3 Series MDO Mixed Domain Oscilloscope

View table of contents ...  

image

 

{tabbedtable} Tab LabelTab Content
About

The 3 Series MDO minimizes rack or bench space by integrating multiple instrument, which combines analog, digital, and RF measurements with a signal source in a single, small (5.9 in., 149 mm deep) instrument. The combination of a small instrument and high level of integration aids in the teaching of various electronics principles as well as in its usage for more sophisticated lab experiments. Fully upgradable bandwidths and options enable adding functionality over time.

image

Installed Options

  • 1GHz bandwidth for analog channels
  • Arbitrary Function Generator
  • 16-digital channels
  • Spectrum analyzer, input frequency range 9khz to 3 Ghz and capture bandwidth 3 Ghz
  • Embedded serial triggering and analysis (I2C and SPI)

 

Main Features

  • 4 analog channel model
  • Large 11.6" (1920 x 1080 HD resolution) capacitive touch display, highly intuitive user interface
  • 1 GHz bandwidth version installed
  • Up to 5 GS/s sample rate
  • 10 M record length on all channels
  • >280,000 wfm/s maximum waveform capture rate
  • Standard passive voltage probes with 3.9 pF capacitive loading and 250 MHz or 500 MHz analog bandwidth
  • A DVM/frequency counter added at no cost following product registration
  • Option to add spectrum analyzer hardware at 1GHz or 3GHz
  • Debug complicated embedded designs with a wide range of serial decodes
  • 6-in-1 instrument integration

 

Applications

  • Aerospace, Defence, Military, Electronics Design, Embedded Design & Development, Lighting, Motor Drive & Control, Power Management, Power Supplies, Research & Development, Sensing & Instrumentation, Wireless

 

Contents

  • MDO34, One TPP0500 500 MHz passive probe per analog channel, Power cord, Calibration certificate documenting traceability to National Metrology Institute(s) and ISO9001/ISO17025 quality system registration, 3-year warranty covering all parts and labor on the instrument. 1-year warranty, parts and labor, on included probes.

 

Additional Information

Important Dates

Enrollment Begin: Sept 24 2019

Enrollment Ends: Oct 30 2019

RoadTesters Selected: Nov 21 2019

Product Shipped: Nov 21 2019

RoadTesting Begins: Nov 29 2019

Reminder/Update Email: Dec 29 2019

Submit Reviews By: Jan 29 2020

*The element14 RoadTest Staff will send this reminder/update email.

**If a RoadTester is unable to meet the deadline, please notify the RoadTest Program Lead, , as soon as possible before the deadline.

RoadTesters

Terms and Conditions

 

Roadtest

Terms and Conditions

Tektronix 3 Series MDO Mixed Domain Oscilloscope

 

These are the terms and conditions which govern the Tektronix 3 Series MDO

Mixed Domain Oscilloscope contest. This Contest requires participants to submit an application indicating their previous experience with this type of equipment/component, information on what they would do to test the equipment/component, and the applicant’s desire to post a thorough review of their experience with images, photos, or other supplemental materials. Participants will be required to meet the Conditions for Participation.  The winners of this RoadTest will receive the item(s) listed below. RoadTest Reviews are due no later than 60 days after the receipt of the item(s). No other prizes are offered.

 

The Principal terms of the Competition:

The following words and phrases are used in these terms and conditions and have the meanings given to them below.

(RoadTest or Contest)

Key dates:

Applications Close: midnight (GMT) on Oct 30 2019

Announcement of Winner (estimated): Nov 10 2019

Prize:

3 Series MDO Mixed Domain Oscilloscope

 

Additional Prizes: none

Competition Site: https://www.element14.com/community/groups/roadtest?ICID=menubar_resources_roadtest

Site or element14 Community: www.element14.com/community

Judges: members of the element14 community team chosen at the Organiser’s discretion.

Judging Criteria, All of the following which will have equal weighting:

· Demonstrated competence with the technologies including links or descriptions of past projects

· Qualifications as indicated by current job role and/or schooling/vocational training;

· A thorough description of how the prize would be tested;

· Likelihood that the Applicant will blog about the prize and provide a review on element14.com;

· Originality;

· Innovation.

Organiser: Premier Farnell plc (registered in England and Wales under company number 876412) whose registered office is at Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds, UK

Conditions for Qualification: in addition to meeting the requirements of these terms, all persons applying to take part in the Contest (each one an Applicant) must:

· Provide a RoadTest application describing what he/she would do if awarded the Prize including similar previous projects, product experience and qualifications

Terms: these terms and conditions which govern the Competition and to which the Organiser reserves the right to make changes from time to time and the latest version of these Terms from time to time will be posted to the Site.

  1. Eligibility
  2. Applications:
  3. Selecting Winners:
  4. Liability:
  5. General:

1.1 Save as set out in these Terms, the Contest is open to any natural or legal person, firm or company or group of natural persons or unincorporated body.

1.2 All Applicants must be aged at least 18 at the time of their application.

1.3 Applicants must not enter the RoadTest if doing so or taking part may:

1.3.1 cause the Organiser and/or themselves to be in breach of any agreement (including but not limited to any contract of employment) to which they are a party or in breach of any law, regulation or rule having the force of law to which the Organiser or the Applicant may be subject or any policy of the Organiser or the Sponsor;

1.3.2 Require the Organiser to obtain any licence, authorisation or permission to deal with the Applicant; or

1.3.3 Be in breach of any policy or practice of their employer. Some employers prohibit or restrict their employees from taking part in competitions such as these or receiving prizes under them and the Organiser respects those policies and practices.

The Organiser reserves the right to disqualify any Application made in breach of these Terms and to reject any Application which it reasonably believes may be or become in breach. The Organiser reserves the right to require evidence in such form as the Organiser may reasonably require of any Applicant’s compliance with any of these Terms and to disqualify any Applicant or Participant who cannot provide such evidence reasonably promptly.

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

1.6 The Contest is NOT open to:

1.6.1 Any person or entity who is a resident or national of any country which is subject to sanctions, embargoes or national trade restrictions of the United States of America, the European Union or the United Kingdom;

1.6.2 Any employee, director, member, shareholder (as appropriate) or any of their direct families (parents, siblings, spouse, partner, children) (“Direct Families”) of the Organiser and Sponsors; or

2.1 Each Applicant must fully complete and submit a RoadTest Application by the Application Close.

2.2 By submitting a Registration Form, each Applicant:

2.2.1 Authorises the Organiser to use his or her personal data (as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998) for the purposes of running and promoting the RoadTest;

2.2.2 Authorises the Organizer to copy, reproduce and publish their application should they be accepted as a Participant;

2.2.3 Will be deemed to have read, accepted and agree to be bound by these Terms. Applicants are advised to print and keep safe these Terms;

2.2.4 Authorises the Organiser to copy, reproduce and use the Application and/or Review for the purposes of the RoadTest and as otherwise contemplated by these Terms. The Organiser will not be responsible for any inaccuracy, error or omission contained in any reproduction or use of the Project Blogs.

2.2.5 Licenses the Organiser to use the intellectual property in the Project (IP) for the purposes of this Contest. As between the Applicant and the Organiser the IP remains owned by the Applicant.

2.2.6 Grants the Organiser the right to use his or her likeness, photographs, logos, trademarks, audio or video recordings without restriction for the purposes of Contest or the promotion of it or the Site;

2.2.7 Agrees to participate positively in all publicity surrounding the Contest;

2.2.8 Agrees to be responsible for all expenses and costs incurred by him or her in preparing for, entering and participating in the Contest (save for any expenses expressly agreed by the Organiser to be borne by it in these Terms);

2.2.9 Confirms that he or she owns all IP used in his or her application or Project or Blogs and indemnifies the Organiser from any claim by a third party that use of any material provided by an Applicant to the Organiser infringes the intellectual property rights of any third party;

2.2.10 Agrees not to act in any way or fail to act in any way or be associated with any cause or group which would have a negative impact on the reputation of the Organiser and/or the RoadTest.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea;

2.3.2 The proposed application must be reasonably achievable by the within the time constraints of the Contest;

2.3.3 Applications must not include or propose any of the following, the inclusion of which shall render any proposed application ineligible:

(a) Applications which relate to socially taboo topics, such as illicit drug use or sexual gratification;

(b) Applications that are or could reasonably be considered to be illegal, immoral, discriminatory or offensive as determined by the Organiser;

(c) Applications in relation to them which if accepted would infringe or breach any of the policies or terms of access or use of the Site.

2.4 No Application may contain any of the hazardous substances identified by Article 4 of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament on the Restrictions on the Use of Substances in Electronic and Electrical Equipment ("the Directive") or the use of such hazardous substances in the in any such Project must not exceed the maximum concentration values set out in the Directive.

3.1 Winners will be selected by the Organiser on the basis of the quality of his or her application and its adherence to these Terms.

3.2 The total number of Winners selected will be at least the minimum number set out above but the actual number is at the sole discretion of the Organizer and/or the Sponsor, if applicable.

3.3 The Organiser will use all reasonable efforts to announce the Winners via an update to the RoadTest page by the date listed above.

3.4 Winners agree to take part in all publicity which the Organiser or the Sponsor wishes to use to promote the RoadTest, the Products featured or other Contests with which the Organiser may be connected from time to time.

3.5 Details of the Winners may also be published in the media.

3.6 Winners are responsible for all applicable taxes, duties or other charges payable in relation to any prize.

3.7

4.1 The Organiser hereby excludes all and any Liability arising out of the Contest or the acceptance, use, quality, condition, suitability or performance of any Prize, even where that Liability may arise from the Organiser’s negligence.

4.2 Nothing in these Terms will affect any Liability of the Organiser for death or personal injury arising from its negligence, for breach of Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (in the event that any entrant is entitled to claim rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987) or for any matter in relation to which it would be illegal for the Organiser to exclude or to attempt to exclude its Liability.

4.3 Subject to 4.2, neither the Organiser, any parent company nor any subsidiary of the Organiser or such parent company or any of their directors, officers and employees (together referred to in these terms and the ‘Associates’) makes any guarantee, warranty or representation of any kind, express or implied, with respect to this Competition or the Prizes potentially available under it. Neither the Organiser nor any of its Associates shall be responsible for any Liability that may arise out of or in connection with person’s participation in this Competition, the claiming, redemption or value of any prizes under it, the use or enjoyment of such prizes or any events or circumstances arising out of or in connection with any of them. Any implied warranties of condition, merchantability or suitability or fitness for purpose of any of them are hereby expressly excluded. Wherever used in these Terms, ‘Liability’ shall mean any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, actions, proceedings, demands, losses and other liabilities (including legal fees and costs on a full indemnity basis) arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the matter concerned.

5.1 The RoadTest is organised and sponsored by the Organiser. The Organiser reserves the right to delegate all or any of its powers, rights and obligations arising in relation to the RoadTest to any Associate and certain such rights and powers are assumed by the Organiser on behalf of itself and each Associate. Reference to “Organiser” shall be deemed to include reference to each Associate.

5.2 The RoadTest may be terminated at any time if there are, in the sole opinion of the Organiser, an insufficient number of entries, or if the Applications are not of an appropriate standard for a competition of this nature. The Organiser has the right to cancel or suspend the RoadTest at any time due to circumstances outside its reasonable control.

5.3 The Organiser shall have the sole discretion to disqualify (without correspondence or right of appeal) any Applicant it considers to be adversely affecting the process or the operation of the RoadTest or to be in breach of these Terms or to be acting in a disruptive manner or with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other Applicant or Participant.

5.4 The Organiser has the right to amend or add to these Terms from time to time. Revised Terms and Conditions will be posted on the Contest Site and it is a condition of entry to the RoadTest that Applicants agree to comply with these Terms and, if appropriate, such Terms as amended from time to time.

5.5 Headings are for convenience only and do not affect the interpretation or construction of these Terms and Conditions.

5.6 These Terms and the operation of the Contest shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law and any claim or matter arising under these Terms shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

Tax IssuesIf you are a U.S. taxpayer, you will be required to complete a W-9 form and we will issue you a 1099 form. If you are not a U.S. tax payer, you need to follow the tax laws in your country as per the terms & conditions of this contest.
RoadTest Reviews
Comments
Anonymous
  • Processes have changed since 5 years ago.

  • It's the earlier BM235, it's all that was available at the time.

     

    Whenever I was considering getting the 121GW it was out of stock, others I've spoken to in Australia were also annoyed at how they weren't able to get one.

    Then I heard about the firmware bugs that affected things like the Power measurement, and something else.

    I assume by now Dave has finally sorted out the stock levels, and the firmware bugs, as there are some in the store at the moment.

  • Ah the word is should, but for the road test product I received I did. What got me was the product originally originated here in the UK, but it got sent to me from Newark in the USA and not from Farnell here in UK. I mentioned it at the time and was promised a refund of the duties I'd paid but I didn't receive it in the end. Thankfully it was only for a small(ish amount but I never applied to do another Road Test after that experience just in case it ever happened again. I'd hate to think what the duties would have been if it had have been this 3 series MDO. Robbie.

  •   wrote:

     

    ... an EEVBlog meter (reviewed by everyone) ...

    GW121 ? I have one too. Most of the reviews are showing the meter or do a teardown. If you’re interested in reviewing or explaining some of its niche functions together, I’m open for that.

  • I have to admire your dedication, on making all those blog entries and videos. However, I don't have 3 years.

    it's not that I lack the patience, it's that I've waited 4 years already for some of my personal projects, there are limits to what you can do in other people's labs.

    Not seen anything like that DMM in the roadtests for a while.

     

    I only really have two professional grade pieces of test gear, one is an EEVBlog meter (reviewed by everyone), the other is something I built myself which needs more accurate calibration (and some design improvements)

    I'd write a blog on the later, if it were finished, but as it's supposed to be a commercial product I can't.

     

    Yeah I looked at one instrument, as I was at the time looking at buying something similar, found there was no actual demo video for the features I was interested in.

    Wasn't selected for that RT, but separate conversation with the manufacturer did prove there is nothing outside the user manuals that explains those features.

    Company were willing to arrange a loan of said device, as it would have lead to me buying it.

    However, in the meantime I did turn up an actual review, and some disaster resulted in the money going into other things. 

  • You are right, the odds are not great, but it is way better than a random draw, because you can improve your chances. (I never win at random draws)

    As and demonstrated it can take many attempts to start "winning" road test instrumentation.

    It took me 3 years to win my first instrument road test. During that time I wrote lots of applications and I published approximately 100 blogs and about the same number of videos on element14. Some of those blogs were road tests of small development cards, etc and all of that experience in writing proposals and blogging helped me get good enough and credible enough to eventually win a couple of instrument road tests. But it is still a low probability that I would win a road test of an expensive instrument. The first instrument I got to road test was a DMM (not a multi-thousand dollar instrument) but I put a lot of work into it to try to improve my credibility and skill in doing instrument road tests.

    It may not require you to be producing a blog and video every week for a few years like I had to, but it could easily take more than a few tries. So don't think of your lack of success as being a failure on your part or a failure of the system, it is simply part of the learning process needed to start winning road tests. Just like landing an engineering job would be pretty tough without going through years of engineering training.

    If you want to speed up the learning process, you can publish your proposals and ask the members why they didn't win or ask them for advice on how to do better. To gain credibility, lots of blogging is all it takes.

    One issue I have a problem with on instrument proposals is how to make them better than other proposals. It always seems that just explaining what the instrument does and how to use it is exactly the same thing all proposals will pitch - because that is what the instrument was designed to do. And all of that is explained in the user manual anyway, so what can you do to make your road test better than all other applicants?

    I wrote a story about the process I followed for one instrument proposal here.

  • I have exactly the same experience. It took me more than 40 applications before I was selected for the Panasonic PAN1720 Kit - Review

  •   wrote:

     

      My tips would be:

    • Apply for some of the less popular road tests. Put some effort in and prove yourself. I'm sure it'll help next time round.

    That’s how I got started’ after not being selected for a series of tests where I thought I had a good proposal ...

  • The RoadTest program is a great program... who wouldn't want to score an oscilloscope for free (well almost for free, in exchange for a review, some of your time and effort)?. I sympathize with the frustration of some and personally I believe every RT is unique and not all of them are for everybody. Some RTs are harder than others, at times it may be really hard to compete with some members that have dedicated their entire professional careers working in the field, or simply put, have the knowledge , experience, the tools, etc., first hand to test some of the equipment offered. You are always encouraged to keep applying if not successful and this may feel though when there is very little feedback - what was the manufacturer looking for?, did I go in the right direction?, did I make the first cut?, what was I lacking?.

     

    Personally, I'd use every single piece of advice that has been given here and in other places, there are many talented members who have written exceptional reviews that can give you a clue of how/what to review, some members have posted hints/tips/their methods for applying and even better, some RT applications have been made public.

     

    Luis

  • Hi,

     

    Maybe it could be good to build a portfolio (or maybe you already have it elsewhere, and can link to it in your applications) of technical write-ups you've done. (Incidentally, I don't know if it is a good idea but in the past personally I've done that in resumes too - a clickable link to a portfolio - but that may or may not be good practice. Anyway it's a digression). A quick way to build that up could be to pick any topic of your interest, and write a blog post on it. Once you have several of these (and look around to see other examples of technical posts) then you're showing several things in your favor in RT applications - technical competence, writing ability, and your interest in engineering. I don't know that it can guarantee success, but it cannot hurt, and isn't a waste of your time either, since sharing content on your topic of interest can be interesting for you too, since others learn from your content and will provide their feedback (you could explicitly specify 'please provide feedback', although I'm sure you'll get decent feedback anyway). Clearly you're interested in technology, but it sounds like a few refinement/tweaks are needed in some areas to improve the success rate. (Also, language can matter, i.e. crude language even in a comment, doesn't convey professionalism even though you may be super-competent - not trying to criticize, just suggesting some things that are easy to do/change. Maybe they have no impact, but I don't think the suggestions are harmful).

  • My tips would be:

    • Apply for some of the less popular road tests. Put some effort in and prove yourself. I'm sure it'll help next time round.
    • Write a blog in a similar style. Point this out in your next road test application. For instance, there don't seem to have been many completed road tests for the AVNET Azure Sphere MT3620 Starter Kit. If you got one as part of the promo (or bought one) then write a blog post in the style of a road test.
    • Ask other E14 members to review your road test application. (I'd be happy to if that would help.)
    • Maybe even ask for some feedback. I know he has a hard job sorting out all the low-effort application and the "treasure hunters" who disappear. If he knows you're committed to putting some effort in I'm sure that would count in your favour. (Sorry if you'd rather not be asked, Randall!)

     

    I also wrote this, which isn't quite what you're asking about but has some relevance: Why you should put effort into completing your road tests

  • Done all this stuff, a dozen times over I think, watched the video multiple times, read the article over and over, never selected for anything.

    No feedback, so no idea why either. it's just NOT a good system.

     

    I really don't give up crap what something costs, others do, hence the problems with 500 entrants.

    I only see instrumentation as a tool, some of it I actually need, some I don't, some would be interesting to experiment with.

    If this equipment was cheap none of these problems would exist, it's not, I can't change that.

    I don't need 1GHz bandwidth either, though it would be handy for EMI type testing.

     

    Odds have never, ever worked in my favor, seriously.

    Short of something weird, like only 10 people enter, or there are more prizes than contestants, I have zero chance.

  • , Roadtest selections are somewhat thorough in their selection process, often the intention is to fully demonstrate the hardware and put it through its paces and this tends to mean it's required of the tester to be an individual who has the requirements to ensure it is put to the test. There are examples of poor roadtests where people do post 'oh this was nice hardware' versus, 'this was nice hardware, however its frequency response in 10MHz was a linear curve in comparison to the noisy response in the upper 1GHz, this may be due to the build quality of the DAC" and to garner this type of response requires a very selective process on the individual.

     

    This can mean excluding people from certain backgrounds so that others are more appropriate, the staff don't always get this right in the process; so it's not always about only giving away free hardware. There are documents that say about how to right a good roadtest application for example.

     

    Did you post on the Community about your Arduino MKR problems? I'm interested in what the other hardware is that you're interfacing with it.

  • Yes, I already found Project 14, the project I was working on using the Arduino MKR, they sent me, didn't work out.

    Was unavoidable, had some unexpected problem with other hardware I was using it with. As I lack the test gear to troubleshoot it, I have to build something to solve figure out the issues.

    Still I have no doubt the feedback I did provide helped others, and Arduino developers.

     

    I'm not sure if it's just that Roadtests are more strict compared to Project14/giveways or if it's some difference between Randall and Tariq.

    Roadtests are a complete waste of time for me, I know I need access to test gear to review half the stuff on here, but I no longer have that access.

     

    Short of Project14 offering up the cheapest, nastiest lump of chinese DSO, there isn't much I can do on my own projects, much less review things.

  •   wrote:

    Experience in what? I'm not sure anyone is big-headed enough to assert they have experience in all the functionality many products support, let alone translate that experience into useful output for their peers.

    Experience in a field that requires the kind of equipment that is put up for review, obviously. In this case it happens to be a 16k scope. If you don't constantly find yourself thinking "jee... I wish I had a 16k scope for this job", then you're not it.

     

      wrote:

    It takes a mix of people and skills.

    There are only two units available.

     

      wrote:

    Well, thanks for not ruling us out!

    I seem to have touched a nerve there and that was not my intention, so I'll withdraw from the conversation. I stand by my points tho, because I don't think I've said anything unreasonable.

  •   wrote:

     

    Of course, and I'm not ruling those people out, but I'll take experience over a can-do attitude any day of the week.

    Well, thanks for not ruling us out! Experience in what? I'm not sure anyone is big-headed enough to assert they have experience in all the functionality many products support, let alone translate that experience into useful output for their peers.

    It takes a mix of people and skills.

    Furthermore, the good products are so flexible that even the manufacturers will not know of all the ways engineers will use them.

    The smartest manufacturers know that the most knowledgeable people that know their product could well be the end users.

  • Of course, and I'm not ruling those people out, but I'll take experience over a can-do attitude any day of the week.

  • On the contrary, there are many people here that are experts at digging into the guts of an engineering problem, researching and conducting experiments, provide their experience or educational or industry knowledge, take any feedback well, and build on the review by continuing to provide useful information to their fellow engineers for many years, effectively supporting others in their engineering problem-solving or product needs too. And if they are not experts in an area (we're all newcomers in one area or another), others help them and push them along with those aspects of the review, especially if people see they are making the effort and are dedicated. The engineering world is huge, and products are feature-rich enough that there's lots of scope (no pun intended) for people to exercise their skills and learn new skills in the process, and then teach others.

    It takes multiple disciplines and a mix of people to do all this.

  • Well, roadtest aspect aside, there's very little specialty content in here lately. Ironically, people interested in that kind of content would be most suited for this roadtest, but if the content isn't there, they won't engage.

     

    I'm not complaining, because I understand how and why it happened, but it is unfortunate.

     

    Anyway, probably a topic for the discussion board.

  • If you want or need the instrument, you should figure out how to write a successful application. It does require a good proposal/test plan and a way to provide reassurance that you will complete the road test that you propose. If you need help to figure it out, there are lots of good examples on the forum and lots of members here who will provide good advice. If you don't have a proven track record of successful road tests, there are still lots of ways to show you will follow through on your proposal: for example, you could blog about one of your own instruments as if it was a road test or blog about a project you completed.

    Of course, it is a competition, so even a good credible proposal only has a small probability of being selected. To overcome the odds, you either need to persist by creating lots of credible proposals for different road tests, or create an outstanding proposal that is simply more compelling than any of the other applicants.

    It is not easy to be successful in a road test of expensive instrumentation, but success depends mostly on merit, rather than pure chance, so the better your proposal is, the higher the probability is that it will be selected.