sipespresso
There are many reasons a person might value a scope. When a person cares about the beauty of an instrument and what it represents historically, its utility as an oscilloscope for everyday use becomes a secondary factor, if a factor at all.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Also, a lot of interesting concepts are embodied in old scopes. For example, distributed amplifiers, equivalent-time analog sampling, tunnel diode triggering, and storage CRTs. These things tickle my mind. I own some scopes just so I can marvel at them. Basically, they are Faberge eggs for an electronics enthusiast. That said, I do like to bring my old scopes into proper calibration. Sometimes a decision has to be made, whether to functionally restore or just clean up a scope. Historic integrity is likely to be lost in a functional restoration of an early Tek scope. It is a tough decision. I have no rigid position on the issue. -Kurt For example, I recently got a 514. I'm pretty sure that I'd need to do extensive replacement of internal parts to get it working properly. It is never clear what's the right thing to do in this situation and every person has to make their own decision. For the 514, I'm going to leave it alone. Other times, I couldn't resist the urge to do functional restoration. My 567 was just too interesting not to repair. So I replaced the electrolytics and got it fully operational. I wouldn't blame somebody if they chose, in the same situation, to leave the scope unmolested. --- In TekScopes@..., "Steve" <ditter2@...> wrote:
|