA to
the old bipolar PAL's used in the 70's/80's, where logic
functions were literally burned in, so it was considered
super-reliable.
In the end, I was able to meet the requirements with just a few
little timer (1-shot) chips and a bit of glue logic.
Pete
|
On 7/25/2019 3:50 PM, saipan59 wrote:
I want to suggest that the discussion should include the
trade-offs of an FPGA implementation vs an MCU [I have very
limited experience with the former, but a lot with the latter], as
it relates to the applications we're talking about.
I'll weigh in here.
FPGA:? lots faster, more expensive, extensive I/O.? True hardware
implementation, simultaneous operation of functions.? Often 3.3
volts for I/O.? Cost (including CPLDS, which are more limited in
scope, cheaper, and generally nonvolatile), will run from about 2
dollars to 16 dollars for Xilinx parts (what I'm familiar with).?
VHDL is essentially specifying hardware.? If you want it to
respond to different conditions (as in pretending to have a
program in it) then? you need either a state machine or a
processor IP (Picoblaze is possible).? RAM resources are somewhat
limited depending on chip (CPLDs have none).? Best use: smart
hardware and hardware subsystems.? SPI interface may be programmed
in for processor interface.? Programming is in VHDL or Verilog.?
Microprocessor:? No hardware systems need to be designed.?
Programming is sequential, slower, although DMA and some
subsystems can operate independently.? 3.3 and 5.0 volts depending
on processor.? Cost may run from less than one dollar to 20
dollars depending on family and manufacturer.? Microprocessors
need external memory, external I/O subsystems.? Microcontrollers
take program and data memory inside, and provide subsystems (I2C,
SPI, Serial, etc.).? Programming is in any high level language
available or assembly.? Operating system can give illusion of
simultaneous operation, but unless more than one processor core is
available, operation is time shared.
.
Anecdote: When designing the 'Power-On Reset' features for a
product a few years ago, I planned to use a small MCU. When the
Architect found out, he vetoed it, saying "We can't rely on
running code for a critical start-up function".
Note to architect, it's been done in military qualified systems
for quite a few years.? Tektronix (and others) had extensive
processor diagnostics before the horse was allowed outside the
barn.
He was fine with an
FPGA or CPLD (at higher cost, more board real estate, less
flexible behaviors, and HUGE complexity in the 'code' that runs
under the covers). My belief is that he was equating an FPGA to
the old bipolar PAL's used in the 70's/80's, where logic functions
were literally burned in, so it was considered super-reliable.
And he may have been thinking of early microprocessors as well.
Harvey
In the end, I was
able to meet the requirements with just a few little timer
(1-shot) chips and a bit of glue logic.
Pete
|
Re: Low cost, OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter
On 7/25/2019 10:58 AM, Dave Daniel wrote: Also, don’t foget issues of cost of buying and/or finding “free” Verilog/VHDL copiler/synthesis and simulation tools. ISE webpack is the free edition.? All it wants to do is phone home to mommy to tell them what kind of device you're using.? No worse than Microsoft or symantec. simulator, editor, fitter, programming software, pin planner, etc. Good for the larger projects. Harvey DaveD
Sent from a small flat thingy
On Jul 25, 2019, at 10:08, Harvey White <madyn@...> wrote:
On 7/25/2019 12:58 AM, John kolb wrote:
CPLD's are less complex than FPGA's but not necessarily cheaper as the newer design parts get a lot more logic in a lot less silicon, at the cost of using lower voltages. Xilinx. 32 cell = 1.50, 64 cell = 3.25, 128 cell = 7.00, 256 cell = 15 dollars
Spartan 3AN (built in eeprom) 50K gates, about 14 dollars.
Spartan 6, (no eeprom, use winbond = 0.75) about 12 dollars, well over 50 K gates, has a 16 dollar pin compatible version with twice capacity.
Have standardized on the Spartan 6.
Pay careful attention to the bypass capacitors and clock run out to the configuration eeprom. Programmer available through amazon, web edition (local compile, report back to daddy) is free.
3.3 volts but then again was using them with Xmega and now with ARM.
All chips in non-BGA versions, TQFP-144, so therefore solderable.
SPI interface available through open cores, suggest register structure with read/write registers and go from there.
(and yes, done that....)
Harvey
Lattice 7000S series parts were good for a 5V part, but no longer available new, although still plenty on ebay.
An Altera Max 2 series part (3.3V), mounted on a PC board along with a clock oscillator and 5V to 3.3V voltage regulator would be a good start. EPM240 series along with a USB Blaster programmer for about $12
Similar modules are available for other CPLDs and FPGAs if the logic doesn't fit the EPM240.
Using a premade module gets one away from having to deal with surface mount parts, at least as long as the interface IC's are still available as thru-hole parts.
I'm still hoping I can figure out how to use the UGPlus to talk to my HP 3456.
John
On 7/24/2019 1:12 PM, Harvey White wrote:
On 7/24/2019 2:01 PM, saipan59 wrote: I once did a design that had the upD7210 in it (includes controller), driven by an XMEGA. I've got a similar design (unproven yet) that is driven by an ARM processor. Since the 75160/75162 are readily available (or at least, were....) I'd stick with them. I also have a possibility of using an FPGA to do the same. I'd stick with the FPGA for a new design since it can always be tweaked. I suspect that a CPLD may be too expensive for the complexity needed at that level.
FPGA goes through level shifters to the 488 bus drivers, so it's all well protected.
After I do a bunch of software (OS/graphics redesign) that's on the list (it says here......)
Harvey
|
Re: Low cost, OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter
I've been watching this thread with interest, and the group
as a whole has identified most of the issues I dealt with in developing
KISS-488. I did in fact use a PIC microcontroller with the high-current
drivers on the pins going out to the bus (with series protection
resistors). I also realized that the standard GPIB terminators are the
Thevinin equivalent of 2K to 3.3V. Downright convenient using a modern
3.3V power supply for all the logic, and 3.3V is well above the standard
TTL threshold of 2.4V for a logic high.
That said, I'm sure many on this list are dyed-in-the-wool hackers (in
the older and more respectful sense of the word), and would enjoy the
challenge of building your own. But if you just want to be able to get a
screen dump, or log data via Telnet, or just run your instrument from a
PC, please give KISS-488 a look.
Steve Hendrix
|
Re: Possibly OT - open source SCSI adapters - was Re: [HP-Agilent-Keysight-equipment] Low cost, OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter
I've been meaning to read into the difference between the protocols of the SCSI PATA adapters for CD-ROM drives and hard drives since I see there are on the market adapters that are more cost effective for those devices.?
Wondering and thinking that there is some sort of firmware modification to enable... otherwise I guess some other circuit with chip is required.?
Guessing is just a firmware mod however there might be something more complex with the linked list data structure of read/write protocol and needing a SOIC.
- James Finch?
|
Well, I don't have a problem with that, but I'm just a
contributor to the thread.
I have a lot (~43 years) experience with both embedded hardware
(including large FPGA designs) and embedded software, as well as
embedded system architecture, so I'll add my $.02.
Partitioning an architecture into the hardware and software
components is not always easy (in fact, it almost always is not
easy).
Remember that, at 70,000 ft., and ignoring all of the development
methodology issues, an FPGA or other fixed-hardware portion of a
design is different topologically than the part that the processor
handles. For example, the FPGA design is fixed, topologically and
(ignoring re-programming with different images for different
applications) may be designed to be deterministic in it's
behavior. Aside from design faults that cause timing and
metastability issues. A schematic or other fixed-topological view
of the hardware is the only model needed to depict the hardware
(deciphering it is another issue).
The processor-controlled portion of the design necessarily
involves the execution of code, which has no fixed topology at
run-time, and is not necessarily deterministic. A software based
design requires, at a minimum, both a structural model of the code
and a behavioral model (think UML or SysML) to understand.
It is not necessary to have both elements in an embedded system,
but many embedded systems do have both.
My point is that the determination of whether to use an FPGA or
other fixed-hardware design, or a processor-based design, or a
combination of both, is entirely dependent on the requirements
that dictate how the system behaves and what it is supposed to do.
In the commercial world, that determination also must take into
account fixed production costs and maintenance costs of the
system.
Most (?) very small embedded systems designed by "hobbyists"
today use a single SBC such as an Arduino, Raspberry Pi,
BeagleBone, etc.and there is no need for the amount of fixed
hardware that would make a CPLD or FPGA a reasonable design
option, But, as the GPIB-USB discussion shows, sometimes maybe
using both is a good idea.
DaveD
On 7/25/2019 3:50 PM, saipan59 wrote:
I want to suggest
that the discussion should include the trade-offs of an FPGA
implementation vs an MCU [I have very limited experience with the
former, but a lot with the latter], as it relates to the
applications we're talking about.
Anecdote: When designing the 'Power-On Reset' features for a
product a few years ago, I planned to use a small MCU. When the
Architect found out, he vetoed it, saying "We can't rely on
running code for a critical start-up function". He was fine with
an FPGA or CPLD (at higher cost, more board real estate, less
flexible behaviors, and HUGE complexity in the 'code' that runs
under the covers). My belief is that he was equating an FPGA to
the old bipolar PAL's used in the 70's/80's, where logic functions
were literally burned in, so it was considered super-reliable.
In the end, I was able to meet the requirements with just a few
little timer (1-shot) chips and a bit of glue logic.
Pete
|
I want to suggest that the discussion should include the trade-offs of an FPGA implementation vs an MCU [I have very limited experience with the former, but a lot with the latter], as it relates to the applications we're talking about.
Anecdote: When designing the 'Power-On Reset' features for a product a few years ago, I planned to use a small MCU. When the Architect found out, he vetoed it, saying "We can't rely on running code for a critical start-up function". He was fine with an FPGA or CPLD (at higher cost, more board real estate, less flexible behaviors, and HUGE complexity in the 'code' that runs under the covers). My belief is that he was equating an FPGA to the old bipolar PAL's used in the 70's/80's, where logic functions were literally burned in, so it was considered super-reliable. In the end, I was able to meet the requirements with just a few little timer (1-shot) chips and a bit of glue logic.
Pete
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
Me either. Next step is sealed boxes with "No user replaceable parts" When it breaks toss it and buy a new one. Really dumb policy. On 7/25/2019 12:09 PM, Daun Yeagley wrote: Hmm.... looks to me like they just signed their death certificate. Very sad to see this, but I guess not surprising.? Definitely NOT the company I used to work for.?? :-( Daun Daun E. Yeagley II, N8ASB WB6KBL
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
If I had serial #1 of something interesting, I would consider donating it to an appropriate museum collection.
Pete
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
This will reduce the value of their equipment as it will increase the lifecycle costs. Many, many companies rely on local third party firms for cal and repair so make equipment more budget friendly.?
I suppose with the way the government here is heading Keysight won’t have to worry about antitrust violations, but they won’t be able to so easily escape the economic market effects on their sales. This is probably welcome news to Keysight competitors as they can only win; either be eating Keysight’s lunch or by following suit (at least until the Chinese take over with disposable instruments which are replaced at each cal).
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jul 25, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Caesar Valenti < caesarv@...> wrote: I see that Keysight is now going to go the route of not providing any service adjustments on future products and of not providing any repair parts. The exception, of course, is to our own service centers.? They want to eliminate any 3rd party repair/cal facilities so that Keysight will get the money instead.? Supposedly, this is to ensure high quality repair/calibrations.? Of course, this tends to prevent any hobbyist from doing their own repair and any Keysight repair will probably be outrageously expensive for any non-corporate entities.?
We have already been instructed to remove all adjustments from our line of network analyzers.? We said no...(actually, hell no!)? Fortunately, our manager backed us up on this for now, but it is just a matter of time before this becomes standard Keysight policy on all instruments.? I don't think Bill and Dave would approve of this strategy, but it is very hard to get their current opinion or get them involved!? I can see it may soon be time to retire.
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
On 7/25/19 2:58 PM, Caesar Valenti wrote: I see that Keysight is now going to go the route of not providing any service adjustments on future products and of not providing any repair parts. The exception, of course, is to our own service centers.? They want to eliminate any 3rd party repair/cal facilities so that Keysight will get the money instead.? Supposedly, this is to ensure high quality repair/calibrations.? Of course, this tends to prevent any hobbyist from doing their own repair and any Keysight repair will probably be outrageously expensive for any non-corporate entities.?
We have already been instructed to remove all adjustments from our line of network analyzers.? We said no...(actually, hell no!)? Fortunately, our manager backed us up on this for now, but it is just a matter of time before this becomes standard Keysight policy on *all* instruments.? I don't think Bill and Dave would approve of this strategy, but it is very hard to get their current opinion or get them involved!? I can see it may soon be time to retire. It sounds like Keysight's upper management has forgotten the nature of the business that they're in, and the nature of their own company. Suits often forget (or want to erase) where things come from. All good things must come to an end. If/when they go through with this, it will be the end of their test equipment business. Of course they'll blame something else, and the suits who made the decision will be out with their golden parachutes before the shit hits the fan. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
Hmm.... looks to me like they just signed their death certificate.
Very sad to see this, but I guess not surprising.? Definitely NOT
the company I used to work for.?? :-(
Daun
Daun E. Yeagley II, N8ASB
On 7/25/2019 2:58 PM, Caesar Valenti
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I see that Keysight is now going to go the route of not providing
any service adjustments on future products and of not providing
any repair parts. The exception, of course, is to our own service
centers.? They want to eliminate any 3rd party repair/cal
facilities so that Keysight will get the money instead.?
Supposedly, this is to ensure high quality repair/calibrations.?
Of course, this tends to prevent any hobbyist from doing their own
repair and any Keysight repair will probably be outrageously
expensive for any non-corporate entities.?
We have already been instructed to remove all adjustments from our
line of network analyzers.? We said no...(actually, hell no!)?
Fortunately, our manager backed us up on this for now, but it is
just a matter of time before this becomes standard Keysight policy
on all instruments.? I don't think Bill and Dave
would approve of this strategy, but it is very hard to get their
current opinion or get them involved!? I can see it may soon be
time to retire.
|
Re: What would you do if you had some test equipment with Serial No: 0000001?
I see that Keysight is now going to go the route of not providing any service adjustments on future products and of not providing any repair parts. The exception, of course, is to our own service centers.? They want to eliminate any 3rd party repair/cal facilities so that Keysight will get the money instead.? Supposedly, this is to ensure high quality repair/calibrations.? Of course, this tends to prevent any hobbyist from doing their own repair and any Keysight repair will probably be outrageously expensive for any non-corporate entities.?
We have already been instructed to remove all adjustments from our line of network analyzers.? We said no...(actually, hell no!)? Fortunately, our manager backed us up on this for now, but it is just a matter of time before this becomes standard Keysight policy on all instruments.? I don't think Bill and Dave would approve of this strategy, but it is very hard to get their current opinion or get them involved!? I can see it may soon be time to retire.
|
I'm starting anew thread for the FPGA development discussion that
veered off from the OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter discussion.
Responding to Dave_G0WBX's comment, what development tools are
available for the creation synthesis and simulation of code for
the Altera parts?
We stopped using Altera parts at Oracle a while back because the
Oracle and Altera legal departments could not agree on a contract.
Even though we had several very large Altera designs in
production.
DaveD
-------- Forwarded Message --------
We need to move the FOGA development discussion to a new thread.
DaveD
Sent from a small flat
thingy
On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:49, Dave_G0WBX via Groups.Io < g8kbvdave@...>
wrote:
Re:-
An Altera Max 2 series part (3.3V), mounted on a PC board
along with a clock oscillator and 5V to 3.3V voltage
regulator would be a good start.
EPM240 series along with a USB Blaster programmer for
about $12
THAT does look interesting.?? Thanks for the pointer.
Cheers.
Dave.
--
Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software:
|
Re: 431B Power Meter Repairs
Addendum: I'm also pretty certain there is at least one bad germanium transistor (maybe Q109) in the 10 KC amplifier/oscillator circuits. The manual indicates that the waveform should be sinusoidal with some crossover distortion...and it's pretty much anything but sinusoidal. It goes crazy when the range is switched out of null too.
Sean
|
Re: Low cost, OSSW/OSHW AR488 GPIB-USB adapter
We need to move the FOGA development discussion to a new thread. DaveD Sent from a small flat thingy
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:49, Dave_G0WBX via Groups.Io < g8kbvdave@...> wrote:
Re:-
An Altera Max 2 series part (3.3V), mounted on a PC board along
with a clock oscillator and 5V to 3.3V voltage regulator would be
a good start.
EPM240 series along with a USB Blaster programmer for about $12
THAT does look interesting.?? Thanks for the pointer.
Cheers.
Dave.
--
Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open source software:
|