I have 38 years experience as an analog EE. Every other scope I have used has five subdivisions--each tick mark is 0.2. This scope each tick is 0.25. Why in the world?
4 tick marks vs 5. Just curious, how important is that in an instrument that can make the measurement for you and display it with even more resolution?
Please note that it is 3 tick marks vs 4 (four subdivisions vs five).
I can extend your question--why have tick marks at all? Tick marks are present for instant measurement. Without them the measurement must be set up with cursors or the Measurement tab. Tick marks are very useful; changing their spacing from a de-facto standard is *not* a wise thing to do. There was no reason to change this; reading a trace on the screen is done in decimal (tenths) rather than fractional (quarters).
Also note that the vertical axis on the Keysight scope DOES have 4 ticks / five subdivisions. Only the horizontal is different.
Thanks for your question,
I agree with your point about no tick marks. However, given the 1, 2, 5 scaling sequence, I have never found 5 tick marks to have an advantage over 4. Each has a place where the mental calculation gets harder. At least for me. With 4 tick marks it is at 5. With 5 tick marks it is at 2.
Also note the grids on modern scopes are not square (because of display technology). They are wider than they are tall. Therefore, there is more room for tick marks in the horizontal plane.
Again, note that it is 3 tick marks (KS) vs. 4 (traditional), not 5.
3 tick marks makes it easy to find any 0.1 value (0.1, 0.2, 0.3...). 4 tick marks makes it easy to find quarters (0.25, 0.5, 0.75). I don't follow you in your examples ("With 4 tick marks...").
As you point out, the grid is wider horizontally. Why did they decrease the number of tick marks from 4 to 3? You seem to be making this same point, but also disagree with it, so I'm not sure what you are saying.
I was writing tick marks when I should have been writing subdivisions.
I agree that subdivisions are useful. That it should not be taken to the extreme of no subdivisions.
When converting the screen to volts, the value of a subdivision changes with scale.
4 subdivisions: 100mV/div 25mV/subdiv, 200mV/div 50mV/subdiv, 500mV/div 125mV/subdiv
5 subdivisions: 100mV/div 20mV/subdiv, 200mV/div 40mV/subdiv, 500mV/div 100mV/subdiv
With 4 subdivisions, I find 125mV/subdiv hardest to work with in my head. With 5 subdivisions, I find 40mV/subdiv hardest to work with in my head.
I was wondering if, when the vertical dimension is smaller than the horizontal, the vertical scale looks too crowded with 4 tick marks.
This is wonderfully clarifying, Fungible, now I see what you're saying. I sort of figured you were talking about subdivisions, but wanted to check.
When I'm using the subdivisions I don't generally think in volts or seconds. I'm reading 0.3 boxes or something. With five subdivisions I can read to 0.1 box quickly/accurately. With four subdivisions I can read to 1/8 box. I like the decimal approach more. If I'm measuring manually, I write down 4.3 boxes and do the math on paper after a group of readings.
Which way a person prefers is just that--a preference that fits your work habits.
Keysight changing a long standing convention is what I really have an issue with.
Retrieving data ...