kas.lewis wrote:

...............................

For me the real issue comes with the lack of acknowledgment and progression with a kit like this. When I first started doing roadtests I was happy to just get selected with the idea that I would eventually graduate to bigger better and more interesting kits and even equipment. The concept of show what you can do and then you will be rewarded was how thought of this whole endeavor. This is not to say learning is not part of the adventure, but that learning bigger and more complex products would be in store after showing you can learn and review the smaller ones.

 

This never really happened. I've applied to a number of the larger more interesting roadtests but never seem to come out on top............................................

Hi Kas,

just curious, your sixth review was on a 6GHz spectrum analyser, worth $2500, I would not count that as low value non interesting stuf.

I remember I was a bit disappointed not being selected for that one as I had real use for it.

Gerrit

station240  wrote:

 

There is NO used test equipment in Australia, EEVBlog knows that also.

Any cheap new stuff would be direct from China, of unknown calibration, and delayed anyway due to CoV 19.

 

I made a very big effort to get a somewhat expensive Oscilloscope, some unprofessional jerks didn't pay me for 6 months work, so that money all got spent on bills.

There is no one to hand me down anything I might need, I have to fight tooth and nail for everything around here.

This is why I'm so fed up with everyone at the moment.

So use your initiative. I'm not going to hand-hold you further, you've taken up enough of my time today, and I've made several suggestions, yet you continue to complain that the stuff you're interested in, you don't have test equipment for.

EEVblog may help you for country-specific information. I don't live in Australia, but I have visited labs there, and they certainly used test equipment.

Well station240, as a fellow Aussie - I do have a Rigol DS1102E 100Mhz dual-channel DSO with original probes and power cable sitting about from my PhD days (~ 6 years old). It's what I would consider an entry-level 8-bit scope with no bells and whistles - but I'm willing to part with it if you're willing to send me AU$20 to cover the postage. All I ask is that you'll give it a good home and use it responsibly.

It won't solve the issue of not being high end, of being "from China" and being "of unknown calibration", but it might be better than nothing. PM me (or reply) if you're interested.

- Gough

EDIT: Just tested it, seems to be working fine. Ran self-calibration, completed with no errors. Firmware upgraded to latest - even packed it nicely in a box. Even found the original USB-cable and calibration certificate from 2012.

If you want it and you get your physical address to me within a day or two, I will post it out right away, before I fly out on my one-month holiday, otherwise it could be a while before it gets to you ...

There is NO used test equipment in Australia, EEVBlog knows that also.

Any cheap new stuff would be direct from China, of unknown calibration, and delayed anyway due to CoV 19.

I made a very big effort to get a somewhat expensive Oscilloscope, some unprofessional jerks didn't pay me for 6 months work, so that money all got spent on bills.

There is no one to hand me down anything I might need, I have to fight tooth and nail for everything around here.

This is why I'm so fed up with everyone at the moment.

Come on - it's less than $100 to pick up an oscilloscope, used. I bought a new USB one for just over £100 GBP.

Prior to that, I had a 60 MHz cathode ray 'scope. I gave that away to an element14 colleague.

If there's the slightest bit of professionalism, you'll make an effort to acquire your own test gear.

shabaz  wrote:

 

People (including non-TMs and TMs) all offered help if you wanted it, to write applications.

Here are some recent RoadTests:

 

Weller Solder Station - Five units, all non-TM roadtesters

Digilent OpenLogger - Five units, four non-TMs

Project14 RF Project - Four top prizes (Spectrum analyzer and portable 'scopes) - all non-TMs.

Weller Soldering Station -, not much interest to me, someone else can have it.

Digilent OpenLogger - want to roadtest this, but wasn't a good time

Project14 RF Project - Did enter this and all the other open contests around the same time, got absolutely nothing.

Here is the sort of kit I want to roadtest.

Infineon Gate Driver with Truly Differential Input

Couldn't apply as I don't have the Oscilloscope needed to evaluate it, there is not point asking for help with writing applications, when I can't test the kit anyway.

People (including non-TMs and TMs) all offered help if you wanted it, to write applications.

Here are some recent RoadTests:

Weller Solder Station - Five units, all non-TM roadtesters

Digilent OpenLogger - Five units, four non-TMs

Project14 RF Project - Four top prizes (Spectrum analyzer and portable 'scopes) - all non-TMs.

TM status does not make as much difference in the way you think it does. Non-TMs can deliver just as good or better reviews anyway. I'm fairly sure there's a few questions in the RoadTest applications specifically for the aim (it seems to me) to seek out non-technical-equipment-related qualities like reliability etc.

This specific BLE roadtest may or may not be interesting to you, but many of us have done several BLE-related roadtests or other wireless tech, and worked around equipment limitations, it's sometimes possible to find ways to test indirectly. Semiconductor manufacturers used sunshine from the window, needle dials and mirrors on the wall when they couldn't get access to high-end multimeters. BLE just requires a PC pretty much.. at least for a significant chunk of the interesting parts of BLE.

Even if BLE is not relevant to your immediate work, maybe it's useful to learn at some stage. I've mentioned elsewhere that I got a (decent) job offer purely as a result of an element14 BLE project, although I didn't take it in the end. It's an in-demand topic.

I like at least exploring, or applying to niche RoadTests when they appear, because if it results in something useful, then that's great, and even if it doesn't, it could result in a bit of info that may turn out useful to solve an unexpected problem in the future. I understand that's not an approach for everyone - everyone is different.

colporteur  wrote:

Those top members have earned their place. The quality and quantity of output is impressive.

 

I don't see an reason to level the RoadTest playing field because it is already level.

I've no doubt other members could produce an impressive quality and quantity of Roadtest reviews if they had to near automatic approval "Top Members" get around here.

Go look at 'in progress' and completed roadtests, see who actually got the kit, and how long they have been on this website.

There is always a limited amount of kit, lets say it's 4, if two Top Members immediately state they want this (which happens a lot around here), then we know it's now 100% harder for others to get to try it.

I suggest SOME Roadtests for those who aren't 'Top Members' and they all throw a major dummy spit. Too used to getting anything they ask for huh ?

Anyway all your talk about Top members "earned their place" "privilege" and "title" makes you sound like a major snob, Whatever it's your choice, I just don't see it as a desirable human trait.

The commentary appears to be be grouped into two camps. The RoadTest process itself and the product of the RoadTest. Discussions started out around the product and have gravitated to the process.

Separate posts have attempted to flush out the RoadTest process itself. I'm curious if this question is an extension of the RoadTest discussion, (i.e. coming at it another way) or are you seeking input on the product selection?

A soldering iron RoadTest generates close to 300 applications and while a bluetooth design kit garners 19 application. From a technology perspective you would think bluetooth would have the greater appeal.

Maybe I'm reading to much into the question.  I guess any results can be beneficial in their interpretation. I'm curious what was your goal?

Your perceptions are necessarily reality.

I to take exception to your comments that appear to be personal and targeted at Gough.

My acknowledgement to MK for his response to your post.