Small breakthrough (was: Re: Logic Analysers)

I've just done a little dance of joy. Whilst looking at the code and trying to cross reference it against the timing signals I was seeing for RD operations it became obvious that there was an address mixup and a RET instruction was jumping back to the wrong part of the code - a return to 0x005C

Re: Logic Analysers

> From: Jon Elson > Any time you see really narrow glitches, especially when they are one > LA sample wide, you have no idea what they actually look like. The LA > detects that the pulse was there at the instant it sampled it, but you > don't know whether it was 5 ns wide, or

Re: Logic Analysers

'm looking too deeply, OK. Back to the books for me then :) A > > From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Jon Elson > <el...@pico-systems.com> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 6:36:27 PM > To: gene...@classiccmp.org; Discussion@

Re: Logic Analysers

On 04/02/2017 02:36, "Jon Elson" wrote: >> http://www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk/STCExecutelA1checking2.jpg >> >> Pulse missing from ROM3. > First pic, pulses are missing from ROMs 1-3, seen on ROM4. > But, those pulses on ROM4 are really narrow, and may be > noise, or very

Re: Logic Analysers

<dkel...@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:40:48 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers All the glitches are at the beginning of the ALE. There is nothing there that has any meaning. Things are changing at this time. Not every

Re: Logic Analysers

shorter than the ALE and clearly not an issue. Dwight From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 6:36:27 PM To: gene...@classiccmp.org; Discussion@ Subject: Re: Logic Anal

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/03/2017 04:34 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: On 03/02/2017 19:43, "Tony Duell" wrote: But that's why I said 'about'. I am doing order-of-magnitude calculations, not trying to design a delay line. I would estimate that between adjacent ICs on the same board you'd get a

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/03/2017 01:35 PM, Mouse wrote: the propagation delay as the signal gets to each pin (remember a foot is about a nanosecond. [...]) Not really. A foot is about a light-nanosecond, yes, but high-frequency signals in copper travel by skin effect, moving significantly more slowly -

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/03/2017 04:10 PM, dwight wrote: > I'm not sure you want to hide glitches. There are times > > when you might want to see them. > > It is more about knowing when a glitch has meaning and when it > doesn't. Indeed. That's one of the the things that impressed me about the early HP 1615

Re: Logic Analysers

<wit...@binarydinosaurs.co.uk> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 3:46:32 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers On 03/02/2017 23:29, "dwight" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Adrian > > What you see on the other s

Re: Logic Analysers

Friday, February 3, 2017 2:34:18 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Logic Analysers > > On 03/02/2017 19:43, "Tony Duell" <ard.p850...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But that's why I said 'about'. I am doing order-of-magnitude

Re: Logic Analysers

org> on behalf of Adrian Graham <wit...@binarydinosaurs.co.uk> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 2:34:18 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers On 03/02/2017 19:43, "Tony Duell" <ard.p850...@gmail.com> wrote: > But that's

Re: Logic Analysers

On 03/02/2017 19:43, "Tony Duell" wrote: > But that's why I said 'about'. I am doing order-of-magnitude calculations, > not trying to design a delay line. I would estimate that between adjacent > ICs on the same board you'd get a delay measured in 10's or 100's of >

RE: Logic Analysers

> 3) An HP1630. I forget which one, probably a 1630G. It does all I want. I was > also AFAIK the last HP LA to have a proper component-level service manual. > It's also a classic computer in its own right (6809 + 6829 MMU). Oddly the CRT > is scanned vertically, I have no idea why. > Hello

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2017-02-03 5:05 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: On 03/02/2017 20:38, "Paul Berger" wrote: As I have said before, the most important piece of test gear is a brain. -tony ...And if you don't have a schematic, you ring out the connections and draw your own... I'm not yet

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2017-02-03 4:41 PM, Tony Duell wrote: ...And if you don't have a schematic, you ring out the connections and draw your own... Given the number of times I've done that, I half-feel like mentioning a grandmother and sucking eggs ;-) More seriously, to draw out a useful schematic -- not just

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:00 PM, dwight wrote: > I once worked with a device that came close to telling you > that U15 was failing. > > It was called a signature analyzer. > It was good as a first pass production tester. > It required that the device under test be put in a

Re: Logic Analysers

On 03/02/2017 20:38, "Paul Berger" wrote: >> As I have said before, the most important piece of test gear is a >> brain. >> >> -tony > ...And if you don't have a schematic, you ring out the connections and > draw your own... I'm not yet skilled enough to draw a schematic but

Re: Logic Analysers

-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Eric Smith <space...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fred Cisin <ci...@xenosoft.com> wrote: > > > > What would the "System Requirements" be? > > Would it also ad

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > > > > What would the "System Requirements" be? > > Would it also advise me that both my hardware and my OS are out-of-date, > > and need to be

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, Eric Smith wrote: > >> Hmmm... >> I think I'll make a box that you plug into a computer and it tells you 'U5 >> is faulty'. >> It won't be magic, though... >> :-) >> > > Other than plugging in to the

Re: Logic Analysers

> > ...And if you don't have a schematic, you ring out the connections and draw > your own... Given the number of times I've done that, I half-feel like mentioning a grandmother and sucking eggs ;-) More seriously, to draw out a useful schematic -- not just one that shows what is connected to

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2017-02-03 3:47 PM, Tony Duell wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM, dwight wrote: 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.

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, Eric Smith wrote: Hmmm... I think I'll make a box that you plug into a computer and it tells you 'U5 is faulty'. It won't be magic, though... :-) Other than plugging in to the computer (USB?), the rest of it could probably be done in software. What would the "System

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:08 PM, jim stephens wrote: > > > On 2/3/2017 11:58 AM, Eric Smith wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> >>> There is no magic box that you plug into a computer and it tells >>> you 'U5 is faulty'. At

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Tony Duell wrote: > >> There is no magic box that you plug into a computer and it tells >> you 'U5 is faulty'. At least not in general. >> > > Hmmm... > > I think I'll

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2/3/2017 11:58 AM, Eric Smith wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Tony Duell wrote: There is no magic box that you plug into a computer and it tells you 'U5 is faulty'. At least not in general. Hmmm... I think I'll make a box that you plug into a computer

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Tony Duell wrote: > There is no magic box that you plug into a computer and it tells > you 'U5 is faulty'. At least not in general. > Hmmm... I think I'll make a box that you plug into a computer and it tells you 'U5 is faulty'. It won't

Re: Logic Analysers

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Tony Duell wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Mouse wrote: the propagation delay as the signal gets to each pin (remember a foot is about a nanosecond. [...]) >> >> Not really. A foot is about

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM, dwight wrote: > 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. Yes. I once explained faultfinding in

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Mouse wrote: >>> the propagation delay as the signal gets to each pin (remember a >>> foot is about a nanosecond. [...]) > > Not really. A foot is about a light-nanosecond, yes, but > high-frequency signals in copper travel by skin

Re: Logic Analysers

>> the propagation delay as the signal gets to each pin (remember a >> foot is about a nanosecond. [...]) Not really. A foot is about a light-nanosecond, yes, but high-frequency signals in copper travel by skin effect, moving significantly more slowly - somewhere around .6c, I think it is.

Re: Logic Analysers

Duell <ard.p850...@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 <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Different strokes for different folks. Yes. It depends a

Re: Logic Analysers

On 03/02/2017 16:41, "Jon Elson" wrote: > On 02/03/2017 02:55 AM, Adrian Graham wrote: >> Ah yes, sorry, I'm aware of that. What I meant in this >> specific case is that with 4 2764s right next to each >> other with a direct signal path between adjacent address >> and

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2017-02-03 1:23 PM, jim stephens wrote: On 2/3/2017 9:09 AM, Paul Berger wrote: I also have a 16700A, 16600A, and a 16500C but they are rarely if ever used these days. Paul. the 16600A has one slot. We had one with a scope card installed, very nice compact setup if the builtin

Re: Logic Analysers

nd? I thought of that the other day, also swapped the grabber ends since they're not the sturdiest of things. I haven't tried a PC though, my host is an iMac. Hopefully next week I'll have a Zeroplus to try which while still being USB attach is 16CH+external clock and onboard RAM for storage. Cou

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2017-02-03 12:41 PM, Jon Elson wrote: On 02/03/2017 02:55 AM, Adrian Graham wrote: Ah yes, sorry, I'm aware of that. What I meant in this specific case is that with 4 2764s right next to each other with a direct signal path between adjacent address and data pins that has a resistance of

Re: Logic Analysers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:46 PM, dwight 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

Re: Logic Analysers

From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Tony Duell <ard.p850...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 7:27:07 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Logic Analysers On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Adrian

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/03/2017 02:55 AM, Adrian Graham wrote: Ah yes, sorry, I'm aware of that. What I meant in this specific case is that with 4 2764s right next to each other with a direct signal path between adjacent address and data pins that has a resistance of 0.5 ohms pin to pin surely I should be able

Re: Logic Analysers

at you are commenting on. What happens if you swap the logic analyser channels round? Incidentally, I'd better comment on the Logic Analysers I use. I use them a lot more than a 'scope, but that's because of what I generally need to do. 1) (Is is an LA?) The HP LogicDart. 3 Channels, 100MHz. No ex

Re: Logic Analysers

On 03/02/2017 08:01, "Christian Corti" wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Adrian Graham wrote: >> is fixed 5v. Also you'd expect that sampling at four times the clock speed >> (they'll both do 25Mhz with 6 channels) then every pulse would be picked up. > > No,

Re: Logic Analysers

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Adrian Graham wrote: is fixed 5v. Also you'd expect that sampling at four times the clock speed (they'll both do 25Mhz with 6 channels) then every pulse would be picked up. No, because the pulse length may be far inferiour to the sample clock rate. You may also need to

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2/2/2017 7:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 02/02/2017 05:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote: OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. With

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 05:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote: > OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've > done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a > 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. > With some creativity, you can focus on the

Re: Logic Analysers

OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. With some creativity, you can focus on the behavior you need to observe. It can self-clock

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 23:49, "Jim Brain" wrote: > On 2/2/2017 5:21 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: >>> I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for >>> the work I've been doing on a PDP-11.

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2/2/2017 5:21 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a pretty critical feature in

Re: Logic Analysers

On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: > > I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for > the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a > pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 18:43, "Fritz Mueller" wrote: > I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the > work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a > pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret traces. >

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 06:50, "Chuck Guzis" wrote: >> An HP 1660 or 1670 series self-contained portable logic analyzer >> might be nice to pick up if you can get a decent deal on one. The >> main limitation of the 1660 series is that the sample depth is only >> 4K samples per channel.

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 04:26, "Glen Slick" wrote: >> >> Whilst looking for better quality units I came across a couple of 'proper' >> HP/Agilent analysers, a 1663A 34 channel and 1661A 102 channel which seem >> complete apart from the chip leg grabbers. Am I right to assume some of

Re: Logic Analysers

I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret traces. Sophisticated triggering is also very useful for catching a suspected

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 03:13, "Jon Elson" <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote: > On 02/01/2017 05:18 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: >> Evening folks, >> >> I have two so-called Logic Analysers, both cheap Chinese clones of other >> more expensive units that hook up to the

Re: Logic Analysers

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Adrian Graham > wrote: >> >> Whilst looking for better quality units I came across a couple of >> 'proper' HP/Agilent analysers, a 1663A 34 channel and 1661A 102 >> channel which seem complete apart from the chip leg grabbers. Am I

Re: Logic Analysers

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: > > Whilst looking for better quality units I came across a couple of 'proper' > HP/Agilent analysers, a 1663A 34 channel and 1661A 102 channel which seem > complete apart from the chip leg grabbers. Am I right to

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/01/2017 05:18 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: Evening folks, I have two so-called Logic Analysers, both cheap Chinese clones of other more expensive units that hook up to the host via USB2 and stream readings direct to software, in one case the open source Sigrok and in the other genuine Saleae

Logic Analysers

Evening folks, I have two so-called Logic Analysers, both cheap Chinese clones of other more expensive units that hook up to the host via USB2 and stream readings direct to software, in one case the open source Sigrok and in the other genuine Saleae Logic. I'm getting different and inconsistent

Re: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

nostalgic attachment to a particular instrument. As somebody who has both and uses them (and has no later analysers), I have to disagree with you there. After all the OP was asking for the 'Tek 465 of logic analysers' which suggests not the latest instruments. The HP1630 and Gould K100D are easily

RE: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

nostalgic attachment to a particular instrument. As somebody who has both and uses them (and has no later analysers), I have to disagree with you there. After all the OP was asking for the 'Tek 465 of logic analysers' which suggests not the latest instruments. The HP1630 and Gould K100D are easily fast

Re: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

with you there. After all the OP was asking for the 'Tek 465 of logic analysers' which suggests not the latest instruments. The HP1630 and Gould K100D are easily fast enough for classic computer work (I've never had problems). They also seem to be a lot better documented than later analysers (can you

Re: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

Thanks for the input everyone. In summary, I got recommendations for: - HP 16500C (lesser a 16500B, but not a 16500A) (mainframe) - HP 16700/16900/17500 (mainframe, bigger-faster-stronger, still pretty expensive, can use 16500 cards) - HP 166x or 167x (portable, modern, look for hard drive) - HP

Re: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

From: Jon Elson On 05/28/2015 09:53 PM, Ken Seefried wrote: Ease of finding complete kit; nothing worse than dropping a dime on what looks like a good deal only to find you're missing the unobtanium cable The Tek 1240 should work. I can second that. I recently

RE: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

From: tony duell a...@p850ug1.demon.co.uk - No weird technologies in the design (all TTL/CMOS logic) That is going to be a problem. AFAIK no 'serious' logic analyser was all TTL or (high speed) CMOS. If you are looking for one that is mostly/all standard logic, I think you have to consider ECL

RE: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

I'm quite fond of my HP 1630G. It's quite fast enough for the sort of machines I'm logic-analyzing. :-) Ditto. Well, I can't remember which model I was given, it's the one that's maxed out with 'state' channels, but only the basic 'timing' channels. The manual is excellent (and

Re: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

I'm quite fond of my HP 1630G. It's quite fast enough for the sort of machines I'm logic-analyzing. :-) On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Ken Seefried seefr...@gmail.com wrote: From: tony duell a...@p850ug1.demon.co.uk - No weird technologies in the design (all TTL/CMOS logic) That is

RE: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

That's good to hear. 2 weeks ago I got an HP1630D and last week a 1631. Both came with pods, but the first one did not have the plug with the test leads, and the second one did. So I bought the second The actual pods, which are plugged into the back of the instrument are quite complex and

Re: OT: Looking for the Tek 465 of Logic Analysers

465 of Logic Analysers Message-ID: caorcwjx8hkjddgclyvzsbrotk8qmgbsf2kvnzbmsjpqrzzf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Maybe only semi-OT. I'm working on a couple of classiccmp-ish projects (6303, 6309 and 68030) and I find the trusty old Tek 465 o-scope is no longer