Re: 485 super weak brightness control
I have 2445B and 2467B
I used 2445B thus far, less messing with intensity to take pictures
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 18:56 Raymond Domp Frank, <hewpatek@...> wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:51 PM, Raymond Domp Frank wrote:
Observation 'scope (2465B?
Just realised that's a 2467B.....
Raymond
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:51 PM, Raymond Domp Frank wrote:
Observation 'scope (2465B?
Just realised that's a 2467B..... Raymond
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:02 PM, Ozan wrote:
Take a look at the posted pictures:
/g/TekScopes/album?id=262059
Latest 5 pictures for B sweep in 1ns/div to 20ns/div. As expected no change in
B-gate from 1ns/div to 2ns/div, then B gate time increases. When B gate is
more than 10ns/div, A gate also increases (as expected, A gate time >= B gate
time).
Gentlemen, First of all, in order to make life as easy as possible, it would help me/us if we would "standardise" our settings: - A-ramp at top - A-gate below that - B-gate below that again - Variable timebase knob in the "calibrated" position (pushed in) - Delay Time Position to minimum (0) - Observation 'scope (2465B?) in non-delayed mode - Trigger on A- gate trace My observations match Ozan's latest ones. Ondrej, Your observations re. B-gate in 1, 2, 5, 10 ns positions are as they should be. I guess at positions 5ns/div and faster, it says "A only" on the front plate but I guess it actually shows B. Raymond
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
Take a look at the posted pictures: /g/TekScopes/album?id=262059Latest 5 pictures for B sweep in 1ns/div to 20ns/div. As expected no change in B-gate from 1ns/div to 2ns/div, then B gate time increases. When B gate is more than 10ns/div, A gate also increases (as expected, A gate time >= B gate time). Ozan
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:27 AM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
Here is a odd thing I observing with B gate. Is this normal? Basically I
expect the pulse to be shortest at 1nS and gradually widen. What happens
here it basically goes in circles instead.
Looking at the width on your picture my B gate pulse width is correct at
1ns, corect at 2 and 5 but at 10ns us again the same length as 1nS and that
can't be right?
As far as I remember B-gate time stays the same from 1ns to 2ns (because of
the reason I mentioned before) then increases at 5ns. I will look at what
happens on my scope but I expect it should continue increasing.
Ozan
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:27 AM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
Here is a odd thing I observing with B gate. Is this normal? Basically I
expect the pulse to be shortest at 1nS and gradually widen. What happens
here it basically goes in circles instead.
Looking at the width on your picture my B gate pulse width is correct at
1ns, corect at 2 and 5 but at 10ns us again the same length as 1nS and that
can't be right?
As far as I remember B-gate time stays the same from 1ns to 2ns (because of the reason I mentioned before) then increases at 5ns. I will look at what happens on my scope but I expect it should continue increasing. Ozan
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
Here is a odd thing I observing with B gate. Is this normal? Basically I expect the pulse to be shortest at 1nS and gradually widen. What happens here it basically goes in circles instead. Looking at the width on your picture my B gate pulse width is correct at 1ns, corect at 2 and 5 but at 10ns us again the same length as 1nS and that can't be right? On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 16:57 Ondrej Pavelka, <info@...> wrote: B cannot rotate any further, it's rock solid against lock.
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 16:23 Ozan, <ozan_g@...> wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
Videos are very useful.
I was surprised sweep and gate signals are not aligned but I think you
are using different probes for each. Using a BNC cable for all of them will
eliminate any mismatch. Just for reference here is what I had observed:
/g/TekScopes/photo/262059/0?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0
Setup: Inputs were set to 50-ohm (used BNC-T plus termination for CH3).
No signal input, free running.
Raymond's question reminded me my earlier message:
Are you sure B sweep shaft is not rotated out of alignment? You can
look at J1 (relay signal) and check it switches at .1us/.2us boundary.
I read your reply about timebases being locked. You may already know that
but you can pull the time/div knob and rotate clockwise to speed up B
timebase compared to A timebase. In that position B is not locked to A, and
you can check if B can be rotated past the 1ns/div setting. There is a lock
mechanism that won't allow B slower than A, so don't force in that
direction.
I will look at the video again an reply later, I wanted to catch you
while it is still earlier in the evening.
Ozan
|
Re: How to explain how negative feedback lowers noise?
Here is my attempt to explain in a real-world example the concepts of negative feedback and whether or not it lowers noise.
The is for my buddy Keith.
I came up with a simple real-world example of negative feedback and noise.
Imagine you are driving your car. There is a control system involved with keeping the car on the road. Your vision is the sensor that keeps track of whether or not you are driving on the road. If your car starts to deviate from the center of your lane, let¡¯s say you start to head toward the edge of the road on the right, you pick that up as you see the car headed toward the stripe on the right side of the road. Your control system, consisting of your eyes and your arms through the steering wheel, applies a correction in the OPPOSITE direction of the current output (wheel direction) which is negative feedback.
Now let¡¯s say you are in your 4-wheel drive Jeep and the road is full of very large potholes which can have a tendency to throw the vehicle from one side to the other as you travel along. The potholes represent noise or distortion in your system. Now you can ignore the potholes and not correct for them, but your vehicle might go off the road as a result. Or, you can steer to correct for each pothole as you hit it (no anticipatory correction), applying negative feedback to your vehicle in an attempt to keep it on the road. By doing this, you are lowering the noise in terms of the path that the vehicle will take. Note that the potholes are essentially noise within the steering control loop and the effect on your vehicle¡¯s path will be reduced as corrections are applied ¨C negative feedback lowers noise in the loop.
Let¡¯s get off the road with the potholes and back onto a smooth paved road. Now let¡¯s say your spouse is in the passenger seat and is ¡°helping¡± to navigate by giving you directions on where to go. Any errors in her directions that you follow essentially are noise on the input of your control system. Let¡¯s say your spouse told you to make a ¡°wrong¡± turn (or multiple wrong turns), which constitutes noise in the steering system input and none of your steering control system will lower that noise. So negative feedback in our steering control system won¡¯t help to lower noise because the noise is not in the control loop.
Matt
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:04 AM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [TekScopes] How to explain how negative feedback lowers noise? re: Negative Feedback example, etc. Folks tell me that a gentle answer turns away wrath, so I hope this is a gentle reply. I mean it in that spirit. Tom, with respect to your criticism of my example, I would suggest that you do a quick review of the original post #1. Here is the pertinent part of it, for your convenience: Hi all, I'm trying to explain to people at my company (none of whom are EEs or statisticians) how negative feedback works in a system. That's one thing that I'm trying to get across, and I can't come up with an explanation of it in every day terms. All the examples I find in biology etc seem kind of dubious and not very straightforward - there's a lot of "trust me on this" as to why it's actually negative feedback and not some form of other regulation. What's a simple /physical/ negative feedback? This is question 1 in the OP...period. The core of it is simple. "...how negative feedback works in a system..." Only in the next sentence (not quoted above) does the OP then use the word "another", and only then does he bring up a second question about feedback and noise. So, the original post is really two questions. Question 1 is the issue of a real world example of negative feedback in a system. Question 2 is the interaction of feedback and noise. Nothing in my example is intended or stated to address that second question. I had nothing to add to that discussion, and so attempted to provide the OP with his example for question one. Now I admit that the use of the word "noise" in my example does unintentionally blur the line - since I say "noisy happy children". I see how that might cause confusion, so I will attempt to edit my post to remove that word. Thanks for that. But, to be clear here, my example was only intended to apply to question #1 in the OP. Question #1 was the only part for which I felt I had an example that met his requirements, specifically that it be; 1. "non technical" - (which I admit I assumed would mean for persons who have no electronic background) 2. use "everyday terms" (everyday means things that average people from all walks of life could grasp) 3. provide a "simple / physical / negative feedback" example. Of course every analogy breaks down at some point, but in learning and teaching, it is quite common to go from the simple to the complex in a series of stepped examples - first simple and familiar, and therefore necessarily incomplete at some level. Then more subtle, complex, and therefore more narrow and demanding in proofs and adherence to reality. Thanks for reading my reply in a mild spirit. I mean no disrespect, but at the moment I stand by my example (modified to remove the word "noisy" of course) as meeting the requirements of OP's question one only. Of course, if you see it differently, then perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one? In any case, thanks for your contributions to the forum. You're a valuable resource here. Warmly, Keith
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
B cannot rotate any further, it's rock solid against lock.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 16:23 Ozan, <ozan_g@...> wrote: Hi Ondrej,
Videos are very useful.
I was surprised sweep and gate signals are not aligned but I think you are
using different probes for each. Using a BNC cable for all of them will
eliminate any mismatch. Just for reference here is what I had observed:
/g/TekScopes/photo/262059/0?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0
Setup: Inputs were set to 50-ohm (used BNC-T plus termination for CH3). No
signal input, free running.
Raymond's question reminded me my earlier message:
Are you sure B sweep shaft is not rotated out of alignment? You can
look at J1 (relay signal) and check it switches at .1us/.2us boundary.
I read your reply about timebases being locked. You may already know that
but you can pull the time/div knob and rotate clockwise to speed up B
timebase compared to A timebase. In that position B is not locked to A, and
you can check if B can be rotated past the 1ns/div setting. There is a lock
mechanism that won't allow B slower than A, so don't force in that
direction.
I will look at the video again an reply later, I wanted to catch you while
it is still earlier in the evening.
Ozan
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
I can replicate your picture at free running BNC cables 50Ohm termination
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 16:23 Ozan, <ozan_g@...> wrote: Hi Ondrej,
Videos are very useful.
I was surprised sweep and gate signals are not aligned but I think you are
using different probes for each. Using a BNC cable for all of them will
eliminate any mismatch. Just for reference here is what I had observed:
/g/TekScopes/photo/262059/0?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0
Setup: Inputs were set to 50-ohm (used BNC-T plus termination for CH3). No
signal input, free running.
Raymond's question reminded me my earlier message:
Are you sure B sweep shaft is not rotated out of alignment? You can
look at J1 (relay signal) and check it switches at .1us/.2us boundary.
I read your reply about timebases being locked. You may already know that
but you can pull the time/div knob and rotate clockwise to speed up B
timebase compared to A timebase. In that position B is not locked to A, and
you can check if B can be rotated past the 1ns/div setting. There is a lock
mechanism that won't allow B slower than A, so don't force in that
direction.
I will look at the video again an reply later, I wanted to catch you while
it is still earlier in the evening.
Ozan
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:23 PM, Ozan wrote:
I read your reply about timebases being locked. You may already know that but
you can pull the time/div knob and rotate clockwise to speed up B timebase
compared to A timebase. In that position B is not locked to A, and you can
check if B can be rotated past the 1ns/div setting. There is a lock mechanism
that won't allow B slower than A, so don't force in that direction.
If the B-switch setting is faster than the B-knob indicates and the switch is mechanically blocked beyond the 1ns/div setting, it wouldn't be possible to set the B-speed switch to indicate 1ns/div. In my earlier msg I was trying to say that it is easy to achieve an A/B interlocked situation with either A faster or slower than B: Loosen the B knob, lift it slightly, turn it either CW or CCW and tighten. Next, rotate switch position by B-knob, loosen it, put into interlocked position, push B knob down and tighten. Done! Ondrey correctly said that because of (highly likely) mechanical limits, while interlocked, the slowest and fastest A- and B-setting could not be chosen then though. Raymond
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
Hi Ondrej, Videos are very useful.
I was surprised sweep and gate signals are not aligned but I think you are using different probes for each. Using a BNC cable for all of them will eliminate any mismatch. Just for reference here is what I had observed: /g/TekScopes/photo/262059/0?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0 Setup: Inputs were set to 50-ohm (used BNC-T plus termination for CH3). No signal input, free running. Raymond's question reminded me my earlier message: Are you sure B sweep shaft is not rotated out of alignment? You can look at J1 (relay signal) and check it switches at .1us/.2us boundary.
I read your reply about timebases being locked. You may already know that but you can pull the time/div knob and rotate clockwise to speed up B timebase compared to A timebase. In that position B is not locked to A, and you can check if B can be rotated past the 1ns/div setting. There is a lock mechanism that won't allow B slower than A, so don't force in that direction. I will look at the video again an reply later, I wanted to catch you while it is still earlier in the evening. Ozan
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:48 PM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
Wouldn't it correct itself at max and min setting?
Probably, didn't check that. You probably run against end points.
There is a locking mechanism in the switch itself
I didn't check any further. You obviously know what you're doing... Raymond
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
Wouldn't it correct itself at max and min setting? Both my shafts A and B
can move from 0.5second to 1nS and no further and neither can rotate freely
all the way around. There is a locking mechanism in the switch itself
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 14:21 Raymond Domp Frank, <hewpatek@...> wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:04 PM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
The time base knob cannot be inserted in any other way. It's all locked
Sorry to insist and no idea whether it matches any of your other symptoms
but on my 485, it's no problem repositioning the knob on its shaft so B
runs 10x as fast as A while A and B knobs are interlocked.
Raymond
|
Re: How to explain how negative feedback lowers noise?
As? a non-EE, maybe my take on this could be useful, because the OP was looking for a non-technical analogy or explanation. But it should still be accurate.
The kids going into the house example does not work because the kids are the input - they are already noisy, so negative feedback that compares input to output would not eliminate it. Another way to say it is: nice quiet kids come into the house, other kids already in there yell at them and makes the once-quiet house noisy. The dad asks the noisy kids to stop and be just like the quiet kids, and the house stays quiet.
I don't think this is such a simple, easy analogy, but it seems more accurate (the feedback is not truly instantaneous, for one thing). The key is that negative feedback makes a comparison between input and output, and subtracts what is not in the input.
Unteaching is very difficult - as a researcher dealing with managers, I deal with that almost everyday.
I hope I was gentle enough.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/23/2021 7:04 AM, Keith wrote: re: Negative Feedback example, etc.
Folks tell me that a gentle answer turns away wrath, so I hope this is a gentle reply. I mean it in that spirit.
Tom, with respect to your criticism of my example, I would suggest that you do a quick review of the original post #1. Here is the pertinent part of it, for your convenience:
Hi all,
I'm trying to explain to people at my company (none of whom are EEs or
statisticians) how negative feedback works in a system. That's one
thing that I'm trying to get across, and I can't come up with an
explanation of it in every day terms. All the examples I find in
biology etc seem kind of dubious and not very straightforward -
there's a lot of "trust me on this" as to why it's actually negative
feedback and not some form of other regulation. What's a simple
/physical/ negative feedback?
This is question 1 in the OP...period. The core of it is simple. "...how negative feedback works in a system..." Only in the next sentence (not quoted above) does the OP then use the word "another", and only then does he bring up a second question about feedback and noise. So, the original post is really two questions. Question 1 is the issue of a real world example of negative feedback in a system. Question 2 is the interaction of feedback and noise.
Nothing in my example is intended or stated to address that second question. I had nothing to add to that discussion, and so attempted to provide the OP with his example for question one. Now I admit that the use of the word "noise" in my example does unintentionally blur the line - since I say "noisy happy children". I see how that might cause confusion, so I will attempt to edit my post to remove that word. Thanks for that.
But, to be clear here, my example was only intended to apply to question #1 in the OP. Question #1 was the only part for which I felt I had an example that met his requirements, specifically that it be;
1. "non technical" - (which I admit I assumed would mean for persons who have no electronic background)
2. use "everyday terms" (everyday means things that average people from all walks of life could grasp)
3. provide a "simple / physical / negative feedback" example.
Of course every analogy breaks down at some point, but in learning and teaching, it is quite common to go from the simple to the complex in a series of stepped examples - first simple and familiar, and therefore necessarily incomplete at some level. Then more subtle, complex, and therefore more narrow and demanding in proofs and adherence to reality.
Thanks for reading my reply in a mild spirit. I mean no disrespect, but at the moment I stand by my example (modified to remove the word "noisy" of course) as meeting the requirements of OP's question one only. Of course, if you see it differently, then perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one? In any case, thanks for your contributions to the forum. You're a valuable resource here.
Warmly,
Keith
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:04 PM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
The time base knob cannot be inserted in any other way. It's all locked
Sorry to insist and no idea whether it matches any of your other symptoms but on my 485, it's no problem repositioning the knob on its shaft so B runs 10x as fast as A while A and B knobs are interlocked. Raymond
|
Re: How to explain how negative feedback lowers noise?
re: Negative Feedback example, etc.
Folks tell me that a gentle answer turns away wrath, so I hope this is a gentle reply. I mean it in that spirit.
Tom, with respect to your criticism of my example, I would suggest that you do a quick review of the original post #1. Here is the pertinent part of it, for your convenience:
Hi all,
I'm trying to explain to people at my company (none of whom are EEs or
statisticians) how negative feedback works in a system. That's one
thing that I'm trying to get across, and I can't come up with an
explanation of it in every day terms. All the examples I find in
biology etc seem kind of dubious and not very straightforward -
there's a lot of "trust me on this" as to why it's actually negative
feedback and not some form of other regulation. What's a simple
/physical/ negative feedback?
