> Am I missing the boat here by not putting a "gizmo monitor" in the coax
> line to the probe?? We dont get too deep into hyper-pulse techniques but
> rather do lots of routine 1d and 2d solutions and solids without any
> extra monitoring devices. What is the biggest net gain you get by putting
> it in the line? I'll do it if necessary. Always listening. Jim.
Jim:
We've never bothered to do that either, but this would be my
explanation:
The technique described give you an additional troubleshooting tool
that MAY reveal additional information. You can certainly observe
the pulse characteristics of your transmitters by simply running
them through an attenuator and then directly into a 50-ohm input of
a scope. (The scope would need to be a high-frequency one, if you
don't want to do the detection thing that has been described.) This
is generally what I do when troubleshooting a spectrometer. But you
have to realize that in this case your probe is not the load; your
attentuator and scope are. The load is a pure "real" 50 ohms. You
MAY need to find out what your pulse looks like when the transmitter
is "seeing" the real-world complex impedence (approaching 50 ohms,
hopefully) of your probe. Probe problems such as arcing could then
be addressed.
-Bill-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Gurley, Electronics Specialist bgurley@utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Chemistry, University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-1600 phone 423-974-3145
------------------------------------------------------------------------