The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Mike Monett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
Subject: Re: Binary Sampler
References: <3E2A07F4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3E2A5081.4C97@sneakemail.com> <3E2C7D00.C7D@sneakemail.com> <3E2D7074.645A@sneakemail.com> <email@example.com> <3E2D9D5B.768A@sneakemail.com> <3E2DB2C6.3F0B@sneakemail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:12:52 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:12:16 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Mike Monett wrote:
> (I may have made errors in the above calculations. Please check my
> numbers carefully.)
More followup. I am so sick from the mold I can't even think straight.
There is a simple way to calculate the tradeoff between resolution and
slew rate, much simpler than the one shown on my web site.
But I am so sick right now I can't even remember how to do it.
It is possible to make waveform capture in the binary sampler faster,
equal to, or slower than conventional samplers. In resolution vs capture
time, the binary sampler wins due to the higher sample rate. The
increased resolution is usable due to zero aberrations while tracking the
I'll post the math when I am feeling better, or maybe someone can figure
it out and post their result.
Sorry for the multiple follow-ups. I should not have even tried. Bye for
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup