Slashdot Mirror

Agilent makes them:

https://www.agilent.com/en/pro...

It is not fucking 3-D printing buzzword bullshit. And it is not new. And there are plenty of manufacturers of purpose built equipment for this sort of thing tha make much more sense than adapting a garage toy.

http://www.gilson.com/en/GilsonProducts/AutomatedSystems.aspx

https://www.agilent.com/en-us/products/automation-solutions

But you're still going to need purification, assay and QA. (You'll need high pressure liquid chromatographs, gas chromatographs, mass spectrometers...)

No, you can't make drugs at home without a proper lab.

Thanks for your insights. Still trying to decide whether something like this should go on my wish list ;) (see above for my potential uses).

Don't expect to much of it for the first generation / first product. Once you get a few competitors and iterations on the technology, you can have a serious look at it. I'd also wait to see a view "in-depth technical reviews" with labor-based comparison studies. To satisfy your curiosity, if your budget allows it, it will definitely be worth it (assuming it at least work a little). I expect the results at first to feel a little like translating something in some language with google translate and translating it back with bing.

How accurate, exactly, do you think such a device could be? Obviously it's not going to be pulling out the sort of precision of a professional spectrometer. But you mention, for example, being able to identify the signatures of herbicides and pesticides. Do you mean, for example, "This contains imidacloprid", or more like, "This contains a nicotinoid of some variety"?

It's hard to say without having more detailed information on the spectral range, spectral resolution, illumination source, detector type and sensitivity, and, most importantly, the type of spectrometer. From the description, it seems that it is a diffracting spectrometer, but that again comes in different flavours. Long story short, I can only guestimate the performance of it based on my experience designing such devices with the information they provide. Now, some molecular basis have specific signatures even a low resolution device could identify. Because these molecular basis are shared by various different molecules, it may be difficult to do more as to identify a group such as nicotinoids. And for the same reason you will have a lot of false positives.

This is where the apriori information play an important role. If you are looking at an apple, the spectral database-based/cloud-based analysis program knows what to expect and can raise a warning flag if it sees something which might be a nicotinoid, because that's not expected in the spectra of a "clean" apple. The same analysis program will ignore the warning if you say you are analysing a cigarette. This, btw. may also lead to false negative... but with low spectral resolution, I believe that the cloud-based analysis will play a crucial role. And this is actually the most interesting part of this innovation.

How useful do you think it could be on identifying mineral species - say, distinguishing between different zeolites?

I've never saw an IR spectrometer used for mineralogy or metallurgy. I doubt it can provide you with any significant information in those fields. Other factors you cannot see in vibrational spectroscopy play a too large role.

Or, back to food, if given, say, a mango, to get readings of, say, water, sugar (in general, or specific sugars), fat (in general, or specific categories of fats, or specific fats), protein (in general, or specific categories of proteins, or specific common protiens... obviously it's not going to be able to pull out 5 ppb of Some-Complex-Unique-Protein), common vitamins (generally found in dozens of ppm quantity - some more, some less), minerals (likewise), etc?

This is where I believe the advertisement is way to promising and optimistic. I'd occupy your day to do that on a very expensive and high-performance laboratory IR spectrometer. Under laboratory conditions.

Take this example of sugar spectra from the Agilent website. They don't specify it, but that's most likely 4 cm^-1 resolution. You see that it is possible to identify specific sugar compounds, but also that the spectra are quite alike. Now reduce the spectral resolution to something like 128 cm^-1 and you'll have a hard time identifying the exact type of sugar.

You mean when Agilent and Keysight were Hewlett Packard and they didn't make PC's or printers? Yes I do.

And I was there the day Carley walked the spine at Compaq with Michael Capellas telling us all what a wonderful thing the merger was. Not a single person believed it would be. My supervisor who had been with the company for years (He had a three digit employee number) was let go shortly before I left for another position.

Some of them XP machines are also embedded computers connected to infrastructure or hardware that can't be upgraded at all to Win7/Win8 (due to HW or SW or interconnected HW/SW/networking).

For example this oscilloscope. The "upgrade" is buying a new $50K-$150K instrument, not merely somehow upgrading to Win7 (which isn't possible - the manufacturer gave the middle-finger to every owner because of HW and driver upgrades required).

Similarly infrastructure systems for building automation, factories or other have "upgrade" price tags in the $1M-$50M range because it's not merely XP you have to upgrade. You also have to upgrade HW and everything that touches the system. For every 1 desktop XP system there are probably 3-5 industrial XP systems floating around also.

Was it utterly foolish to use Windows at all-of in any of these applications? Yes. Completely stupid. Irresponsibly stupid. Borderline criminally and morally stupid. The lifespan of Windows versions clashes with the lifespan of these products so problems were inevitable. But when a monopoly market player chooses to be stupid and it's the only thing on the market, you don't have a choice.

Had is the word. Most of their newer printing stuff is minor tweaks on major designs that were developed at branches that were shut down. The don't have the people left that can do major R&D.

When you get rid of (spin off) your R&D department that tends to happen.

I love this question! Let me help you pick an oscilloscope.

If you're not designing a motherboard, but instead working on medium-speed (Agilent MSOX3054A. If $12k is too much, you can get the "lower" grade MSOX2014A, 100MHz, 8 digital inputs for an almost reasonable $3100. Agilent is the heir to the classic Hewlett Packard geeks all know and love, and the infiniivision x-series compares favorably to tektronix, dollar for dollar.

You need a multimeter. Just get the Fluke 87 and forget the rest. It is also useful to have a function generator and a frequency counter, even if you are doing low-speed digital/analog work. If you're doing RF work or designing analog amplifiers, you might also want a spectrum analyzer. These can get freakishly expensive depending on the type of work you want to do. If you didn't get a mixed-signal oscilloscope, look into getting a logic analyzer. For professional applications it's probably cheaper to just get the MSO.

Not as high tech, but equally important: a soldering station and a fume extractor. For working on mains-powered equipment, you are going to want an isolation transformer and potentially a variac. You will need some way to mitigate ESD in your lab, so look into grounded tables, heel/wrist straps, and ionized air blowers. Not the consumer grade stuff, you want something that senses static charge.

If you are the DIY type who doesn't mind getting your hands dirty, it is nice to be able to fabricate your own PCBs. You can get PCB mills but they are expensive and low-precision. Better to do it the old-fashioned way, in a printmaking studio. You need a UV exposure unit, a laser printer or inkjet that can lay down a high density of ink on a transparency (no recommendations, sorry, I'm still trying to find a good one myself), an etching tank with aquarium pump, and a sink. Just buy your PCBs pre-sensitized. For cutting and drilling you want a small bandsaw or shear and a drill press. You can Harbor Freight the bandsaw, but try to get a high-quality drill press with no spindle wobble or else you'll blow through drill bits like crazy. If you're OCD about this you might even consider getting a small mill, just make sure it has enough of a throat to handle the boards you want to work with.

If you want to do SMD in house you'll need a reflow oven, solder paste, some tiny tools, and possibly a low-power stereo microscope depending on your visual acuity.Throw in a hot-air reworking system too, they're essentially heat guns with chips that match common SMD packages.

You are going to be accumulating many, many tiny parts, so storage is essential. It will need to be versatile: bulk resistors are one thing, but over time you will accumulate reels of SMD parts, coils of wire, long plastic tubes full of DIP and other through-hole parts and all kinds of other junk. It has to go somewhere and stay organized. In my lab I use the tiny trays available at model shops for stuff that's not ESD-sensitive, but in pro labs I've seen large metal cabinets reminiscent of library card catalogs and flat files lined with anti static foam organized with mazes of dividers.

Finally you'll need good EDA tools, so be prepared to pay good money for professional grade software. Most of it runs on Windows so budget for a new PC as well. Cost is no object? Look into Altium Designer. It's the kind of software that doesn't have a listed price. Eagle is a realistic option although its user interface is like taking a time warp into the nineties. No free software I've tried can be cajoled into doing what I can routinely do with Eagle, so my advice is to accept that you'll be using a proprietary toolchain and budget accordingly. Good luck.

x86 isn't happening in mobile or microcontrollers, but there's a ton of them out there. If it's something with a large screen, odds are it's x86. Eg. most new cash registers I see run Windows XP Embedded, as does many high-end measurement instruments. It is my understanding x86 is also used a lot in industrial systems.

The main proponent of X32 seem to be Intel themselves, but they are kind of desperate to compete head-on with ARM wherever they can. I'm guessing they consider X32 important for competing in the mobile market.

"2,500 times more precise"

Which, of course, does not mean "2,500 times more accurate."

metrology != meteorology
lol

precision = true positives / (true positives + false positives)

"2,500 times more precise"

Which, of course, does not mean "2,500 times more accurate."

The hp R&D division is alive and well...It just isn't a part of hp anymore

Agilent (Varian) has a system that is up to 16T and Bruker has systems up to almost 12T. Technically, the highest field MRI is at the NHMFL (21T at 900MHz), but it cannot accept live samples so it doesn't count...

Wouldn't it poetic irony if Agilent Technologies bought hp?

Wouldn't it poetic irony if Agilent Technologies bought hp?

Decades ago when HP made test equipment

The still do they are just called Agilent.

> "they dropped that stuff like a bad habit" The didn't drop the test equipment line, they split HP into 2 companies, HP and Agilent. Agilent is still making fine test equipment. http://www.agilent.com/

Too bad they didn't split off the computer and printer business into "Agilent" and let the test equipment keep the HP name.

> "they dropped that stuff like a bad habit" The didn't drop the test equipment line, they split HP into 2 companies, HP and Agilent. Agilent is still making fine test equipment. http://www.agilent.com/

hp hasn't been in the PC hardware business for quite some time. When they realized they could adopt the razor model with their printers they dropped their first core business like a hot potato and never looked back. They have never been a serious PC manufacturer despite all the PC's they managed to sell. I knew when they bought Palm WebOS was doomed just like when they bought Compaq.

In fact work at a lab, and I say this was a major missed opportunity...

What they should've said is:

" Listen, your whole system is flawed and full of holes like a tennis racket made of swiss cheese.

For a start immediately buy our university department the following:

- One of each on their catalog...

- And their...

- And their...

...that should cost you only 50-100 million (you might get a discount). Budget it as a long term investment into transaction systems."

At least such a scenario is a recurring dream of mine. Oh well, back to the grind ... calibrating old Tektronix oscilloscopes...

For home use, probably a USB oscilloscope is best. They generally perform as well now as legacy/obsolete Tek or HP scopes and are even cheaper new.

In the professional world, Tek has largely been displaced by Agilent's Infinium series (and this with most of the Infinium's UI tricks simply duplicated in Tek and other scopes).

In terms of "how much oscilloscope" is needed, probably the best document to systematically determine this is from Agilent as their app notes (warning all PDF):

AN 1606 oscilloscope fundamentals - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-8064EN.pdf

8 Ways 1 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-6387EN.pdf

8 More Ways 2 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5968-8756E.pdf

5th Harmonic... - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3600EN.pdf

For home use, probably a USB oscilloscope is best. They generally perform as well now as legacy/obsolete Tek or HP scopes and are even cheaper new.

In the professional world, Tek has largely been displaced by Agilent's Infinium series (and this with most of the Infinium's UI tricks simply duplicated in Tek and other scopes).

In terms of "how much oscilloscope" is needed, probably the best document to systematically determine this is from Agilent as their app notes (warning all PDF):

AN 1606 oscilloscope fundamentals - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-8064EN.pdf

8 Ways 1 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-6387EN.pdf

8 More Ways 2 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5968-8756E.pdf

5th Harmonic... - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3600EN.pdf

For home use, probably a USB oscilloscope is best. They generally perform as well now as legacy/obsolete Tek or HP scopes and are even cheaper new.

In the professional world, Tek has largely been displaced by Agilent's Infinium series (and this with most of the Infinium's UI tricks simply duplicated in Tek and other scopes).

In terms of "how much oscilloscope" is needed, probably the best document to systematically determine this is from Agilent as their app notes (warning all PDF):

AN 1606 oscilloscope fundamentals - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-8064EN.pdf

8 Ways 1 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-6387EN.pdf

8 More Ways 2 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5968-8756E.pdf

5th Harmonic... - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3600EN.pdf

For home use, probably a USB oscilloscope is best. They generally perform as well now as legacy/obsolete Tek or HP scopes and are even cheaper new.

In the professional world, Tek has largely been displaced by Agilent's Infinium series (and this with most of the Infinium's UI tricks simply duplicated in Tek and other scopes).

In terms of "how much oscilloscope" is needed, probably the best document to systematically determine this is from Agilent as their app notes (warning all PDF):

AN 1606 oscilloscope fundamentals - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-8064EN.pdf

8 Ways 1 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-6387EN.pdf

8 More Ways 2 - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5968-8756E.pdf

5th Harmonic... - http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3600EN.pdf

This is a computer engineer here. Modern scopes aren't even called "scopes" anymore: the Agilent infiniium-series DCA* or a BERtScope**.

* On the Windows-based models, there are cool animations where the mode name boxes go "whoosh" out of the screen when you select a new mode. And with one mainframe, you can simply buy which modules you need for your measurement needs.

** What? When the fuck did Tektronix acquire Synthesys?!

I don't know about the exact designs that you have in mind, but I wouldn't want to work on anything that goes much above 10 Mhz as tolerances are so much lower and things get so much harder to design and debug.

You shouldn't need a really high sample rate, and usually 20-40 Mhz of bandwidth on 2-4 channels is plenty.

I've used two really nice digital scopes, by Agilent and by Tektronix, while in school. Both companies have entry-level models that are right in your range, around $1,100.

http://www.tek.com/products/oscilloscopes/tds1000_tds2000/
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?nid=-34250.884298.00&cc=US&lc=eng

I've also used a high-end Agilent scope that included a 20(?) channel digital logic analyzer and a 4-channel analog scope and ran visualization software on a built in intel PC running windows.
While this was great for some projects, most of the time it was overkill and I much preferred the "simple" Tektronix scope that didn't have to boot up windows before it was ready to go :)

Don't overlook "old" analog scopes. They work just as good as the latest and greates for most uses, and can be found for a lot less.

Before you buy, try to get a better understanding of your actual needs. How many channels are you actually going to capture at any given time? What's the maximum signal frequency that you'll be working with?

First, pick a realistic frequency range, decide what other stuff you care about.
Don't forget about probes, nice ones can be expensize, don't spend your budget then find out you need $500 in probes. Again, this depends on your frequency range.
Then, a good place to start is ebay, remember, old and working is the same as new and working +5lbs per decade of age. (old test equipment is heavy!)

Some of the new Agilent scopes are sweet, we've rented some at my office (esp if you pony up for the 15" LCD) personally, having one that requires a computer is a PITA.
Decent Agilents

Good luck.

A guy that I once met had a tattoo of a Smith Chart. Smart RF guy. Definitely dedicated to the field. ;)

That was my first thought as well. I programmed in HP VEE and Labview in the early nineties.

WWV or a frequency standard. Something like a HP/Agilent 5071A: http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?pn=5071A&NEWCCLC=USeng

-molo

My Lycos-fu is not what it used to be.

Closest I could come was this:

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news2000.shtml

I got out of the calibration and comm repair business back in the mid 90's so I don't know the current level of HP's involvement in this area but I believe it was all sold off to Agilent.

Not sold to Agilent, rather HP was split in two and the part making instruments &c was named Agilent. See here for the official version.

You are wrong.

For small displays (i.e. monitor sized) LCDs are much more efficient than CRTs. But at larger sizes plasmas in particular and even some LCDs can be less efficient than comparably sized CRTs.

Sources:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf (page 17)
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx?action=ref&cc=CN&lc=chi&ckey=1484550&cname=AGILENT_EDITORIAL

It's just yet another technology invented in a lab for academics' sake.

We've had items these and lots of protocols related to this for years now.

As the article said, this is nowhere near the limit for RF transistors.

Another person pasted some of the abstract of the actual paper, and despite the article containing the words "clocked at", all that was demonstrated was unity gain (i.e. gain cutoff) at 26 GHz for an RF signal, NOT remotely close to digital switching at 26 GHz.

RF test equipment that goes to 40-50 GHz is common (albeit expensive), and specialty test equipment even higher.

See, for example:
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?nid=-536902959.0.00&cc=US&lc=eng

http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?nid=-34374.761699.00&cc=US&lc=eng

Also, even if switching had been demonstrated at a given frequency, that doesn't mean a CPU at that frequency is going to happen. Even with aggressive pipelining, the propagation delay through a digital circuit will be at least 3-4 propagation delays of a single transistor or gate. As we saw with the move from the P4 to the Core 2 series, aggressive pipelining for high clock speed doesn't always work for CPUs due to the IPC penalty a long pipeline has.

As the article said, this is nowhere near the limit for RF transistors.

Another person pasted some of the abstract of the actual paper, and despite the article containing the words "clocked at", all that was demonstrated was unity gain (i.e. gain cutoff) at 26 GHz for an RF signal, NOT remotely close to digital switching at 26 GHz.

RF test equipment that goes to 40-50 GHz is common (albeit expensive), and specialty test equipment even higher.

See, for example:
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?nid=-536902959.0.00&cc=US&lc=eng

http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?nid=-34374.761699.00&cc=US&lc=eng

Also, even if switching had been demonstrated at a given frequency, that doesn't mean a CPU at that frequency is going to happen. Even with aggressive pipelining, the propagation delay through a digital circuit will be at least 3-4 propagation delays of a single transistor or gate. As we saw with the move from the P4 to the Core 2 series, aggressive pipelining for high clock speed doesn't always work for CPUs due to the IPC penalty a long pipeline has.

I work for an independent commercial calibration lab. We repair and calibrate electronic test equipment of all makes and models. Our best lab scope, the best I've ever used in 24 years in the business, is an Agilent DSO6102A. Since a need for logic analysis was mentioned, I would look at the MSO models, which include a 16-channel digital input and logic analysis functions.

The user interface is very intuitive and easy to use, including advanced features like MegaZoom, which allows you to capture miles of data, freeze it, expand it to incredible detail, and quickly scroll through it. There is a "quick measurement" function which performs many commonly-measured parameters automatically, up to three at once, on the displayed waveform in real-time. For other measurements, there are manually-controlled horizontal and vertical markers which you can use to measure, for instance, the timing between the first and last pulse of a long series of pulses quickly and accurately using MegaZoom to zoom out, locate the first pulse, zoom in to accurately place the first marker, then repeat for the second pulse. The measurement accuracy is excellent. For logic analysis, you can trigger the scope on logic patterns which you specify.

As one who has used both brands for decades, I agree with the parent - the Tek TDS scopes don't hold a candle to Agilent's DSO/MSO family. The Agilent is faster, much easier to use, and has some very useful features the Tek lacks. MegaZoom is incredibly useful. Some of the measurements I routinely perform used to be very difficult before I had a DSO to work with, and now I can perform them much more quickly, easily, and accurately.

Hope this helps!
Scott Dunbar

I work for an independent commercial calibration lab. We repair and calibrate electronic test equipment of all makes and models. Our best lab scope, the best I've ever used in 24 years in the business, is an Agilent DSO6102A. Since you mentioned a need for logic analysis, I would look at the MSO models, which include a 16-channel digital input and logic analysis functions.

The user interface is very intuitive and easy to use, including advanced features like MegaZoom, which allows you to capture miles of data, freeze it, expand it to incredible detail, and quickly scroll through it. There is a "quick measurement" function which performs many commonly-measured parameters automatically, up to three at once, on the displayed waveform in real-time. For other measurements, there are manually-controlled horizontal and vertical markers which you can use to measure, for instance, the timing between the first and last pulse of a long series of pulses quickly and accurately using MegaZoom to zoom out, locate the first pulse, zoom in to accurately place the first marker, then repeat for the second pulse. The measurement accuracy is excellent. For logic analysis, you can trigger the scope on logic patterns which you specify.

Hope this helps!
Scott Dunbar

Agilent has a modular USB oscilloscope with 200 MHz bandwidth. Though, it is 10x more expensive than the Parallax model recommended by GP. You control it through software front panels or program your own via IVI drivers (both provided).

I would like to add a few ideas to the above. I work at a facility that actually uses these things.

We have some TDS5104B's. They're great scopes, don't get me wrong, but the Windows interface might throw you. I won't go through all the downsides of a Windows OS on a scope, because they're pretty much the downsides of the Windows OS on anything, but the upsides are:
* You can run things like Labview and Matlab right on the scope, and there are libraries that let you talk to the scope itself and control it;
* You can remotely operate the scope via standard VNC programs; and
* You can run programs on the scope that you would otherwise need another computer to do.

As an example, I've been able to download new firmware code to a board via an Altera Stand-Alone Programmer program and a USBBlaster, and watch the result on the scope from my office down the hall from the lab. Another engineer rigged the scope, an Ethernet-equipped function generator, and Matlab on the scope to make a homebrew Bode plotter.

That all said, the TDS5000 series is old and not likely to be sold by Tek too much longer. The model we have, the 5104, is no longer available. There are other models.

The DPO4000 series is comparable to the TDS5000s, except they're half as big, don't run Windows, and can decode serial (e.g. SPI, I2C, or UART) data for you (and let you trigger on those serial patterns with an add-on chip). For our next scopes, we're looking at the MSO4000 series, which are DPO4000s with 16 logic inputs as well, so you can see everything on both the analog and digital sides of an ADC, for example.

The DSA8200 is insanely expensive ($150k or so once you buy the probes) and probably not something you want to let students near. If you aren't designing things like 3.125 Gb/s data links (e.g. SATA or XAUI), these are a waste of money.

The thing is... 90% of the time, we don't need anything that fancy. Which is why we got about half our engineers Tektronix TPS2024s. They're small, simple, portable (battery or wall powered) digital scopes, 200 MHz, with 4 isolated channels. Isolated channels are great in that you can use them to look at differential signals without needing a special differential probe or needing to rig two channels together and use the math channel to take the difference (which you can't trigger on). They also have CompactFlash slots which can be used to grab waveform and setting data and copy it to your computer as CSV files. I have mine set to save everything to CF when I press the PRINT button.

For even smaller work, Agilent has some neat two-channel handheld scopes, their U1600A series. I saw some in their demo trailer this week, and the screens were nice and fast, unlike older handheld scopes and scope/meters.

So let me get this straight. You were once near a research program, but not actually a part of it, and the head of a department, but apparently not the head of the department doing the research, dismissed it out of hand, before the research was published, implying to you the data was noisy? Your ass just fell off. Let me hand it to you, so you can re-attach it.

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that in some cases you can pull signal out of noisy data by looking for regular repeating patterns? Or with maybe some other techniques you hadn't thought of? Maybe some technique described in the research paper, or its references?

Here's the thing. Getting signal from noise is hard, but often possible. As a species, we get better at it as time goes on. If signal could never be pulled from noise, radio, television, cell phones, and the internet wouldn't work. Heck, even without any fancy schmancy scientific instruments, we're pretty darn good at it. A big chuck of most brains (including yours) is devoted to the task. In fact, you couldn't use spoken words to communicate with somebody else in a bar where everybody else was talking, too. Seismographs couldn't detect earthquakes from the other side of the planet, because there are too many people having raucaus sex and too much truck traffic at any given time.

Take this signal, for examle, the pattern of posts dismissing something with a wave of the interjection "meh" when they clearly have no concept, amidst the general noise of Slashdot posts. If I see it once, I think it's just a random person, spouting off, maybe pre-caffeinated, maybe late at night, maybe not thinking it through, whatever it is. When I see "meh" many times, and every time it's from somebody who is seriously and totally lacking clue, then I wonder. Is this "meh" some sort of signal for someone who doesn't realize the limits of their own knowledge? Is there something about the "meh" meme which causes it to preferentially survive in a cesspool of incompletely formed thought, and die out amidst the frenzy of competition in a curious mind? Is "meh" a signal which indicates intellectual laziness? Perhaps it's related to the phenomenon of the unskilled being unable to correctly assess their skill? (This applies to all of us, in domains of our in-expertise. I'm not insulting you, merely pointing out that we all need to become more aware of the areas of our in-expertise, in order to avoid looking like idiots.)

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
(Also available in this HTML version if you prefer.)
Overconfidence


Your geek card is hereby suspended for the weekend, which you should devote to reading about signal processing and astronomy. You are also prohibited from using "meh" for one year.

The Fundamentals of Signal Analysis
Extrasolar Planets

Well they did spin off their hardware unit as Agilent a few years back, which in turn spun off their semiconductor unit as Avago Technologies, so yeah.. it's surprising they're doing semiconductor research, since the point of spinning off those units was to allow them to focus more exclusively on selling PCs and printers.

An important question, and only jokes as answers. Not much hardware available for 100Gbps testing, and if they don't want to roll their own they may use something like this BERT, Agilent E4898A, see http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-4 750EN.pdf#search=%22E4898A%22 .

Bah. HP changed when they shifted their focus from engineering to sales. They used to make some of the world's best scientific equipment, but they sucked the soul from that and spun it off. Likewise some of the best scientific calculators. Now their fortunes ride the tide of ink sales and everybody thinks of them as a PC supplier.

Oh well, at least we've still got Tektronix...

The old HP still makes great products they just don't call themselves HP anymore. Agilent http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/home.jspx?cc=U S&lc=eng&cmpid=4533 was the original test & measurement arm of HP and their core business for decades before being cast off so HP could focus on its ink selling..er..I mean... printer business.

If you had to name the two most popular HP products, I think you'd say these:

Uh, no. The first thing that comes to my mind is their calculators. After that, their test instruments, and then maybe their printers.

Schwab

Great hardware. I worked with those when I was in Korea. They're solid pieces of equipment, not likely to break, and they do their job very well.

We got the new stuff in later in the year, by Agilent Technologies. They push the 5Hz to 26.5GHz range, I believe, with comparable or better in other areas. I've still got an Agilent where I am now, it's just tuned to our specific band instead of having that ultra-wide range that I'm used to. No more listening to Radio or getting TV broadcasts :( I guess at upwards of $26000 US new, they wanted to cut down on the expenses a little bit. Can't say I blame them there!
http://www.agilent.com/

You can see interviews and a video here. The team's website is here.

If you are serious about having a REAL tech bench then you need one of these bad boys....

http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/nav/-536892327.5 36882573/pd.html

Otherwise how will you test your homebrew wifi antennas?

99% of optical mice use the HP/Aglient sensors, in fact they just recently announced having shipped 400 Million of those bad boys!

The sensors come in several flavors (mini, low power for cordless, high resolution, etc) but they basiclly boil down to four categories:

400 DPI - the very first batch of optical mice
800 DPI - second generation of optical mice (most popular)
1600 DPI - "high performance" models (expensive gamer mice)
Laser - newest generation (currently used in the Logitech MX 1000 at 800 DPI)

That made the tech which enabled optical mice without a special mousepad (you know, the grid) that the old Mouse Sytems optical mice used.
Check: http://www.agilent.com/labs/news/1999features/fea_ gordon_gary.html MS may have been the first to license it, but they didn't invent it.