From: John Larkin
Subject: Re: Binary Sampler
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:01:07 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: <3E244AFE.4F3E@sneakemail.com> <3E25A881.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3E25C839.77BB@sneakemail.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:44:41 -0500, Mike Monett
>In a Gaussian distribution, the mean, median and mode are identical. So
>how is it converging to the wrong value?
Special case. Not all noise is Gaussian.
>Overall, the binary sampler represents a significant improvement in cost,
>accuracy, and measurement time needed to capture usable waveforms in poor
Humbly disagree. Getting one bit per sample isn't as efficient, or as
linear, as getting 11 or so.
> It does not suffer from the 3% to 5% ringing and
>overshoot in typical sampling systems
Whether a sampler rings or not is an implementation/layout issue. If a
slideback sampler doesn't ring, it's probably because it's slow.
>and can be made with parts readily
>available to anyone, not just HP and Tektronix.
A few-GHz dual-diode analog-feedback sampler can be made with about
ten dollars worth of distributor-stock parts.
The slideback sampler is has been reinvented (and mostly abandoned)
many times in the last 40 years or so. If you're going to go to the
trouble to make a wideband sampling scope, it's not much more trouble
or expense to build a true linear sampler... and it's a lot faster.
More fun, too!
Granted, this idea is cute - I had a brief fling with it myself in