Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

On Mar 31, 1:02=A0am, "George Jefferson" <Geo...@Jefferson.com> wrote:
 >
 > It's also very dishonest and goes to show why humanity will never
make it
 > very far. People like Larkin are too arrogant to understand this.
Do you
 > think people would buy their products if they knew that the only
difference
 > between the low end and high end versions is the price? At the very
least
 > they could have added some true functional improvement that made it
 > justifiable but simply changing the model number doesn't justify a
40% price
 > increase.

What is dishonest about it? You buy a product to do a job and it's
worth a price to you. You want more bells and whistles, you pay for
them. If they're in there already, how is that dishonest? I think is
smart engineering. I never understand why it's OK for me to get the
highest price when I sell something but it's 'bad' and 'greedy' if a
company does the same thing. Don't tell me you sold you house to the
lowest offer -- or maybe you did.

G=B2

On Mar 31, 11:23=A0am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<snip >
 > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and
 > firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts
of
 > things have different specs and functions differentiated by
firmware.
 >
 > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took
advantage
 > of it. I still don't know why.
 >
 > John

I pretty much agree with you but has anybody verified that the
hardware is indeed identical? They don't install a faster processor or
A-D or better grade amps? Or is this like the overclocked computer
that mostly works but sometimes crashes an loses data? If I want the
faster computer, I don't fool with the clocks, I buy what I want. I
would do the same with the scope.

G=B2

On Mar 31, 2:30=A0pm, "fritz" <yapu...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> "John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in messa=
ge
>
> news:mtq6r5t2e14htcdl9svbr3bt8g95hlpmmc@4ax.com...
> .....
>
> > Looking at the transient response at 100 MHz, which kinda sucks, I
> > wonder if the 50 and 100 MHz scopes are indeed identical except for
> > firmware.
>
> > John
 >
 > Kinda sucks ?
 > Did you watch the eevblog ??? I don't think you have the slightest
clue
 > about
 > what fast signals really look like. The higher the bandwidth the
messier
 > they look as various resonance effects in the measurement circuit
 > are revealed - use a 1Ghz 'scope and they REALLY suck.
 > The modded Rigol compared very well with a 100Mhz Tektronix TDS
1012.

You're telling Larkin about high speed? What planet are YOU from?

G=B2

Glenn Gundlach wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:23 am, John Larkin
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> <snip >
>  > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and
>  > firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts
> of
>  > things have different specs and functions differentiated by
> firmware.
>  >
>  > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took
> advantage
>  > of it. I still don't know why.
>  >
>  > John
>
> I pretty much agree with you but has anybody verified that the
> hardware is indeed identical? They don't install a faster processor or
> A-D or better grade amps?

By all accounts, no, the 100MHz unit is an identical board. People who tried 
to examine the hardware front ends (and other parts) could not find any 
differences between the two models. That's what originally prompted me to 
suggest there was just a component value difference in the models, but of 
course as it turns out it's much simpler than that, they are identical. If 
they weren't identical, then there would be no need for the software logic 
switch to set the 50MHz limit, they'd simply do it with BOM changes.

The sample rate and all other performance features are the same between 
units, so there is no need for better or faster ADC's or processor in the 
100MHz model.

Dave.

-- 
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:47:27 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a 
>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE
>>>>
>>>> Dave.
>>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a
>>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to
>>> perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself.
>> "Land of the Free" criminalises lots of things. The punters must be 
>> ripped off by corporate excess at every turn - just look at the DMCA as 
>> an example of how your congress critters are in hock to big business.
> 
> You don't favor copyrights or legal protection for intellectual
> property? If you spent years writing a book or a symphony or
> developing a product that was mostly firmware, you wouldn't mind if
> people copied it and sold cheap knockoffs?

I didn't say that at all. I am in favour of protection of genuine novel
inventions and copyright on creative works. I am absolutely opposed to
the idiotic USPTO granting patents on mathematical identities and
blindingly obvious prior art in the software field.

Remember I originate mostly software. And that is far more easily copied
by the unscrupulous since it is designed to run on a generic computer.
These days mostly PCs but I have done stuff in the past that ran on
everything from a humble Z80 (with a lot of paging) to a CrayXMP.
Strange thing was we learnt a few new tricks with every compiler the
code was compiled on. The Z80 compiler was very strict and minimalist.
> 
> There is an argument against copyrights and patents, but it would
> change a lot of things.

Your DMCA is an insane piece of legislation intended to pander to the
rip-off merchants in Hollywood and US music industry. ISTR analogue
playback of DVDs in the US is deliberately hobbled to satisfy them.
> 
>> The Sony BMG CD rootkit fiasco in 2005 was a particularly nasty example 
>> of this with the boot on the other foot.
>>> I have some sympathy for Rigol here. Many of our products have an
>>> option that can be enabled in firmware, and that we charge for. We put
>>> a lot of engineering effort into the firmware, and need to be paid for
>>> it. If buyers of my gear can order the cheaper one and make it into
>>> the expensive one, by copying an EPROM maybe, or setting a bit in
>>> flash somewhere, I can't recover the cost of the feature. The act is
>>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft.
>> Even as an originator of IP I find it difficult to have much sympathy 
>> for Rigol here when they clearly made no effort to cover their tracks in 
>> the firmware. It would only have taken an MD5 or CRC of the serial 
>> number XORred with a bit pattern known only to them to prevent hackers.
> 
> Yes. Their mistake was making it too easy.

Exactly. Got it in one.
> 
>> If you can upgrade it by sending it a new model number then why not?
>>
>> They won't easily stop hardware mods though. Engineers tweaking 
>> commercially available products by swapping out weak components to 
>> improve or make them more reliable has been going on since the year dot.
> 
> It looks as if hardware-hacking the varicap bandwidth limiter is
> legal, but doing it through the serial port may be a crime in the US.

More fool the US legislators. The customer must always be ripped off.
Are you seriously claiming that you think the DCMA is good legislation?

The hardware is clearly capable of 100MHz operation and a trivial
command sequence will enable it (or reversibly degrade the bandwidth).
Cutting a track and a quick hardware mod would also do the job.

I don't see that changing a few bytes in NV ram using undocumented
commands is any different to swapping out the front end transistors or
whatever other tricks were done on some of the old analogue scopes to
soup them up. What about using some of the undocumented hardware
features of the profiling instructions on my Intel PCs. No doubt you
would say that infringes the DMCA since I don't have Intels blessing.
> 
>>> Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP
>>> is expensive.
>> Indeed. And that is why you should not make it trivial to hack.
> 
> Agreed. Hackers are amazingly inventive.

Serious point here. I don't mind registering and binding the licence key 
to the MAC address of one PC and/or owners name. That is pretty much 
what I do. Once it is installed I cannot stop them giving it away, but I 
can tell if I ever see an illicit copy who gave it away. This is usually 
sufficient to discourage all but the most untrustworthy characters. Most 
people are basically honest but require a bit of encouragement.

I rather like the game industry copy protection where an illicit cloned 
game would play OK for 5 or 10 minutes and then have gravity decrease to
zero or mutate the laws of physics in some other way. Enough time to get
people hooked on the gameplay but still needing to buy a copy.

I absolutely hate paranoid invasive security measures like dongles on 
parallel ports I no longer have that only work on slow machines or 
require the DVD inserted every 10th use. These generally only 
inconvenience genuine purchasers without putting up that much resistance
to a concerted attack by professional pirates. The Chessmaster series of
programs is a good example of this daft insert the CD method and it is
protecting something that retails for about &#4294967295;10.

If you have ever been in the Far East you will know what I mean about
knock-off software being everywhere (and often laden with malware).

>>> Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make
>>> it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both
>>> versions.
>> However, it does make the Rigol DS1052E a very attractive proposition 
>> for the moment. UK/Oz attitudes to hacking kit are somewhat more relaxed 
>> than in the US. Almost all DVD players here are available in MultiRegion 
>> hacked form and even NASA brings its DVD kit to London to be doctored. 
>> Region locked players do not sell particularly well to UK film buffs.
>>> I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital
>>> filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies
>>> than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a
>>> few more.
>> You may as well patch them for 100MHz bandwidth then. Send Rigol the 
>> price difference or whatever you think it is worth if your conscience 
>> bothers you.
> 
> I don't intend to hack any of them and I never steal IP. I hope that
> people won't hack my products and steal my engineering investment.

You never knowingly steal IP. You have no way of telling when the slimy
fat lawyers from Patent Carpet Baggers Inc will come knocking and demand
that you pay a huge ransom for infringing their US patent on "whatever".
> 
> And 50 MHz is a good place for a bench scope, clear of a lot of FM and
> TV crud. The Rigol looks great at 50 MHz, but noisy and ringy at 100.

But if you happened to want to use it at 100MHz then enabling that
feature would be useful. In the UK 85MHz bandwidth would be OK.

Waveforms with sharp rise times always look worse at higher bandwidth.

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:30:53 -0700, Jon Kirwan
> <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
>>> <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 30, 8:29 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a
>>>>> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ================================================
>>>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com
>>>> Excellent,  I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E!  The best news is that
>>>> even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is.... (just
>>>> scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.)
>>>>
>>>> George H.
>>> It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70) MHz
>>> bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do the hack
>>> even if it was morally and legally fine.
>>>
>>> This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has loads
>>> of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the price.
>>>
>>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me.
>> It's not Dave's job to protect Rigol.
> 
> He sure didn't protect them. He apparently organized an effort to hack
> their scopes and cost them money, and went public with it.
> 
>> Whether he hurt them or not is a question that isn't clear,
>> nor answered yet.  If Rigol is forced to make further
>> modifications because of Dave, and only because of Dave, then
>> you may have a point on that narrow ledge.  But it still
>> doesn't mean Dave has any responsibility to protect them from
>> such actions they may later choose to take.
>>
>> Besides the issue that Dave is acting as an independent, free
>> agent and may choose what is in his own better interests, he
>> cannot possibly be expected to consult some personal Ouija
>> board about the mind of Rigol about their own business
>> interests.  Rigol can fend for themselves.  And they are
>> perfectly able to do so.
> 
> Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves.
> 
>> In any case, I generally prefer a world where knowledge is
>> freely shared, education valued, and the consequences lived
>> with more than one where knowledge ie metered out.  Dave gave
>> information, which is fine.  You did too when you commented
>> about the "clean transient response" and the fact that you
>> don't think it is wise to hack it for your own needs.  Which
>> is good information, as well.  Then just let the end user
>> decide for themselves what is better for them.  As it should
>> be.
> 
> Jones still hasn't said why he did it. 

Because he could. And there is clearly interest in what he reported.

It isn't logically that different from reporting on finding undocumented 
instructions on a CPU. Undocumented useful commands on a piece of kit.

In the "Land of the Free" with DMCA I expect that is also a criminal 
offence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin wrote:
>  Kirwan wrote:

>> I don't see it that way, at all, John.  I think the
>> manufacturer took a risk designing as they did and chose to
>> do so, anyway.  They knew it was possible that this may be
>> uncovered and decided to go for it.

> They made it too easy to hack. Now they're going to have to rework the
> firmware to make it harder, which will cost them something.

They screwed up, they bear the cost.

>> When I buy a tool, I am completely free to repurpose it in
>> any way I want to.  When I buy a hammer, it may not get used
>> as the manufacturer intended.  So what.  When I buy a Tek
>> scope, I may decide to gut it and redo some things in it to
>> improve its use to me.

>> Your point hangs entirely on what was in the MIND of those
>> who fielded this DS1052E.  I would have to somehow _know_ in
>> advance (and although we can assume and are probably right
>> here, it is still an assumption) that Rigol didn't want me
>> making these particular modifications but don't mind if I
>> make other ones I might someday decide to make (such as
>> hauling out sections and using them with more effort and work
>> on my part for something entirely different.)  In other
>> words, you are arguing that because _these_ modifications are
>> simple and other ones more complex, that repurposing in one
>> direction is wrong and another direction is just fine (I'm
>> assuming here that you wouldn't mind me dismantling it and
>> using it for parts, for example.)

>> That's a crazy argument.

>> If they want to make it difficult, and you have suggested
>> they may now have to do that, then that is fine, too.  There
>> is nothing wrong with that.  But to argue that a buyer is
>> limited in certain ways and NOT limited in certain other ways
>> in using a tool they have purchased, merely based upon the
>> manufacturer's mindset about some of these vs others, is
>> going too far.

> I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law.

Dave is an Australian, living in Australia.  Why would (or should) he care 
about US law?
Do you consider Australian law whilst going about your day to day business?

> Personally,
> I class it with vandalism.

That's bullshit.  How can you vandalise something you legally own?

>> Dave is merely putting information out for end users, freely.
>> I see no problem with that, either.  It's his own decision.

> Obviously. But I'm curious as to why he did it, and especially why he
> went to the touble to make a video and post it on youtube.
> Why, Dave?

Why not?  He seems to not be breaking any Australian law.  Why does he have 
to justify himself to you particularly regarding the laws of another 
country?  Your questioning him demonstrates your arrogance towards a law 
abiding citizen of another country.


-- 
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged. 

"Dyna Soar"
" Farkin Larkin "

>> I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law.
>
> Dave is an Australian, living in Australia.  Why would (or should) he care 
> about US law?


 ** His video presentation breaks no law in either place.


>> Personally,
>> I class it with vandalism.
>
> That's bullshit.  How can you vandalise something you legally own?

 **  Precisely.

But FJ is alluding to the possible effect on Rigol's sales of their phoney 
100MHz version.


>> Obviously. But I'm curious as to why he did it, and especially why he
>> went to the touble to make a video and post it on youtube.
>> Why, Dave?
>
> Why not?  He seems to not be breaking any Australian law.  Why does he 
> have to justify himself to you particularly regarding the laws of another 
> country?


 ** His video presentation breaks no law in either place.

 FJ claim to the contrary is entirely  RIDICULOUS !!



> Your questioning him demonstrates your arrogance towards a law abiding 
> citizen of another country.


** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of his 
designs that is close enough to the Rigol case  for  ** HIM **   to feel 
very confronted by Dave's video presentation.

IOW  -  a clear case of guilty conscience induced paranoia.

IOW  -   the fool protesteth far too bloody much.



....   Phil

John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski
> <al.borowski@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31, 1:03 pm, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a
>>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The act is
>>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft.
>>
>> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't
>> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the
>> padlock in the least. Would you?
>>
>
> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones
> has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is
> probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at
> least.
>
> So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the
> whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real
> revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue.
>
> Jones? Why?
>
> John
>
I would not mind betting that they make more revenue, not less as a 
result of this discussion.

John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:08:45 -0500, John Fields
> <jfields@austininstruments.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:03 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
>>> <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold
>>>> dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope
>>> >from a Chinese maker.
>>>>
>>>> Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed.
>>>>
>>>> He might have hurt or helped them.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will
>>> buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs.
>>
>> ---
>> So now it's _not_ "serious money" like you originally claimed?
>
> If it's, say, 100 scopes hacked at a loss of $400 each, until Rigol
> makes the firmware more secure (which will also cost money to do)
> that's $40K. I don't know if $40K is "serious" money that matters to
> Rigol, or to you. $40K is fairly serious to me.


It would probably be 100 scopes that they would not have sold normally 
to people who would not buy the 100MHz one anyway.
>
> How would you feel if Jones hacked one of your products and cost you
> $40K? But I think you don't do firmware, so the question is probably
> moot.
>
> John
>