Talk:Oscilloscope

message: Wow! Great article! Though what's the reference material you guys used? I'd like to submit this to WP:FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: The electrons, after hitting the screen, must come back to the anode so that the circuit is closed. Otherwise, the negative charge accumulated no the screen will repel the electron beam, preventing it from reaching the screen. The return path of the electrons is provdied by coating the sidewalls of the CRT with carbon particles, referred to as aquadag and by connecting this coating to the accelerating anode. --Krishnavedala 10:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, that and the aluminized screen. ;-)
:Atlant 17:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquadag

message: This is not as crazy as it first appears. As long as the components dont suffer from water or mild detergent damage, this is a good way of removing dust and unremoved flux, nicotine(!) etc that can compromise the circuit boards surface high resistance and crap build up on switches. After washing, its important to let the boards dry out thoroughly, and I recommend placing them near the output of a dehumidifier for about 24 hrs before putting them back and applying volts. I have done this procedure on the plug in boards from a TV set and the set worked perfectly afterwards!--Light current 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you wash it?  Manually in a sink?  dishwasher? — Omegatron 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, ok.  Running PCBs through a dishwasher is pretty common to remove flux, etc. — Omegatron 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You use water-soluble flux, of course!  :-) — Omegatron 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing your oscilloscope 

message: rm from page:
=== Alternatives to the oscilloscope ===
There is an affordable alternative to an oscilloscope that is useful for many tasks, and perhaps superior for radio repair, and that is to listen to the signals.
The basic plan is to mix (multiply) an intermediate frequency with the signal, and then amplify and listen to the result through a speaker.  In other words, you are using amplitude modulation to shift the signal down into the audio band.  (For audio frequency signals no modulation is necessary, of course.)
With modern solid-state circuits, such equipment is cheap and can run from a small battery. This diagnostic system was widely used for almost all early radio development, and is still used in Asia, and by impoverished amateur radio operators.  In the Soviet Union, the standard radio diagnostic tester combined a multimeter with an oscillator, frequency mixer and audio amplifier that could perform this task.
Or to put it the other way around: An single scope replaces a network analyzer, frequency mixer, delay generator, gated integrator, frequency counter, boxcar avarager
''
:This matl is nothing to do with oscilloscopes but testing methods in general.--Light current 07:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: There is an affordable alternative to an oscilloscope that is useful for many tasks, and perhaps superior for radio repair, and that is to listen to the signals.
The basic plan is to mix (multiply) an intermediate frequency with the signal, and then amplify and listen to the result through a speaker.  In other words, you are using amplitude modulation to shift the signal down into the audio band.  (For audio frequency signals no modulation is necessary, of course.)
With modern solid-state circuits, such equipment is cheap and can run from a small battery. This diagnostic system was widely used for almost all early radio development, and is still used in Asia, and by impoverished amateur radio operators.  In the Soviet Union, the standard radio diagnostic tester combined a multimeter with an oscillator, frequency mixer and audio amplifier that could perform this task.
Or to put it the other way around: An single scope replaces a network analyzer, frequency mixer, delay generator, gated integrator, frequency counter, boxcar avarager
''
:This matl is nothing to do with oscilloscopes but testing methods in general.--Light current 07:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to the oscilloscope 

message: The article currently contains the following text:
:The current bandwidth record, as of February 2005, is held by the Tektronix TDS6000C oscilloscope family with a digitally enhanced bandwidth of up to 15 GHz and costing about US$150,000.
But Tektronix currently sells a 'scope (the TDS8200 family) which has a sampling bandwidth ranging up to 70 GHz (and it's possible other vendors may go faster; I haven't looked). So shouldn't this sentence be modified to state something like "real time bandwidth" or "non-sampling bandwidth"? (FYI: That TDS6154 manages 40 GS/s across two channels!) And as of 2006, is this Tek still the fastest?
Atlant 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bandwidth record 

message: C'mon 'O', how many people know how to select the proper thumb size?--Light current 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope picture 

message: I don't see any need to have a separate article for dual beam oscilloscope, and as the existing article dual beam oscilloscope is quite short, it would make good sense to implement the proposed merge. DFH 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree merge--Light current 10:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for agreement. Merge now done. DFH 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Dual beam oscilloscope]] 

message: This Agilent Technologies ap note might be a useful addition to the Mixed-Signal-Oscilloscope section.  It contains a vendor-neutral description of what an MSO is, and describes how an MSO can be used to debug an 8-bit microcontroller with I2C bus.
1bigdork 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This ap note might aid the MSO segment of the entry 

message: hi if somebody could help me out on this .... this is my library research project... my email id is: mohit AT rome DOT com.ill be highly obliged.
thank you
: well, I'm afraid the very object of school research work is to get you to do the research work... CyrilB 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  advanced features of oscilloscope 

message: I think there are not enough links to circuits used in the scope. Delays, ramps, variable amplifiers, samplers, triggers. Or do I just miss them, I think I have seen ADC at least? Arnero 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to circuits 

message: I guess their are not too many old timers arround.
(I'm one; will be 73 at the end of 2009.02 Been a 'scope nut almost all my life. Nikevich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  makers 

message: This article claims:
"The first Digital Storage Oscilloscopes (DSO) was invented by Walter LeCroy (who founded the LeCroy Corporation, based in New York,"
However - the earliest references to a Lecroy Digital Oscillscope seem to be 1985.  
See:
https://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/LeCroy-Corporation-Company-History.html
http://www.hmi.de/events/SEI/archiv/2003-03/vortrag/wiegard_lecroy.pdf
The earliest complete combination analog/digital oscillscope was the 1980A/B.
It is detailed in the Sept. 1982 issue of the Hewlett Packard Journal.
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/1982-09.pdf
It seems incorrect to claim the Walter LeCroy invented the digital oscilloscope.
192.25.240.225 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital scope inventor? 

message: I found this edit from an IP today, "Lissajous figures are an example of how an oscilloscope can be used to track phase differences between multiple input signals." is that edit really incorrect?, or is it just misstaken for a vandalism?
Please motivate why false/true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electron9 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the existing text.  The anon IP swapped it from some different text; I replaced it.  It is correct. Oli Filth(talk) 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false information in this edit? 

message: I've found some off-site references to the early 1875-1915 Joubert and Duddell oscillographs, which interestingly are from public domain sources like the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica. However, I have no idea how copyright rules apply to a website which has itself just duplicated public domain information. Can I freely copy text and references from these off-site articles? I do not know.
Two websites with the same public domain text:
* http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ORC_PAI/OSCILLOGRAPH.html
* http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Oscillograph
I will try to find some info on the licensing questions. DMahalko (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscillograph - copying cites from offsite PD copy of PD text? 

message: There does not seem to be any mention of the all important delay line in the article. Maybe someone should add it--79.76.203.9 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the adjustable trigger delay found on dual-beam oscilloscopes? How important it is depends on what kind of waveform one is examining, but it is mentioned in the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delay lines 

message: Some oscilloscopes have additional analysis tools built in. These may include a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) feature, which displays the frequency spectrum of the input waveform. It is worth adding this to the Other features section? And does anyone know if there is a simple discussion it could link to, on the characteristics of the FFT spectrum, such as bandwidth, resolution, magnitude and phase? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FFT feature

message: This was in the article, I moved it here.
"Note: There is an error in the picture below. The picture notesas an AM signal is not an AM signal. The peaks and valleys should be at the same time on the top and bottom of the carrier."
It's the sum of two sinusoids, one with a frequency much higher than the other. It is definitely not AM. I rewrote the caption. AM would be the product of the two; the lower border would be a mirror image of the upper. Nikevich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Comment From Article 

message: Should the history section be at the top after the introduction? That seems to be the default format of most articles, to provide the history of the subject in question before actually going in to describe the details and nuances. Kortaggio (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of article 

