> From: Josh Koffman [mailto:listsjosh@3MTMP.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:01 PM

...

> the extended voltage ratings. Failing that, how about the
> Scopemeter 192
> or 196? A page with a comparison of them all is at:
> http://www.fluke.com/SCOPEMETER/SELECTION_TABLE.ASP?NEWTARGET=
FALSE?AGID=6&SID=14
> I guess my basic question is, which unit would be the best for digital
> troubleshooting, letting me view waveforms and communications and the
> like.

I've been using a Scopemeter 199 for what must be over two years.  It's a
perfect fit for the work I do, but might be overkill for the work you're trying
to do.

I write software for portable telephone test equipment, and I find that I have
to spend a lot of time simultaneously looking at differential telephone signals
and PIC I/O.  Since both probes and the power source all have isolated grounds,
I can see the events I'm looking for.

Sometimes I have do trials or investigations in the field, and I've also found
that customers become more confident when I pull the meter out to get a look at
line conditions.  That's probably not a good reason to buy the scope, but it's a
plus.

On the downside, The scope probes are designed for outdoor use, and are a bit
bulky.  One of the probe attachments broke under the weight of the probe.  I had
another probe that developed an open in the cable that connects the probe to the
scope.  If you're working indoors, you can always use a standard probe.

Another gripe of mine is the lack of resolution in recorder mode.  A little more
memory probably wouldn't have added that much more cost.

-Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu