From: John Larkin
Subject: Re: Binary Sampler
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 17:56:38 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: <3E27C2F7.email@example.com> <3E29150C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3E29FF70.337A@sneakemail.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:29:20 -0500, Mike Monett
>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.
I'm beginning to understand why one shouldn't wrestle with pigs.