message: The beam can be moved much more rapidly, and it is easier to make the beam deflection accurately proportional to the applied signal, by using electrostatic deflection as described above instead of magnetic deflection. Magnetic deflection is achieved by passing currents through coils external to the tube; it allows the construction of much shorter tubes for a given screen size. Electrostatic deflection, however, can only swing the beam over a relatively narrow angle, making the CRT quite long for a given screen size. Circuit arrangements are required in magnetic deflection to approximately linearize the beam position as a function of signal current, and the very wide deflection angles require arrangements to keep the beam focused (dynamic focusing).
Some oscilloscope CRTs have geometry-correcting electrodes is their electron guns, as well as deflection plates with contoured front (screen) edges for geometry correction.
Typical oscilloscopes have an input, often referred to as the z-axis, for modulating the beam intensity (brightness). This requires only minimal circuitry.
In principle either type of deflection can be used for any purpose; but electrostatic deflection is best for oscilloscopes with relatively small screens and high performance requirements, while a television receiver with a large screen and electrostatic deflection would be many meters deep. Moreover, electrostatic deflection can operate up to 1 GHz, while the inductance of magnetic-deflection coils limits their practical upper frequency to less than 1 MHz, if even that. Fewer turns of wire means a lower inductance, but also a higher current for a given amount of deflection, so deflection amplifiers for fast magnetic deflection become impractical.
Hewlett-Packard developed a large-screen electrostatic-deflection X-Y display, with a Z-axis (intensity) input as well.
Its CRT was unique, in that it had electrostatic deflection, but over a wide angle much like that of magnetic-deflection CRT's. As a consequence, the CRT was not much longer from screen to connector pins ("base") than a magnetic-deflection CRT. It had no deflection plates in the conventional sense, instead what H-P called an electrostatic deflection yoke. This had electrodes inside a glass cylinder, perhaps the neck itself, or else a separate piece. The electrodes were deposited metal in an unusual pattern, like stripes -- rings -- going around the inside of the cylinder. Stripe width varied smoothly with location around the cylinder, offering maximum area top and bottom for vertical deflection, and similarly at the sides for horizontal. There were a few stripes, alternating along the neck's axis between holizontal and voertical deflections.
The deflection amplifiers had quite-good frequency response for small signals, permitting small fine detail to be displayed, but large beam swings turned on boost transistors to provide the larger currents needed temporarily to charge and discharge the yoke and its wiring. The display was described in some detail in the Hewlett-Packard Journal; unfortunately, even the year has been forgotten.
This type of CRT display, called X-Y, is uncommon, and requires external sources of signal to create a trace or image. To prevent burning a spot in the center of the screen, the CRT beam is blanked (shut off) if there are no X and Y deflection signals appplied. The H-P device could serve as an oscilloscope display. There were also short-tube magnetic-deflection X-Y displays, but the frequency response of their deflection systems was essentially only within the audio range.
Some issues must be resolved when using electrostatic deflection.  Simple deflection plates appear as a fairly large capacitive load to the deflection amplifiers, requiring large current flows to charge and discharge this capacitance rapidly. Another, more subtle, problem is that when the electrostatic charge changes rapidly, electrons which are already part of the way through the deflection plate region will only be partially deflected. This results in the trace on the screen lagging behind a rapid change in signal, and reduced sensitivity to high-frequency signals. (In fact, at a given accelerating voltage and specific deflection-plate dimensions, there can be no deflection at all for a specific frequency.)
Extremely high-performance analog oscilloscopes avoid these problems by subdividing the vertical (and sometimes horizontal) deflection plates into a series of plates along the length of the "deflection" region of the CRT, and electrically joined by a delay line terminated in its characteristic impedance; the timing of the delay line is set to match the velocity of the electrons through the deflection region. Such a structure is called distributed deflection. In this way, a change of charge "flows along" the deflection plates along with the electrons that it should affect, almost negating its effect on those electrons which are already partially through the region.
Consequently, for a very-fast change in the observed signal, the beam as seen on the screen slews almost instantly from the old point to the new point. In addition, because the entire deflection system operates as an matched-impedance load, the problem of driving a large capacitive load is mitigated. A related scheme using L-C delay lines was used in wideband vacuum-tube deflection amplifiers; several tubes were connected to delay lines for both inputs (control grids) and outputs (plates/anodes). Tube and other stray capacitance thereby became part of the delay-line capacitance, while each tube's gain added ot the total output.
It is very common for oscilloscopes to have amplifiers with two or more input channels. The vertical amplifier rapidly chops or swaps the beam between/among the input channels, blanking the display while switching. This allows the single beam to show as two or more traces, each representing a different input signal. These are properly called multiple-trace (dual trace, quadruple trace, etc.) oscilloscopes. Depending upon the sweep speed, changing channels happens when a new sweep begins (for faster sweeps), or while a sweep is in progress (slower sweeps). In the latter case, the channel-switching rate is free-running, not synchronized with anything. Nearly always the blanked gaps in one sweep are covered by subsequent sweeps, resulting in apparently-unbroken traces.
Much rarer is the true dual beam oscilloscope, whose tube contains an electron gun that produces two independent electron beams, or has two completely-independent electron guns. In the former case, a splitter plate placed in the beam provides two beams. Usually, but not always, both beams are deflected horizontally by a single shared pair of plates, while each beam has its own vertical deflection plates. This allows a time-domain display to show two signals simultaneously. True dual-gun CRTs are harder to make, because the displays from the guns must be aligned acceptably, and CRT mechanical design normally assumes that the electronics that feed the CRT will make needed geometric corrections. Indpenedent rotation of one gun's display relative to that of the other is not practical, electronically. Although rare, multi-gun CRTs have been made in past decades.
Many modern oscilloscope tubes pass the electron beam through an expansion mesh. This mesh acts like a lens for electrons and has the effect of roughly doubling the deflection of the electron beam, allowing the use of a larger faceplate for the same length of tube envelope. The expansion mesh also tends to increase the "spot size" on the screen, but this trade off is usually acceptable.
Although the beam from the electron gun comprises electrons that are fast enough to be useful, most modern CRTs (especially TV and monitor CRTs) apply more high voltage to accelerate the electrons further before the strike the phosphor; this is called post-deflection acceleration (PDA) in electrostatic-deflection CRTs.
--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parked here till I can move the non-redundant parts to [[Oscilloscope]]

message: Referring to the first illustration, I feel safe in saying that no oscilloscope, other than (conceivably!) unique, rare, one-of-a-kind or limited-production, special-purpose 'scopes, ever used magnetic focus. I really hope that a better illustration can be found, because this is a serious, misleading technical error. 
(Following paragraph added...) 
I've been sorely tempted to disable displaying that illustration (that is, leave the URI in the text, but mung it and tell how to fix it.)Nikevich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus coils in 'scopes? No way! 

message: It's now part of editing history; I replaced it, totally. It looked like a low-quality, unedited machine translation from a language with a vocabulary very different from that of an Indo-European language. (There wre two or three more. Curious that nobody wanted to edit or change those items.) Nikevich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from this edit by an IP which resolves to Madrid.  If you think the Focus section was bad, take a look at what the Graticule section looked like before I copyedited it. SpinningSpark 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Look on my userpage, you should be able to spot what the "spinning" referes to. SpinningSpark 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did such text as that for Focus (early in the article) come from? 

message: o Yrs trly has been a 'scope nut, occasionally passionate, for decades, which is his excuse for doing an all-nighter, a major rewrite (although the basic structure was kept). Some parts came through unchanged (especially where I was learning as I read; didn't dare touch those; they were new stuff.) The bizarre machine translations are gone (sorry!). o Added a real bunch of stuff, and the article is, most likely, much too long.
o Added: Lots of descriptions of front-panel controls. In maybe three instances, started to explain innards while describing controls, so I moved the descriptions down where they fit better. Now includes variable holdoff and beam finder, for instance.
o Also added explanation of delayed sweep, as well as front-panel controls for it.
o Ditto, dual and multi-trace.
o Also added text about analog delay in the vertical amplifiers of better 'scopes (also a note above, on this page).
Explained what it's for, and how the delay cable is made, and an historic note about the delay lines in Tek. tube 'scopes such as the classic 545A (B?).
o I tried to respect the downright peculiar point of view of some author who tried to "force-fit" triggered sweep into the old recurrent sweep way of thinking. 'Fraid my editing ultimately didn't have much mercy, though. It was just too contrived.
o Didn't delete much.
There's one downright goofy-stupid-yucky (but not obscene) typo somewhere; sorry. I ran out of steam before a final read-through, and got distracted; lost track of it. There are a few others, I'm sure. If they look truly weird, I use the Dvorak letter layout; love it! (In Dvorak, a few typos that are really easy to make can be baaad.) I'm sorry to leave a few, but there must be somebody who loves to fix such things; I know I do.
I surely don't want to hurt any feelings, but that black computer-graphic 'scope, top left, bothers me. It just doesn't "have it". I have little doubt that it's somebody's Labor of Love, too...
Thanks to Atlant for the big 465 pic! I snagged me a copy.
The job is incomplete; it has some redundant text, and could be better organized. The ToC as it now stands is not thrilling. I also need to merge some of that big bunch of text upstairs (above) into the article.
Some of the historic stuff came from Rider's Scope Encyclopedia (1950); it's hidden in the page source, under Refs. Thoroughly amazing book. (Betcha don't know that the spot at the screen is an image of the crossover just ahead of the cathode. :) )
Not sure whether or not I was doing Bad Things; I embedded quite a few comments, using the < followed by a ! and -- to start them. Are editors permitted to do that? (  )
If somebody hates my leading apostrophe ( 'scope ), feel free to do group search-and-replace. Will probably be all happy in 200 milliseconds.
Btw, is Atlant still here? Sorry I didn't notice he's a Tek. guy until about an hour ago. (I'm definitely a Tek fan; that's only common sense, after all! Agilent isn't bad, but it isn't Tek.)
Regards, Nikevich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I am not a big fan of using hidden comments to raise questions of reliability etc.  It will only ever be seen if someone else decides its dubious and goes in to edit it, at which point it is superfluous.  Much better to use a tag template such as , ,  etc. which will attract the attention of other editors. SpinningSpark 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite

message: some usb scopes are: PicoScope 200, Velleman PCSGU250  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.181.71 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: USB scope examples

message: Is "PCO" in common use? I've never seen it anywhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot.
:I see DSO used for A/D+computer processing setups indiscriminatingly. 02:30, 7 September 2009 User:Electron9
::I have removed the above hidden comments from the article as it is developing into a discussion and the article is not the right place.  I have not researched who made the original post and left it unsigned.  For what it's worth, I have seen PCOs around for many years, but mostly at the low (amateur) end of the market. SpinningSpark 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC-based oscilloscopes (PCO) 

message: Maybe it's just me, but seeing about a hundred instances of the abbreviation  'scope, instead of oscilloscope, strikes me as too informal for encyclopedic writing. Also, all of those apostrophes look very ugly and distracting. I wanted to see if there was any consensus for spelling this word out consistently in the article, or if I was the only one who felt that way.  CosineKitty (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with that.  In general, I don't have a problem with shortening long technical words to something more familiar, but there are just too many different uses of the contraction "scope".  On the other hand scope probe is ok in my opinion - although even that is a redirect to test probe.  Oscilloscope probe is simply not a phrase that has any currency. SpinningSpark 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be called a '' 'scope'' in formal writing? 

message: I can't find any references to support the assertion that the insides of oscilloscopes were regularly washed, and it seems to me to be dubious at the very least. Unless a reference can be provided to show that this was real, I suggest this section be removed. -- 80.168.173.239 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this  distinctly unreliable source says he washes his in the bathtub. SpinningSpark 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: And here is a reliable and authoritative source. See p.6-4. SpinningSpark 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not really central to a discussion of oscilloscopes, though.  The article is quite long enough without going into repair and service information. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just restored it on the grounds that it really is verifiable, but if the consensus is that it is out of scope I have no objection to it being deleted again. SpinningSpark 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think that perhaps this was a waste of effort when the article only has a couple of references, most of them to funky old illustrations that have nothing to do with the first 3/4 of the text?  Dig up something on PC oscilloscopes, or how sweep works, or *anything* - the article needs that much more than a side-trip down a dead-end. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that oscilloscope washing is interesting because it is so surprising.  The very reason it was tagged in the first place and the very reason I took the trouble to look into it.  It is quite exceptional for electronic equipment and not run-of-the-mill service information. SpinningSpark 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  *All* printed circuit boards get washed - and service shops routinely use all manners of air-hoses and solvents on dirty equipment. cetainly this is the most important section of the article, maybe even it needs to be in the lead - but i wouldn't dare give any directions to fellow editors now, would i? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Washing???'' 

message: Regarding my recent article splitting, I noted Wtshymanski's comments about washing not being too important in this "overly long" article. I would politely direct attention to WP:NOTPAPER.
There is no issue with expanding voluminously on this or any topic in whatever level of meticulous detail is desired. We simply split off the sections into new articles, or develop entire articles from a single paragraph.
DMahalko (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not paper" is not and never has been the problem. The real bottleneck to an encyclopedia article is the reader's time and attention. Any given article must stick pretty closely to its topic. Free-association of any idea that conceivably bears on the subject is not a good way to use the reader's time. Otherwise you eventually wind up with an encyclopedia with only one giant article in it called The sum total of human knowledge to date. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: DMahalko, I agree that now the article is split, the information on washing could go back in.  It belongs in the history article, as it is a historical practice.  Despite Wtshymanski's comment above, it is highly unusual to wash electronic equipment in this way as a maintenance procedure, and it is especially unusual to use water as a solvent on high-voltage circuitry. SpinningSpark 08:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: 
Does the material on oscilloscope washing belong in this article? SpinningSpark 11:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it doesn't belong. Whether or not someone's written about it it's trivia, and has no more place here than a section on car washing at Car or on dog washing at car. Everything gets washed and cleaned, and it's often a specialist service or procedure. It doesn't seem like the process for oscilloscopes is especially notable, compared to other electronic equipment.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think those are quite valid comparisons.  While no one would express surprise at soap and water being used to wash a car or a dog, it is highly unusual for high-voltage electrical equipment and most electrical engineers would likely express surprise (the very fact that most initially thought this was dubious bears that out). SpinningSpark 12:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: My reason for mentioning car and dog washing is they are far more notable as they are actual industries or professions, and have their own articles, but are not given sections in their main articles. But if you prefer note the lack of information on TV cleaning at Television or phone washing at Mobile phone. An oscilloscope is only high voltage when switched on; when off, so when being cleaned, it's just a piece of electronic equipment.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not entirely.  Much greater care and thorougness is required in the drying with HV or else tracking could become a problem. The sources are quite clear on this point.  Again showing the surprising nature of this procedure. SpinningSpark 19:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Support inclusion. Although I don't think the text is great, including it is reasonable if only because the practice is unusual. Tektronix had a booth where they would take off the knobs and wash a scope before calibrating it. If nothing else, it would make the scope look better. Glrx (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The book Oscilloscopes: selecting and restoring a classic by Stan Griffiths devotes 10 pages (17 through 26), to the topic of washing an oscilloscope.  It's quite detailed.  I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on inclusion in the article; I'm just providing this as a reference for those who would like to have it included.  For those who do not have a copy of the book, I can provide text or review, if needed.  Wildbear (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *I was intending to redraft the text into an acceptable non-howto, well-referenced form, but I don't want to do it in the teeth of opposition.  I would probably be wasting effort, so withdrawing RfA at this time. SpinningSpark 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Small aside. Someone gave me a dual beam (yes! not just dual trace) 'scope a few weeks ago, a Telequipment 43. I've just stripped and washed it. Quite mucky it was too! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing again 

