Logic Analysers

I think Tony's statement about the key thing to know about trouble shouting is to know what it should be doing. If you don't know that, no scope or logic analyzer with help much. Dwight ________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Tony Duell <ard.p850ug1 at gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:06:34 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:46 PM, dwight <dkelvey at hotmail.com> wrote: Yes. It depends a lot on what you work on, what you are trying to do, and how you think. This is a problem with mailing lists. There are many knowledgeable people here, but each has their own way of doing things. All are right. But a person trying to learn is going to get conflicting advice. Not because anyone is being unkind, but because what they say is what they do, it works for them. There is no one 'right way' to do this. Any way that finds the problem (and that you know has found the problem!) is OK. Any instrument is just a way of finding out what the device under test is actually doing. Faultfinding should then consist of comparing that to what the device should be doing and working out what could cause the differences. Needless to say I would not want an LA if I was repairing an SMPSU. I'd use a 'scope. But a lot of what I work on involves investigate a processor or a complex interface controller (possibly microcoded, so in a sense a special- purpose processor) at gate level. Believe me, you do not want to try to debug an HP9800 (bit serial, microcoded, downright odd in places) with a 'scope... -tony