Timeline for Oscilloscope displays the derivative of the signal instead of the actual signal
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:37 | history | edited | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:28 | history | edited | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:28 | comment | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | @andre My comments could be a bit confusing, I will make it more clear that they don't apply to the OP's instrument. | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:25 | comment | added | andre314 | @Shamtam My bad, it's exact that the OP use the TDS2024 (not a TPS2024). I have removed my comment. | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:12 | history | edited | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 519 characters in body
|
| Mar 1, 2018 at 21:07 | comment | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | @Shamtam Suspect all you like, but numbers are important. Look at the horizontal sweep rate- AC coupling would look identical to DC coupling at that rate, with a bit of downward slope on the flat parts (and centered around zero, of course). I'll snap a photo of what it looks like in reality. | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 20:55 | comment | added | Shamtam | I suspect the OP's scope has CH3 set to DC coupled, which is why the other "probe" looks just fine. | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 20:53 | comment | added | Shamtam | Downvote because I don't believe for a second you'd get a clear signal like in the OP's picture with a broken probe, especially at such a low frequency. Furthermore, even if the ground wasn't connected, I still wouldn't expect what his picture depicts. It looks like a square wave through an AC coupled input, plain and simple (positive edge of the square wave results in a positive spike, vise-versa for the negative spikes). The fact that it's consistent across pulses highly suggests the cable is not the issue (if it were, I wouldn't expect every pulse to look exactly the same). | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 19:03 | vote | accept | csg | ||
| Mar 1, 2018 at 19:03 | comment | added | csg | @SpehroPefhany You were right about the probe failure, please check the visuals I have uploaded. | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 2:40 | comment | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | @SredniVashtar It's completely plausible. Alternatively, connector could be broken. Probes seem to take a lot of abuse (which is one reason why nobody likes lending them). | |
| Mar 1, 2018 at 1:20 | comment | added | Sredni Vashtar | Just curious: a broken cable would act as a cable with a series capacitor, right? The armatures being the two sides of the broken conductor, and the dielectric being the thin separation of probe dielectric between the two. It will behave as if the probe were AC coupled. Or is this too simplistic an explanation? | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 21:49 | history | edited | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2018 at 21:08 | comment | added | user16324 | Yeah. That's not AC coupling or compensation. That's a broken probe ... or cable. UNLESS the source is AC coupled AND you have left the scope input's 50 ohm termination in place. (if the 2024 has that) | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 21:02 | history | answered | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | CC BY-SA 3.0 |