130 dB dynamic range achieved, not 150

[DigitalSignal]

I just want to report the progress in our development. About a year
ago I raised question that whether it is realistic to achieve 150 dB
dynamic range in the measurement. The discussion is here:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....3?lnk=gst&q=digitalsignal999#348d4c9e0a85e0e3

After a year of development, we made an instrument that can measure up
to 130dB to 140dB. See: www.go-ci.com for product details. We are
10~20dB less than what we planned. But it is is still a satisfactory
result. 130dB means that in the same frame of data capture, we can see
signal clearly as high as 10Vpk, or as small as 10uV. With this
improvement, no gain setting for the front end is needed any more.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

I just want to report the progress in our development. About a year
ago I raised question that whether it is realistic to achieve 150 dB
dynamic range in the measurement. The discussion is here:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....3?lnk=gst&q=digitalsignal999#348d4c9e0a85e0e3

After a year of development, we made an instrument that can measure up
to 130dB to 140dB. See: www.go-ci.com for product details. We are
10~20dB less than what we planned. But it is is still a satisfactory
result. 130dB means that in the same frame of data capture, we can see
signal clearly as high as 10Vpk, or as small as 10uV. With this
improvement, no gain setting for the front end is needed any more.

190+ dB is possible, but things start to get expensive...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Bret Cannon]

I didn't find any specifications for the temperature coefficients of the
precision or accuracy of the measurements. For DC or near DC measurements,
this could be a significant limitation on the ability to fully use the 130
dB of dynamic range.

 

[john jardine]

I just want to report the progress in our development. About a year
ago I raised question that whether it is realistic to achieve 150 dB
dynamic range in the measurement. The discussion is here:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/5709
7006b9fb8197/348d4c9e0a85e0e3?lnk=gst&q=digitalsignal999#348d4c9e0a85e0e3

After a year of development, we made an instrument that can measure up
to 130dB to 140dB. See: www.go-ci.com for product details. We are
10~20dB less than what we planned. But it is is still a satisfactory
result. 130dB means that in the same frame of data capture, we can see
signal clearly as high as 10Vpk, or as small as 10uV. With this
improvement, no gain setting for the front end is needed any more.

Nice bit of kit!.
I've had 130dB but only at a fixed I.F. and piss poor 30k B.W.
For your type of job I'd be thinking maybe 2 off 24 bitters running in
parallel, one running at x100. Results stitched together. Anywhere near?.

 

[DigitalSignal]

Bret, we are not exactly sure about the DC or near DC performance. The
intrument is still intended for the dynamic measurement.

 

[DigitalSignal]

John, Right on. We got a patent on it. Let me know if you are
interested in this technology.

 

[qrk]

Nice bit of kit!.
I've had 130dB but only at a fixed I.F. and piss poor 30k B.W.
For your type of job I'd be thinking maybe 2 off 24 bitters running in
parallel, one running at x100. Results stitched together. Anywhere near?.

Gosh John, I hope you're not using this technique or else you'll need
to pay up.
Patent #: 7,302,354

 

[john jardine]

[...]

Gosh John, I hope you're not using this technique or else you'll need
to pay up.
Patent #: 7,302,354

Thanks for the patent number. Tried a search on "Crystal instruments patent"
but got nothing.
It -nearly- went into some kit a couple of years ago to improve the 10 bit
dynamic range of a PIC ADC. I'm lazy though and couldn't be arsed with the
number crunching, so fitted an external 16 bit A/D .
The marvellous AVR Mega32 I'm playing with, surprisingly has switchable
gains and diff' inputs on the ADC, spawning a couple of teasing, 'what
ifs?'. (I'll keep my head down.)

 

[Clifford Heath]

It -nearly- went into some kit a couple of years ago to improve the 10 bit
dynamic range of a PIC ADC.

Before March 28 2006? If so, the patent is worthless and you may use the
technique any time you like.

Clifford Heath.

 

[john jardine]

Before March 28 2006? If so, the patent is worthless and you may use the
technique any time you like.

Clifford Heath.

Ye-but, this could only be reasonably argued if I filed away historical
evidence such as dated logbooks, a magazine article, emails discussing the
idea, or even a post to a newsgroup such as here.
If I ever get so anal as to marking dates on 'logbook' things or even
thinking the stuff I do has worth, then please pass me a Stanley knife and
I'll cut my wrists. It's anti-gravity or nothing.
In a free world, first come first served. Crystal have made a lot of effort
with their product, it's reasonable that they protect their 'edge'.
These things though are basically just ideas and electronic engineering
seems (uniquely?) one area where decent ideas are there for the picking.

What's worries me though, is the vast number of truly vacuous ideas given
patent protection. At one time I thought electronic 'invention' was just
part of the due process of designing things, until that is, I read the first
Jim Williams book and noted Bob Pease? had patented a VCO design. Until then
I hadn't know that circuit arrangements could be so protected.
The knock on, is that it could badly affect me, as a simple, hack, designer
of kit. A design I did for a company earlier this year, needed a couple of
circuit arrangements 'inventing' to dig myself out of a technical hole (of
my own making!). In total the 'fixes' took an hours work, nice but nothing
special. Problem is they may be already patented. And if not then probably
will be.
Ffs, it's absolutely crazy out there.

 

[legg]

Before March 28 2006? If so, the patent is worthless and you may use the
technique any time you like.

Use it or lose it.

RL

 

[Michael]

Gosh John, I hope you're not using this technique or else you'll need
to pay up.
Patent #: 7,302,354

Having just read through that patent, I'm left wondering how that
could even be patentable... I mean it's not some new idea - it's just
common sense. I bet that's implemented in thousands of circuits
already in wide use. The state of the patent system these days just
makes me sick.

-Michael

 

[Nico Coesel]

Ye-but, this could only be reasonably argued if I filed away historical
evidence such as dated logbooks, a magazine article, emails discussing the
idea, or even a post to a newsgroup such as here.
If I ever get so anal as to marking dates on 'logbook' things or even
thinking the stuff I do has worth, then please pass me a Stanley knife and
I'll cut my wrists. It's anti-gravity or nothing.
In a free world, first come first served. Crystal have made a lot of effort
with their product, it's reasonable that they protect their 'edge'.
These things though are basically just ideas and electronic engineering
seems (uniquely?) one area where decent ideas are there for the picking.

What's worries me though, is the vast number of truly vacuous ideas given
patent protection. At one time I thought electronic 'invention' was just
part of the due process of designing things, until that is, I read the first

Still, what is it worth having a piece of circuit patented? Patent law
clearly states that as a holder of a patent you'll need to actively
search for patent violations. In case of electronics it would mean
opening up and thouroughly analyzing every piece of equipment that
hits the market and see if any patent is being violated. If you don't
do this, you are basically allowing others to use your invention and
the patent becomes useless.

 

[qrk]

Having just read through that patent, I'm left wondering how that
could even be patentable... I mean it's not some new idea - it's just
common sense. I bet that's implemented in thousands of circuits
already in wide use. The state of the patent system these days just
makes me sick.

-Michael

They may have another reason. If they are trying to sell the company,
patents add value to the company if they are selling to investement
groups. Of course, patents look good on your CV. Reminds me of the
silly patent someone brought up a few years ago where they patented a
way of breaking a gyrator.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>