Picoscope doesn't make sense other than niche scenarios, eg:
- you are a youtuber like SDG who can make good use of the on screen display
- need to tightly couple it into some PC software (maybe exclusive software programmer and only want to use kb + mouse)
- tie multiple units together for many channels, long continuous recording, etc.
Its low volume, so the value for dollar can never be great. Whereas lower end rigols/siglents get pumped out by the tens of thousands, margin is lower, value is higher.
Theoretically a USB scope could "outvalue" a benchtop unit, if the volumes were high enough.
Also PRO:
- really big screen with full resolution. And dozens of different windows all with different measurements.
- as many math channels as you like
- arbitrary probes with linearization and lookup tables (not only atten. ratio)
- more decodes than anything. Does your scope has I3C, 1-wire, PMBus, SMBus, SBS Data PS/2, DALI, DMX512, BroadR-Reach, MODBUS ASCII and RTU, DCC, Quadrature in addition to all CAN, CAN FD, FlexRay, Lin, Sent (fast/slow), I2C, I2S, SPI in several variants, Ethernet, Arinc, Mil1533 and other "normal" protocols. 31 altogether and counting..
- Many people put scopes of the desk and use mouse to run it because keeping your hand in the air all the time is not comfortable. That is something happening more and more with new bigger screen touchscopes. So they consider running it by mouse a plus. Go figure, people are different. I think that is fruitless discussion, like one about automatic/manual gearbox in cars. Both work well, car gets you where you need to be, people have preferences.
- You can define really fancy stuff in math. Like creating math that uses digital and analog channels together. It is dead easy to create all kinds of graphs where you convert sensor data to show actual physical data a sensor is measuring. Like showing temperature on screen from thermistor voltage. Or stepper angular movement from stepping voltages..
- Having a single GUI for all hardware is very interesting experience. I have 3 picos (one 500 Mpts 4ch/MSO 8bit, one 8 ch 12bit, and one 16bit 2ch), and they all drive the same (within BW limits of course).
- do you ever document anything or save a measurement and look at it later?
On one occasion, my son was helping a friend that wanted to put in a Megasquirt ECU in his car. There were some problems with sensors not working. So he took Pico, went to his garage, then he had im crank the car few times and captured sensor signals one by one and saved them to PC. He brought ECU back with him, and were able to verify all sensors worked ok and then we created simulated signals by feeding captured data in to ECU with AWG and were able to find what was wrong with crankshaft sensor input, and we also calibrated it so when ECU was put back in car it simply started..
There is more and more of that..
It is simple. Like old saying goes "tool for the job".
Some people do only repairs and do stuff that doesn't require analyzing things into details, but you move from one signal to another all the time. Physical controls might be useful for that. But new Pico software uses mouse wheel well, you just go over the control and roll the wheel..
I have it connected to 23" touchscreen monitor. That makes it a breeze to control...
Other people work on stuff where you look at single signal for hours.. Those don't twiddle the settings all the time.
Picos are not the cheapest option there. But they are damn good tools for some jobs and some methodologies. Is it niche tools? I don't think so, but not
everybody needs them and you need to be able to afford them.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
