You incorrectly apply the Nyquist Theorem. It depends on what you want to do. In this case, you have only 4-5 sample points on the rising edge, but at least 10 is recommended for reliable measurements: https://blog.teledynelecroy.com/2016/09/how-does-sampling-rate-affect-esd-pulse.html
I quite well understand the Nyquist theorem. And by itself, if we want to see the shape of the pulse front, we should have a tenfold frequency margin at a minimum. Those. if we want to consider a square wave of 1Hz, we need an oscilloscope with a sampling frequency > 20 Hz.
However, if we want to EVALUATE the bandwidth of the oscilloscope, then we do not need such a large stock. Again, the input from the pulser has a lower frequency than the input frequency of the oscilloscope. Approximately 0.35 / 0.034 = 10 GHz. This means 8 points per maximum signal frequency.
But if you are interested in looking at the details of the front, i can turn on the desired mode.
I set the thresholds exactly as you described. And then stretched the signal.
You should not have reduced the acquisition area to such an extent, since automatic measurements are made in the range of the captured image.[/quote]Yes, maybe I did not take into account this nuance in his work. I will retake the data.
For repeating waveforms such as this pulse generator its easy to get around the ADC sampling rate limitation by just turning on equivalent time sampling.
Yes, without a doubt. I did just quick measurements about the same as all the others in the subject. And I don’t really understand what caused such a great interest in my pictures? What would you like to see? I am sure that any further refinements will not greatly change the picture on the screen.
So what exactly do you expect to see in the picture?