This is question 1 in the OP...period. The core of it is simple. "...how negative feedback works in a system..." Only in the next sentence (not quoted above) does the OP then use the word "another", and only then does he bring up a second question about feedback and noise. So, the original post is really two questions. Question 1 is the issue of a real world example of negative feedback in a system. Question 2 is the interaction of feedback and noise.
Nothing in my example is intended or stated to address that second question. I had nothing to add to that discussion, and so attempted to provide the OP with his example for question one. Now I admit that the use of the word "noise" in my example does unintentionally blur the line - since I say "noisy happy children". I see how that might cause confusion, so I will attempt to edit my post to remove that word. Thanks for that.
But, to be clear here, my example was only intended to apply to question #1 in the OP. Question #1 was the only part for which I felt I had an example that met his requirements, specifically that it be;
1. "non technical" - (which I admit I assumed would mean for persons who have no electronic background)
2. use "everyday terms" (everyday means things that average people from all walks of life could grasp)
3. provide a "simple / physical / negative feedback" example.
Of course every analogy breaks down at some point, but in learning and teaching, it is quite common to go from the simple to the complex in a series of stepped examples - first simple and familiar, and therefore necessarily incomplete at some level. Then more subtle, complex, and therefore more narrow and demanding in proofs and adherence to reality.
Thanks for reading my reply in a mild spirit. I mean no disrespect, but at the moment I stand by my example (modified to remove the word "noisy" of course) as meeting the requirements of OP's question one only. Of course, if you see it differently, then perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one? In any case, thanks for your contributions to the forum. You're a valuable resource here.
Warmly,
Keith
|
Re: 485 super weak brightness control
Hi,
It good you asked but I made sure it's in defined known position.
The time base knob cannot be inserted in any other way. It's all locked
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 12:55 Raymond Domp Frank, <hewpatek@...> wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:20 PM, Ondrej Pavelka wrote:
Here are the observations on the A sweep.
Note the difference between free running and triggered
Ignorant question:
On the video, I see you are missing some knobs, like the one for Holdoff.
Are you sure that you have set that to minimum and others correctly as
well and what's more: Are you sure that the registration between the A- and
B-timebase is correct, i.e. that the B-timebase knob is mounted correctly?
Raymond
|
Re: FG502 doesn't start at some specific settings
Both marked 820 ohms (grey-red-brown); initial measure in circuit R155 real value 1053 ohms (same value when removed), R290 real value 832 ohms and they look like 0.5W (if not more). Now the two have places switched, but, as I said, no difference in behavior of the stage
TT
|
Re: How to explain how negative feedback lowers noise?
Thanks everyone for the very interesting contributions. I have one more question about the feedback/noise debacle. Without feedback we have less linearity, therefore the original signal comes with a bunch of distortion products. Meanwhile the noise which is much lower in amplitude and therefore remains in the linear part of the curve can keep raising in power longer before it starts clipping. So in that case, once you amplify your signal enough that you get to the non-linear segment, if you turn up amplification even more, you're actually increasing noise, and increasing distortion products, while the signal doesn't increase just as much as the noise does. Therefore you can get more noise with the same amount of original signal. So more linearity means less noise in this case. Is this logic correct? On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:36 AM Chris Wilkson via groups.io <cwilkson@...> wrote:
Tom is right. Negative feedback can only reduce the noise introduced by the amplifier itself. If the system works properly, the input will be perfectly amplified - with no noise added by the amplifier. But if noise is part of the input, then that noise is amplified by exactly the same amount as the intended input signal.
Hey Tom,
I once heard the argument that negative feedback could eliminate noise and it was supported by live measurements. Actually, more than once from more than one source. It usually went something like this...
Here's a noisy input signal (shown by live measurement - very fuzzy) and here's the amplified output with a larger amplitude, but less noise content (also shown on the scope - not fuzzy at all). It was clear that the output had *less* noise than the input. Therefore, the negative feedback must be reducing the noise! Many attendees just accepted the result...and continued to propagate the idea. The problem of course was the input noise signal was high frequency, beyond the bandwidth of the system. It was just being filtered out by the inherently lowpass universe. Have you seen any talks like this?
I think there are a lot of similar situations out there that contribute to common misconceptions like this one. And this one is really common.
|
Re: Recapping Tektronix 2465
I thank everyone for their help. M Yachad: That is an error in my very old list.
No, it's my mistake, it's "A2 board", not A3: C1274 and C1291. Tek "2465" should not have C1292.
|
Raymond Domp Frank