Quote from: Sailor on May 26, 2014, 09:32:44 PM>Quote>Quote
@bench_knob
This is exactly what I was planning on making - I got four of those for $30 each. They've arrived, but I'm still waiting on my TLA715... I have spent some time studying the mechanical drawing, and thinking about how to strain-relieve the flying leads without making it too bulky. Anyway, I noticed that you quoted (071-1059-04, pg 72), whereas my 6800 manual is numbered by section i.e. my drawing is on page 2-28, even though the document title is the same as yours. There is no date on it, but if you think it might have different data, let me know and I'll email it to you.
EDIT! Duh, I just realized it's page 72 in Foxit Reader...
Hi Sailor, NctNico, TiN,
Congrats on your score!! Sounds like you and I bought our (4x) probe-sets from the same dealer?! Mine also cost ~$30 ea, and they each were shipped inside a quality metal zippered anti-static bags. They were properly labeled, one set of four and had black holders too! I feel that it was a nice deal. Re; my TLA7AA4 module, its a CS version, and I guess, when I grow some larger balls, I'll see if TiN's memory hack works on mine as well! Hah!
@NctNico (sorry about the earlier mispellings), thanks for sharing your 'Schnell' mods. We are all in this together. Ours is a little group of TLA Hack'nQuacks, heh heh. My TLA704 is working sooo sweet now thanks to the various folks in our little community. And, its amazing to me just how poor the original Tektronix version was prior to all of the modifications, and that original low performance version cost alot of money too! However, as someone on the Tektronix forum said, they 'put a lot of effort into the new module designs', because they are much faster....the modules are actually usable...compared with some of the other modules. Those older modules work ok, if one only uses small acquisition memory depth, but the more memory the slower they become. However, I've used my two older modules for all sorts of projects, so they are not useless.
Re; the P6860 footprint, I made a CadSoft Eagle (v5.50) library component and I've created a schematic and a board using it to enable (PCB house) fabrication of a PCB for a P6860 17Ch probe adapter board. I laid out the board using 2x 2,54mm (0.100") 2x8 IDC header patterns. I placed them (via a brain anomaly) on the same side as the elastomer-pad 'connector', in review, I think I should have placed them on opposite sides. I tried to keep the trace-lengths the same, but the Eagle PCB program (excellent for its co$t) doesn't provide matched-trace-length functionality. That and depending upon the PCB dielectric material used, will affect the maximum signal speed that can be probed using the adapter board and frankly I have no reasonable strategy to test its limitations. So basically what I'm saying, is that I think the adapter will be mainly usefull for lower speed applications in lieu of the guarenteed hi-speed version $2000 third-party adapter boards that are available commercially. (hint hint to hobbyiests reading this.) If you need high-speed, get the good stuff.
I'll upload everything tomorrow after I double double check everything. Also, I'm thinking about re-routing the adapter board and placing the 2x 2x8 connector patterns on the other side, I think it'll be much more useful that way? Also, I'm considering making the adapter board compatible with the P6810 flying-lead end-effectors, as those are available for (too F'n much money IMO, unless they are differential), so what'a y'all think? .100" or .070" pitch patterns? .100" are everywhere, and easily attainable, while the 0.070" parts aren't, but will make the adapter compatible with Tek P6810 (# 196-3470-00) end-effectors (see photos).
Re; the Tek mechanical diagram, it turns out that there is a problem in the Tektronix drawing, one of the pad rows distance from the index is mis-labeled. The engineers today apparently have had no technical draftsmen training. My high-school teacher would have given these guys 'Fs' for those drawings...multiple indexs, cascading measurements, no call-outs; just random stuff. Thanks again to TiN, 'his' dwg he scrounged up for me provided enough info for me to hack together a footprint, which I think should-be-ok.
Later,
bench_knob