Re: Oscilloscope delivers 25 GHz bandwith on 4 channels

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 10-12-2024 02:16, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 10-12-2024 00:14, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 08-12-2024 21:41, Phil Hobbs wrote:

john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 18:26:07 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 12/8/24 16:53, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:11:47 +0100, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

On 07-12-2024 07:00, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 6 Dec 2024 17:59:30 +0100) it happened Lasse Langwadt
<llc@fonz.dk> wrote in <vivahi$2etnj$2@dont-email.me>:
 

On 12/5/24 11:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Oscilloscope Delivers 25-GHz Bandwidth on Four Channels
 
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/test-measurement/oscilloscopes/article/55247306/electronic-design-pico-technology-oscilloscope-delivers-25-ghz-bandwidth-on-four-channels
Pico Technology expanded its PicoScope 9400 Series with the
PicoScope 9404A-25, a high-performance oscilloscope with 25 GHz of
bandwidth on four channels. The company's Sampler-Extended
Real-Time Oscilloscope (SXRTO) technology integrates real-time
acquisition with sampling oscilloscope capabilities. Thus, the
scope can trigger directly on the signal while recording pre-trigger
data, with the high time and amplitude resolution of a sampling scope.
 
https://www.electronicdesign.com/techxchange/article/55238271/advanced-oscilloscope-techniques
 
https://www.picotech.com/products/oscilloscope/picoscope-9000-series/picoscope-9400a-series-sampler-extended-real-time-oscilloscope
 
Only 25,645 ?
 
For the real audiophiles!!
 

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYje2B04xE
 
110GHz bandwidth, 256GS/s four channels, only ~$2M

 
 
https://www.keysight.com/us/en/product/UXR1102A/infiniium-uxr-series-oscilloscope-110-ghz-2-channels.html
 
When I want to see 10 GHz signals I use an old 5 dollar LNB and
downconvert to about 1 GHz...
that into a 35 dollar RTL_SDR stick.
I know it is not the same, but 100 GHz downconvert should not cost hat much more
At higher frequencies lasers into non linear crystals as mixer?
From the 1.999 M$ left buy a nice house?
 

Very nice idea, but that will work only for sinusoidal signals, right?

 
There were some superhet oscilloscopes that split the input signal
into bands with RF techniques, namely downconverting bands and
digitizing them, then somehow putting that mess back together
mathematically. Of course, one was a LeCroy.
 
Integrated shockline samplers killed that idea.
 
But 100 GHz electrical signals barely exist, so the market is small
for those megabuck scopes.
 

 
I should be possible to abuse a cheap fast latched comparator as
a sampler with ~10GHz bandwidth or so. Something like an ADCMP580.
 
Jeroen Belleman

 
I've done that and have a PCB, TDR actually. It seemed to work but I
haven't had much time to play with it.
 
Does anyone want to take over and see how well it actually works? I
guess it could become a product.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y88pcdjfd0qovxmpfizwu/Z368.JPG?rlkey=fu4bng7i34yjbol7s1npapp8x&raw=1
 
It's one of those tiles.
 
 

 
Simon and I are just finishing up a TDR gizmo for measuring soil moisture
and salinity vs depth for an ag customer.  It’s a 150-ps-class device,
which is much better than good enough for the application, and we’re
getting the first 20 fully-stuffed boards for $23 each from JLCPCB,
including the data converters, MCU, voltage regulators, as well as the TDR
proper.
 
It uses a two-diode sampler, which avoids the major pain of sampler design,
the need to match diodes. Of course it has horrible kickout, but that’s
perfectly okay in this situation.
 
Fun gizmo.
 

 
At an earlier employment a proposal was made to include a TDR into a
product, to be able to preventive warn of cable faults or even motor
winding shorts.
 
Then a RF engineer, one that I never liked much, took the brute force
approach using a GHz sampling ADC, costing hundreds of dollars per
product (would effectively kill the idea). He said it could not be done
in any other way.
 
I then made a diode sampler, with a sliding picosecond STM32 timer, and
made it for 10 USD instead :-)
 

 
Our gizmo is replacing something like that—a 250 MSa transient digitizer
run in equivalent time mode. Its BOM cost was around $400, plus a lot of
the parts were EOL.
 
Savings like that sure make the licensing conversation easier. ;)
 

So you were able to make a deal with the client that you part owned the
IP, and could use it for other projects?
 
I am in a similar situation right now, working on a dedicated HW
solution that I would like to begin to sell afterwards. Guessing either
telling the client they get later improvements to the design for free,
reducing my hours billed, or letting them get  a percentage of the
profits of my sales.
 

 
The conversation is still underway, but I expect that we’ll wind up with a
win-win deal, as we have previously.
 
We position ourselves as a design consultancy with a lot of existing
“background IP”, including full product designs, design studies, and
general know-how.
 
In the present case, we’re looking at filing a patent for a new measurement
principle, and charging the customer a combined patent/know-how royalty.
Since the total cost is a good bit less than the BOM savings alone, the
negotiations are pretty amicable. ;)

 
Sounds like an idea situation. Important to take that upfront
 
I have spend a lot of time on cost savings over the years, so when I
take a consulting assignment, I often try to solve the task and reduce
cost significantly at the same time. Ideally with a ROI of a year. That
is a compelling selling argument against the customer.
 
Cheers
 
Klaus
 

 
Yup. It’s worth pitching a royalty,because the value you bring isn’t just a
one-time payoff.  That’s true whether you’re customizing an existing design
or doing something new.  You have a lot of background IP, including
previous designs,

design approaches, circuit topologies, and general expertise, such as how
to make an amplifier fast and accurate while avoiding oscillation.

 
The most common objection is, “We’re paying you for the work—why should we
pay twice?”  The answer is that the royalty (5% of revenue or thereabouts)
is for the background IP, and the hourly work is for customizing it to
their application.
 
Try saying that you want to succeed together with them—that gets the point
across pretty well, we find. 
 
Cheers
 
Phil Hobbs
 

Oh

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs  Principal Consultant  ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics  Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics