Seriously, Tektronix?

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?

That doesn't matter, at all. ...

Sure it does.

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...

It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.

Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.

We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:52:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/9/2014 8:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst
part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to
be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real
life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually
comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on
ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of
start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need
even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget
deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really
don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was.
Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4




Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as
much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR
I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the
capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration
will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm



Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used
engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used
for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?


I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as
long
as you have proper procedures set up.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration
services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.

So, what's the oldest piece of test gear that anybody here still uses?

I have some GR decade resistor and divider boxes that must be 1960's
stuff, still in use.

And an HP608 RF signal generator, but I don't use it much these days.


Measurements 59 Megacycle Meter (The best dip meter ever built AFAICT).


Same here. There are some things where they break the mold and make'em
no more like they used to. Kids these days (including a lot of
middle-age engineers) don't even know what a dip meter is.

I bought mine after you posted a love letter to yours.

What our wives don't know, won't hurt them. Of course there's the old
physicist joke:

A doctor, a lawyer, and a physicist were shooting the breeze in the bar
one afternoon, and the conversation got round to whether one was better
off with a wife or a girlfriend.

"A girlfriend for me" said the lawyer--"I try to stay out of divorce
practice, but the scales are so stacked against men that if a wife wants
to, she can take you for everything you've got and then some."

"A wife all the way, for me" said the doctor--"The crazy hours I have
to keep, being pulled out of family celebrations to look after patients,
a girlfriend would never put up with it."

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

My wife thinks this is reportage.




My wife and I trust each other so each has access to the other's stuff
(except confidential client projects, of course). That includes my
daytimer where she goes in from time to time and fills out our volunteer
time slots, just so I won't line up other commitments for those hours.

A long time ago, before we were married, I wrote into next week's
schedule "Call Lolita" ... "WHO IS LOLITA?!"

....AND WHAT DID YOU CALL HER?! ;-)

 

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:56:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?

That doesn't matter, at all. ...


Sure it does.

Their existence says otherwise.

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...


It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.

Since when has a mega-business worried about lots of wasted dollars? I
mean, really?!

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.

Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.


We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.

I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:52:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/9/2014 8:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst
part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to
be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real
life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually
comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on
ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of
start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need
even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget
deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really
don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was.
Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4




Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as
much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR
I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the
capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration
will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm



Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used
engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used
for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?


I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as
long
as you have proper procedures set up.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration
services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.

So, what's the oldest piece of test gear that anybody here still uses?

I have some GR decade resistor and divider boxes that must be 1960's
stuff, still in use.

And an HP608 RF signal generator, but I don't use it much these days.


Measurements 59 Megacycle Meter (The best dip meter ever built AFAICT).


Same here. There are some things where they break the mold and make'em
no more like they used to. Kids these days (including a lot of
middle-age engineers) don't even know what a dip meter is.

I bought mine after you posted a love letter to yours.

What our wives don't know, won't hurt them. Of course there's the old
physicist joke:

A doctor, a lawyer, and a physicist were shooting the breeze in the bar
one afternoon, and the conversation got round to whether one was better
off with a wife or a girlfriend.

"A girlfriend for me" said the lawyer--"I try to stay out of divorce
practice, but the scales are so stacked against men that if a wife wants
to, she can take you for everything you've got and then some."

"A wife all the way, for me" said the doctor--"The crazy hours I have
to keep, being pulled out of family celebrations to look after patients,
a girlfriend would never put up with it."

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

My wife thinks this is reportage.




My wife and I trust each other so each has access to the other's stuff
(except confidential client projects, of course). That includes my
daytimer where she goes in from time to time and fills out our volunteer
time slots, just so I won't line up other commitments for those hours.

A long time ago, before we were married, I wrote into next week's
schedule "Call Lolita" ... "WHO IS LOLITA?!"

Well, who *is* Lolita?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 17:41:11 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?

I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.

I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...


Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?

That doesn't matter, at all. The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.

Can't have that gear, obviously.


Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.

Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.

We have bonuses based on the bottom line. Every FTE gets the same bonus.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

[josephkk]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 08:14:26 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Measurements 59 Megacycle Meter (The best dip meter ever built AFAICT).


Same here. There are some things where they break the mold and make'em
no more like they used to. Kids these days (including a lot of
middle-age engineers) don't even know what a dip meter is.

I bought mine after you posted a love letter to yours.

What our wives don't know, won't hurt them. Of course there's the old
physicist joke:

A doctor, a lawyer, and a physicist were shooting the breeze in the bar
one afternoon, and the conversation got round to whether one was better
off with a wife or a girlfriend.

"A girlfriend for me" said the lawyer--"I try to stay out of divorce
practice, but the scales are so stacked against men that if a wife wants
to, she can take you for everything you've got and then some."

"A wife all the way, for me" said the doctor--"The crazy hours I have
to keep, being pulled out of family celebrations to look after patients,
a girlfriend would never put up with it."

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

My wife thinks this is reportage.




My wife and I trust each other so each has access to the other's stuff
(except confidential client projects, of course). That includes my
daytimer where she goes in from time to time and fills out our volunteer
time slots, just so I won't line up other commitments for those hours.

A long time ago, before we were married, I wrote into next week's
schedule "Call Lolita" ... "WHO IS LOLITA?!"

Well, who *is* Lolita?

A character in an old story.

?-)

 

[George Herold]

On Friday, May 9, 2014 8:06:31 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.

So, what's the oldest piece of test gear that anybody here still uses?

I have some GR decade resistor and divider boxes that must be 1960's
stuff, still in use.

And an HP608 RF signal generator, but I don't use it much these days.

I also have some really old Tek scopes, 535/545/547, but don't use
them any more.

Our little HP 6212A power supply is really old, and works great.

This is on my shelf, but I only looked inside to see how they did it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jgz55zwbo23vvs/DSCF0009.JPG
I like the wooden box.
George H.

--



John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc



jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[George Herold]

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:53:07 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
snip

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

I know almost the same joke... but it goes like this,
Physicist comes home, his wife meets him at the door.
He smells of booze,
there is lipstick on his neck,
And a racing stub stuck in his jacket pocket.

"Honey, I'm sorry I'm late." he says,
"Some friends stopped by, we went to the track,
then stopped in a bar, and strip joint."

She looks at him in disgust,
"Don't give me that crap,
you've been all night in the lab again, haven't you?"

George H.

My wife thinks this is reportage.



Cheers



Phil Hobbs





--

Dr Philip C D Hobbs

Principal Consultant

ElectroOptical Innovations LLC

Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics



160 North State Road #203

Briarcliff Manor NY 10510



hobbs at electrooptical dot net

http://electrooptical.net

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 7:49:50 AM UTC-7, Frnak McKenney wrote:

On Tue, 6 May 2014 16:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

yes knobs are nicer, I think I've seen that for some of the USB scopes

someone made a usb box with knobs to control it



This one, perhaps?

http://hackaday.com/2014/02/04/a-usb-connected-box-o-encoders/

Yow! I like that! He had some issues with the index
drifting, but Bourns parts (I'm looking at PEC16-4xxx)
allow for a two-hole mount that locks the switch to its
panel. It'd be nice to have vertical/horizontal trackwheels,
too, for offset adjustments. That's nearly as usable as
a mouse or trackball.

Maybe I'm weak on search skills, but I'm not seeing trackwheel
components with good panel-mount mechanicals. Gack, gotta
make your own L-brackets!

 

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:56:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?
That doesn't matter, at all. ...

Sure it does.

Their existence says otherwise.

What? I gave you a link. Did you really go to ISO classes?

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...

It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.

Since when has a mega-business worried about lots of wasted dollars? I
mean, really?!

Smart ones are, such as Walmart. Not so smart ones tend not to last too
many decades.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.

We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.

I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).

With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:52:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/9/2014 8:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst
part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to
be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real
life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually
comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on
ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of
start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need
even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget
deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really
don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was.
Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4




Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as
much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR
I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the
capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration
will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm



Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used
engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used
for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?

I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as
long
as you have proper procedures set up.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration
services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
So, what's the oldest piece of test gear that anybody here still uses?

I have some GR decade resistor and divider boxes that must be 1960's
stuff, still in use.

And an HP608 RF signal generator, but I don't use it much these days.

Measurements 59 Megacycle Meter (The best dip meter ever built AFAICT).

Same here. There are some things where they break the mold and make'em
no more like they used to. Kids these days (including a lot of
middle-age engineers) don't even know what a dip meter is.
I bought mine after you posted a love letter to yours.

What our wives don't know, won't hurt them. Of course there's the old
physicist joke:

A doctor, a lawyer, and a physicist were shooting the breeze in the bar
one afternoon, and the conversation got round to whether one was better
off with a wife or a girlfriend.

"A girlfriend for me" said the lawyer--"I try to stay out of divorce
practice, but the scales are so stacked against men that if a wife wants
to, she can take you for everything you've got and then some."

"A wife all the way, for me" said the doctor--"The crazy hours I have
to keep, being pulled out of family celebrations to look after patients,
a girlfriend would never put up with it."

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

My wife thinks this is reportage.



My wife and I trust each other so each has access to the other's stuff
(except confidential client projects, of course). That includes my
daytimer where she goes in from time to time and fills out our volunteer
time slots, just so I won't line up other commitments for those hours.

A long time ago, before we were married, I wrote into next week's
schedule "Call Lolita" ... "WHO IS LOLITA?!"

Well, who *is* Lolita?

If I ever ran for political office I am sure that someone from the
leftist press would find this thread

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 05/12/2014 02:43 PM, George Herold wrote:

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:53:07 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
snip

"I really think I need both" said the physicist, ignoring the raised
eyebrows of his friends--"I can tell the girlfriend I'm with the wife,
and the wife I'm with the girlfriend, and then I CAN GO TO THE LAB!"

I know almost the same joke... but it goes like this,
Physicist comes home, his wife meets him at the door.
He smells of booze,
there is lipstick on his neck,
And a racing stub stuck in his jacket pocket.

"Honey, I'm sorry I'm late." he says,
"Some friends stopped by, we went to the track,
then stopped in a bar, and strip joint."

She looks at him in disgust,
"Don't give me that crap,
you've been all night in the lab again, haven't you?"

George H.

Yup, that's a good one too.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:03:51 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:56:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?
That doesn't matter, at all. ...

Sure it does.

Their existence says otherwise.


What? I gave you a link. Did you really go to ISO classes?

Certainly but apparently you didn't take 1st grade reading
comprehension. ISO requires processes and procedures and that they be
FOLLOWED. It really doesn't say much about what goes into those
processes and procedures. The fact is that those *exist*. I had
nothing to do with their creation. The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be. You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...

It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.

Since when has a mega-business worried about lots of wasted dollars? I
mean, really?!


Smart ones are, such as Walmart. Not so smart ones tend not to last too
many decades.

It's OBVIOUS that you've never worked for a large corporation. The
fact is that they do last. Once again, the evidence proves you
wrong.

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.

We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.

I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).


With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.

No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.

Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.

Again...

 

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:03:51 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:56:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?
That doesn't matter, at all. ...
Sure it does.
Their existence says otherwise.

What? I gave you a link. Did you really go to ISO classes?

Certainly but apparently you didn't take 1st grade reading
comprehension. ISO requires processes and procedures and that they be
FOLLOWED.

And who writes these?

... It really doesn't say much about what goes into those
processes and procedures. The fact is that those *exist*. I had
nothing to do with their creation. ...

There is the problem. I did have a say in writing procedures and also
wrote procedures myself. A lot.

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.

Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?

... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...
It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.
Since when has a mega-business worried about lots of wasted dollars? I
mean, really?!

Smart ones are, such as Walmart. Not so smart ones tend not to last too
many decades.

It's OBVIOUS that you've never worked for a large corporation. The
fact is that they do last. Once again, the evidence proves you
wrong.

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).

With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.

No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.

Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.

Again...

You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:03:51 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:56:08 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:38:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 15:59:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:55:37 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2014 07:37:02 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 05/06/2014 08:56 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:35:39 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2014 09:48:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 15:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
[...]

[...]


A 60 ps TDR wouldn't be terribly hard, either. The worst part
would be
the Windows software.

I didn't go below 200psec and mainly because the medium to be probed
doesn't support any lower. Haven't tried it out in real life yet
because
the boards aren't back but this kind of stuff usually comes out as
simulated, or pretty close.
The thing about doing a TDR is competing with Tek 11801s on ebay. But
there IS a market that I think would work.

I am not so sure about the market. I've helped a lot of start-up
clients
equip their labs initially. Rarely did they ever truly need even as
much
as a 200MHz BW scope. Most of the time a 50-100MHz budget deal was all
it took.
There is a market. I just haven't had time to work on it.

For TDR (which is fairly easy) there are markets but I really don't see
one for regular sampling scopes like what the Tek 11801 was. Else they
wouldn't pawn them off for around $1k like here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-11801B-Digital-Sampling-Oscilloscope-with-Module-SD-26-/191018227396?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item2c7992d6c4


Because not all companies buy on eBay? Because it's just as much work
to buy a $30K scope as it is a $300 scope (well, the only TDR I've
seen recently is more like $100K)? Because the keepers of the capital
equipment inventory lists, instrumentation, and calibration will never
sign off on such things?

Even for engineering use?
Yes. We don't do manufacturing (here). Processes are processes.
ISO9K, and all that rot.

Nah.

http://www.iso9000resources.com/ba/calirbration-maintenence-introduction.cfm

Quote "Many companies don't calibrate rarely used engineering/service
equipment because of the cost. As long as the equipment is not used for
validation and the equipment is controlled, it is OK".

*THEY* don't. So?
I went through ISO training sessions galore. It means it's legit as long
as you have proper procedures set up.
I've done more than my share of ISO training (was the first one to go
through the full-banana ISO audit at IBM P'ok). The issue is the
process. If the process says that thou shalt shit in your hat...

Think about it: Who writes the procedure for the process?
That doesn't matter, at all. ...
Sure it does.
Their existence says otherwise.

What? I gave you a link. Did you really go to ISO classes?

Certainly but apparently you didn't take 1st grade reading
comprehension. ISO requires processes and procedures and that they be
FOLLOWED.


And who writes these?

Someone who was here when they were written, one presumes.

... It really doesn't say much about what goes into those
processes and procedures. The fact is that those *exist*. I had
nothing to do with their creation. ...


There is the problem. I did have a say in writing procedures and also
wrote procedures myself. A lot.

I did (at least at the beginning of ISO) at IBM, too. Not here, which
is the point of this section of the thread.

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.


Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?

I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.

... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.


As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.

So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong. All large companies are the same. It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.

... The fact is that the procedure is there
and it's "worked" for a couple of decades ...
It has most likely resulted in lots of wasted Dollars.
Since when has a mega-business worried about lots of wasted dollars? I
mean, really?!

Smart ones are, such as Walmart. Not so smart ones tend not to last too
many decades.

It's OBVIOUS that you've never worked for a large corporation. The
fact is that they do last. Once again, the evidence proves you
wrong.

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.


ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.

Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).

With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.

No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.


I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.

Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant. You don't think IBM, or
Ford, or GE make money?

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.

Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.

Again...


You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

Frankly, I don't care. That's a completely different issue. When we
come to a thread on bean counting, by all means tell us how to count
beans.

 

[Joerg]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

[...]

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.

Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?

I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.

So you are just putting up with red tape instead of doing something
about it? That ain't my style, never was. Yeah, I've got my scars from
those efforts but it was worth it.

... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.

So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong.

Then why are you working where you are now?

... All large companies are the same.

Absolutely not.

... It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.

That has other reasons. One being unions.

[...]

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.


Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.

I have no ISO cert for my biz and it works quite well. I do have
procedures in place though, which I created myself.

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).
With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.
No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.

Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant.

http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Quote "These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S.
workers, ..."

Insignificant?

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?

They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.
Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.
Again...

You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

Frankly, I don't care. That's a completely different issue. When we
come to a thread on bean counting, by all means tell us how to count
beans.

It is absolutely the same issue. The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:58:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

[...]

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.

Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?

I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.


So you are just putting up with red tape instead of doing something
about it?

You bet! Fighting red tape gets to be career limiting. The pile is
way too deep for anyone's scissors to cut, much less the "new" guy.
Any Quixotic passions I ever had are long gone. I have real work to
do.

That ain't my style, never was. Yeah, I've got my scars from
those efforts but it was worth it.

Nope. Not even close. I long ago learned to pick my battles.

... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.

So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong.


Then why are you working where you are now?

Because I like what I do? Because they pay me? Because I like where
I live? I could go on. Life is never perfect and if they want to blow
*their* money on stupid things, let them.

... All large companies are the same.


Absolutely not.

You're wrong as you've ever been. They are, by their very nature,
bureaucratic money wasters.

... It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.


That has other reasons. One being unions.

"one of"

Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.


Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.


I have no ISO cert for my biz and it works quite well. I do have
procedures in place though, which I created myself.

Your biz works for you because you're insignificant. Roaches live
quite well on scraps, too. Perhaps the leech is a better metaphor.
;-)

... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).
With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.
No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.

Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant.


http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Quote "These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S.
workers, ..."

Insignificant?

Please understand what's being talked about before making such
irrelevant arguments. Yes, each one is insignificant.

... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?


They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...

They changed businesses in the '90s. They're no longer an engineering
company so they don't need them all. Are you saying that the $100B/yr
is a loser? Did you bring in $100B last year?

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.
Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.
Again...

You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

Frankly, I don't care. That's a completely different issue. When we
come to a thread on bean counting, by all means tell us how to count
beans.


It is absolutely the same issue.

Not at all.

The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

You really think a few thousand dollars is "profound"? Good grief!
Control and processes are *required* in large enterprises. That's
part of the problem of growing and why so many companies fail in the
transitions.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 05/13/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

[...]

... The people who take care of this
equipment WILL follow the procedures AS THEY ARE, not as I'd like them
to be.

Try to answer this: Who is allowed to write these procedures?

I have no idea, nor do I have *ANY* desire to be the one the finger
gets pointed at. I have enough work to do without volunteering for
any bottomless pit that stinks that bad.


So you are just putting up with red tape instead of doing something
about it? That ain't my style, never was. Yeah, I've got my scars from
those efforts but it was worth it.


... You've obviously never worked for a very large corporation.

As a consultant I did. Not as an employee. I abhor bureaucratic hurdles
such as the ones you obviously have to deal with. There are large
corporations that are smart about this and others that aren't.

So the answer is that I'm right. I abhor bureaucratic windmills too.
You're wrong.


Then why are you working where you are now?


... All large companies are the same.


Absolutely not.


... It comes with being
large. It's also one of the reasons the federal government is so bad
at everything it does.


That has other reasons. One being unions.

[...]


Inefficiencies, like the ISO nonsense and government regulations,
actually help large corporations, which is why they love politicians
so.

ISO doesn't help corporations much. What does help them are overzealous
environmental roadblocks such as WEEE in Europe. That is geared to snuff
out the little guy, it's a perfect example of bad legislation.


Certainly it helps them. That was its whole point. Its original
purpose was to be more bother than it was worth so those outside the
EU wouldn't do it (i.e. a barrier to the market) but it backfired.
They underestimated how much money large companies are willing to
flush for such things. Small companies can't afford it.


I have no ISO cert for my biz and it works quite well. I do have
procedures in place though, which I created myself.


... - long before I showed up
(and when it was a manufacturing location with *very* little
engineering). I certainly wouldn't have written the procedure.

For some gear you even have to because there are no calibration services
for those or support has been discontinued. Just ran into yet another
case of that this morning.
Can't have that gear, obviously.

Sure. I'll just have to see if I can return this machine (or donate it)
and buy another one of same type that has the feature we need enabled.

The problem was that they threw out all activation codes for firmware
options. I had my credit card ready, they could have made a nice sale
right there, with a bare minimum of investment on their part (about 60
seconds of their time). Beats me why large corporations shoot themselves
in the foot so often.
Because those who profit aren't those who do the work. There is good
reason for bonuses based on the bottom line. The problem is that
they're so often bogus in a large corporation.
We were always nicely rewarded for achieving good results with very
modest engineering budgets. That was made possible, among other things,
by resorting to vintage equipment where that made sense. And it made
sense a lot of times.
I've never seen used equipment purchased, other than perhaps something
that had already been leased past where a new one would have been paid
for (i.e. they paid more than 2x the original price).
With my clients it happens all the time. That's how many of them leave
big corporations in the dust when it comes to innovation.
No argument from me but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at
hand. I live in the world that is, rather than the world as I'd like
it to be.

I found the world that caters to people like me, who like efficiency and
abhor red tape. I work in that world and make a living in it.

Again, you're wrong. You're insignificant.


http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Quote "These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S.
workers, ..."

Insignificant?


... You don't think IBM, or Ford, or GE make money?


They are largely past prime. IBM was great until the 90's. Then they
started hemorrhaging really good engineers. I was among the pilferers ...


The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.
Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.
Again...

You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

Frankly, I don't care. That's a completely different issue. When we
come to a thread on bean counting, by all means tell us how to count
beans.


It is absolutely the same issue. The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.

I used to buy second-hand stuff at IBM all the time. They weren't too
keen on eBay, but paying $5k for an 11801C from a refurbisher was fine.
Still a lot cheaper than new. I also got a bunch of demo units,
including a TDS 7704 7-GHz 20 Gs/s scope. (It ran XP.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[John Devereux]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:


[...]

Tek has been using Windows for a long time. A high end Tek scope I
used once ran Windows NT... or maybe it was 2000 at least.

I think these days Linux would be the way to go, fully open source so
you can fix *any* problem you find... but then you would have to
provide the sources and I'm not too sure of the exact impact on the
status of your proprietary code. The license can be a can of worms if
you don't really want to share your code.

Not really true, they would only have to share changes to the linux
kernel (and any other GPL software they make use of). Their
"application" can remain secret. It is perfectly possible and indeed
common to have proprietary linux software. See e.g. valves gaming
offerings and the ~1 million Android "apps".

--

John Devereux

 

[Joerg]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 05/13/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

[...]

[...]

The most extreme cases were optical network analyzers. Due to many
telco
suppliers going belly up these systems could be had for pennies on
the
Dollar. So you could either by a new system for north of $50k or
get the
same kind of performance used for $1k.
Again, no argument from me but just as irrelevant.

When I needed a GHz scope I placed a bid during a silent auction
and got
one for ... all of 80 bucks.
Again...

You just don't see that all this matters because you probably never
worked in a position with P&L responsibility. I have.

Frankly, I don't care. That's a completely different issue. When we
come to a thread on bean counting, by all means tell us how to count
beans.


It is absolutely the same issue. The thread was about the purchase of
used equipment where you said it can't be done in a large corp. That has
a profound and detrimental effect on the bottomline of big corp. There
are reasons (but more than one) why, for example, our li'l company
brought a very large corporation down to its knees in our market. In the
end big corp threw in the towel. Back then I felt proud but after
meeting a few who lost their jobs in the wake, not so much.


I used to buy second-hand stuff at IBM all the time. They weren't too
keen on eBay, but paying $5k for an 11801C from a refurbisher was fine.
Still a lot cheaper than new. I also got a bunch of demo units,
including a TDS 7704 7-GHz 20 Gs/s scope. (It ran XP.)

That's exactly what I meant. Some companies are smart about this and
others are not. There is a huge difference between corporations, even
large ones.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/