Logic Analysers

[dwight]

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:
> Different strokes for different folks.

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