27-06-2011, 06:10 PM
Yorkie: re: the RF-1U distorted waveform sub-topic.
My report was based on what I found a long, long time ago - at least 35 years, or more - plus from my memory - so there is 'room for error' here! However, ISTR that it was on the highest freq. range where either the distortion was restricted to, or that it was predominant on that range. I do recall spending a lot of time attempting to eliminate the distortion on the basis that it was a fault, but that was such a long time ago now that just what I was using as a 'scope to observe that HF waveform I have completely forgotten - but I suspect that (in my then ignorance) I may simply have been using a 'scope of dubious quality and one with an inadequate bandwidth for the task - hence, an apparent distorted wave.
Anyway, from my viewpoint, that's all academic history now; these days my main sig. gen. is an HP 8640B: a superb animal; wouldn't be without it!
Al.
My report was based on what I found a long, long time ago - at least 35 years, or more - plus from my memory - so there is 'room for error' here! However, ISTR that it was on the highest freq. range where either the distortion was restricted to, or that it was predominant on that range. I do recall spending a lot of time attempting to eliminate the distortion on the basis that it was a fault, but that was such a long time ago now that just what I was using as a 'scope to observe that HF waveform I have completely forgotten - but I suspect that (in my then ignorance) I may simply have been using a 'scope of dubious quality and one with an inadequate bandwidth for the task - hence, an apparent distorted wave.
Anyway, from my viewpoint, that's all academic history now; these days my main sig. gen. is an HP 8640B: a superb animal; wouldn't be without it!
Al.