message: I think this is relevant to the topic as Oscilloscope are commonly perceived as bulky and uncool. Well, check this article out that transform an iPad/iPhone into an Oscilloscope
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/07/osciums-imso-104-turns-ipad-iphone-into-mixed-signal-oscillosc/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.96.73 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's huge!  If an iPad is twice the size of an iPhone, the smallest mass-market scope I know of is only half that size again (look on eBay for "nano"). It's MP3 / MP4 player hardware, reprogrammed. A very handy gadget, and they're supposed to be releasing a dual trace Real Soon Now. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest Oscilloscope! 

message: A merge has been proposed of an article that  may  either enhance or duplicate existing  content.  Please review the page at  DIGITAL STORAGE OSCILLOSCOPE that  is suggested for merging  here, and discuss below. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. IMO this is a wholly uncontroversial move. The new DSO page should just be a redirect here. The section here on DSOs does need to be expanded, but that's a different task. Jeh (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: We need an article at Digital storage oscilloscope, and this is appropriate for a stand-alone article, not a merge to Oscilloscope. We would use a redirect too at Digital Storage Oscilloscope, as DSO is a pretty common term. The mess at DIGITAL STORAGE OSCILLOSCOPE forms no useful part of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the very little on digital 'scope in this article could usefully be replaced with a smmary of what is at Digital storage oscilloscope. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscilloscope#Merger proposal 

message: I'm being WP:BOLD and replacing the 3rd picture to show a modern USB scope. I'm using an image I specifically got permission from the manufacturer to use. If anyone has issues, discuss here. Wonderfl (reply) 11:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  USB scopes 

message: Too much duplication of content regarding oscilloscopes. 
*Oscilloscope#Types and models
*Oscilloscope types
*Digital storage oscilloscope
To sort this out can I:
*Merge Digital storage oscilloscope and Oscilloscope types#Digital oscilloscopes into Digital oscilloscope
*Move all analog-related info from Oscilloscope types into Analog oscilloscope (CRO, ASO, etc)
*Delete the Oscilloscope types article since all content moved out
*Link from Oscilloscope directly to Digital oscilloscope and Analog oscilloscope where needed (using "main" template)
Neat and tidy. Any comments or ideas?
Wonderfl (reply) 09:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging/sorting 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion request has been closed as spurious. Jeh (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Dear Jeh, you removed the last change I provided in the article oscilloscope and so went back to the CRT with yoke deflection coils. I strongly believe, this picture is simply wrong and misleading. Having worked about 3 years in that industry, I maintain that with oscilloscope CRTs, ONLY electrostatic deflection are used (of course, no more the case with the current LED panels), rather than the magnetic deflection commonly and only used with television and other large CRTs. The sources and external reference will confirm my current assumption. So shouldn't you agree with my proposal, at least remove the yoke deviation coil presented--Wikiraptor2 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a deflection coil. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

text: My edit cmt was mistaken, "Wikiraptor", but not in a way that supports your edit. The deflection plates are on the original picture, and are described in the caption (as "electrodes"); they're just hard to spot. See Figure 1 - er, see Callout 1. Jeh (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

text: And I have now edited the caption to use the more common (IME - that's 40 years' experience using oscilloscopes) term "deflection plates". I trust this addresses your concerns, WR. Jeh (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent work ! thank you and sorry for my nit-picking request. Regards--Wikiraptor2 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  yoke 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion