From: Mike Monett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
Subject: Re: Binary Sampler
References: <3E27C2F7.email@example.com> <3E29150C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:29:20 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:28:45 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:49:16 -0500, Mike Monett
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> I'll call it whatever I want to; I choose to call it a 'slideback
> >> sampler' to give credit to the people who published it before I saw
> >> it: the GE book, the National appnote, and PC Instruments, who
> >> commercialized it.
> >John, I looked up the references you made in a.b.s.e and found the
> >samplers made by PC Instruments are still on the market, but the 300 MHz
> >version is a standard 8-bit 12.5 Msample/sec digitizer with equivalent
> >time functions.
> >Can you verify this is the one you were referring to?
> They used to sell a 300 MHz bw ISA-card digitizer that used 'binary
> sampling' with feedback. It used a 96687-type strobed comparator in
> the front end. I know that they sold some to Burr-Brown for linear
> device testing (because they told me so.) They don't seem to make this
> any more; I suspect, as I suggested, that they are smarter now.
> No, I can't prove this, so feel free to call me a liar again.
No need for that, John. I apologized for dropping the credits in my
article, and I was happy to put them back.
I see now how they got such low bandwidth. The 687 was fast in it's day,
but they might have got a bit more bandwidth with Motorola 1650 or
But I'm happy if others used it and abandoned it. It means they did not
spot the significant advantages such as zero aberrations and noise
rejection properties. And with the new Motorola GigaComm chips, these
advantages can be applied to the major portion of the sampling market.