| Figure 1: A low-pass filtered track of the Frequency measurement demodulates the linear frequency sweep in a radar chirp. The frequency domain FFT shows the range of the frequency change. |
You need to test, we're here to help.
15 November 2021
Using Tracks to Demodulate Frequency/Phase Modulated Signals
08 November 2021
Finding “Unknown” Waveform Anomalies
| Figure 1: Width “exclusion” trigger captures pulse widths outside the range of 980 ns to 1 µs. The first anomaly captured is a width of 2.99 µs. |
Look for What’s “Not Normal”
A simple approach is to measure the nominal waveform, then trigger the oscilloscope on waveform elements that differ from nominal. Figure 1 shows a 500 kHz square wave with a roughly 50% duty cycle, so the pulse width is normally about 1 µs (the Width measurement shows a mean of 997 ns). This nominal width does not change significantly with any regularity and gives us a basis on which to begin looking for anomalies.
01 November 2021
Finding Intermittent Events
| Figure 1: Statistics for 1261 Width measurements taken over 97 acquisitions on the Measure table. Width statistics can help determine the set up of a Glitch SmartTrigger. |
25 October 2021
Measuring Dead Time in 48 V Power Converters, Part 2: Dynamic Measurements
![]() |
| Figure 1. P1 and P2 measure dt@lvl over the entire acquisition, while P3 and P4 measure dt@lvl for only a single operational cycle of zoom traces Z1 and Z3. |
As we learned in part 1, the dead time delay is measured using two instances of the measurement parameter Delta Time at Level (dt@lvl) as shown in Figure 1.
In the Figure 1, the dt@lvl parameters P1 and P2 show the value of the last measurement in the acquisition which contains 10,000 switching transitions. The parameters P2 and P4 measure only the single timing cycle shown in the zoom traces. (Click any image to enlarge it and see the detail.)
The values of both parameters are different, and you should ask the question: how does dt@lvl vary with time? To find the answer, turn on the measurement parameter statistics, as shown in Figure 2.
18 October 2021
Testing for Near Field Radiated Emissions in the Time Domain
| Figure 1. Triggering on a time-domain signal likely to be coincident with radiated emissions helps to locate where in the channel di/dt occurs. |
2. Physical structures that are not tightly coupled to the return plane
3. Ground loops causing common currents in cables
We’ll briefly demonstrate a bench top test for finding sources of near field radiated emissions caused by return path discontinuities using a real-time oscilloscope in the time domain.
Why the time domain? Although EMC compliance testing is done in the frequency domain, in the time domain we can see the signatures of near field emissions in a way that yields information about the root causes of those emissions. It is a type of pre-compliance EMC testing that can be easily done in your lab, without the expense of an anechoic chamber.
11 October 2021
Near Field vs. Far Field Radiated Emissions
| Figure 1. The near-field emissions we measure in the lab may not be an accurate measure of the far-field emissions on which EMC is certified. |
04 October 2021
Unintentional Antennas in Electric Circuits
| Figure 1. Certain design features can introduce unintentional antennas into electric circuits. |
Where do these radiated emissions come from? No one designing an electric circuit board is designing them into their product on purpose. These sneaky antennas do not appear in the schematic. However, we can unwittingly introduce them into our product through certain styles of board and interconnect design features. It is sometimes jokingly said there are two kinds of designers: those who are designing antennas on purpose, and those who aren't doing it on purpose. We’re going to introduce two, basic models of antenna—magnetic dipole and electric dipole (Figure 1)—to reveal a secret source of radiated emissions.
