Відео

Yes. Calibration may be off, but can be changed.

You can contact me on my email and we can discuss.

Ok thanks where can I find your email

That is a work in progress. Hopefully in not too far a future.

@@Daaremikkel Hi Olle i use google translate to convert Russian text to English also i use you tube subtitles to understand your youtube videos brilliant information also i will purchase your courses !!

Thank you!

The pico file can be converted to a USB Autoscope file and then the software and script can be used for analysis. The file has to be sent to Injectorservice.ua for conversion.

I may be able to sell you one.

I'm interested in a scope also. How do I contact you Sr. Thanks

What is the process for buying this scope in the u.s.?

@@kodgaf I ordered mine online, I'm very impressed with it .

I recommend using input 5 and 6, or use attenuators. The scope won't be damaged if you don't, but the top of the waveform will be cut off.

Obrigado Olle,só não entendo como o modo injector Raster suporta teste de injetores e não suporta primário de bobina de ignição

We are working on another video about how to connect to multiple injectors.

I am sorry I have not uploaded more videos. I will do better.

@@Daaremikkel i have autoscope 4 and i am new user most videos in other language please sir

The answer to the question really depends on you and what you want. If you want mainstream, what "everybody" uses, then probably the Picoscope. If you don't mind using something that does things differently, and in my mind, often better, then the Autoscope may be your best choice. The Autoscope is cheaper and so are the accessories. They are of comparable quality to the Picosocpe accessories.

@@Daaremikkel Friend Olle, I really appreciate your opinion and your time in helping me with this dilemma, again thank you.

Yes, pretty much any decent pressure transducer can be used. The Px 35 transducer is about $90.-. The WPS500X is quite a bit more.

Send me an email.

@@Daaremikkel 13508084039@163.com

The test was meant to compare the two scopes using the same or similar capture mode. The manual mode very well may be more sensitive and accurate. The USB Autoscope scripts is what really sets the tool apart from many other testers. Since the PICO relies on the ripple on the system voltage for the test, it will be more sensitive to disturbance that using the CKP and the injector signal, as the USB Autoscope does. Of course, it means more complicated hook-up.

You have 6, actually 8, channels available. You can use the first four channels to connect four injectors. I'll post a video showing how soon.

@@Daaremikkel i am waiting that video please upload thanks

You can contact me directly or check this website. autoscope.eu/products/

The measurement algorithm of these devices is different. Pico measured the maximum amplitude or peak to peak of the total ripple, whereas the USB Autoscope measured the actual rectifier ripple from the diodes in the alternator. A major cause of extra measured ripple is the alternator field being turned on and off rapidly, since the field is PWM controlled on most charging circuits. Ignition coils and injectors turning on and off will generate some ripple as well

What I like about the USB Autoscope is the way the software displays the information. It is very similar to the way an engine analyzer would do it. In fact, the USB Autoscope in many ways is more of an engine analyzer than a pure oscilloscope. Disclaimer: I have and use both the PICO and the USB Autoscope.

@@Daaremikkel I dont deny that some of the scripts in the autoscope are excellent. I especially enjoy the PV charts. I just think the way these videos is misleading as they are not a true "vs" comparison.

I found out about autoscope from Eugene Irimia channel. So I was looking for some comparison to picoscope. In first few "comparison" videos comments are disabled, that is not good sign. One huge mistake was using picoscope in streaming mode using 50 or 100 Ks/s sampling speed. PIcoscope works in megasample range. I was watching Eugene Irimia channel and there I found out that picoscope might have alternative. I think that bigger Autoscope advantage over picoscope is number of channels and price for kit. In my opinion picoscope 4 channel automotive, is better if you have the money for it (build quality, access to reference waveform database and community forums). I only work on my cars as a hobby and own cheapest picoscope 2204a (10Mhz 2 channel, price - about 100 EUR), but it works fine for my needs. Im looking at 4 channel automotive picoscope but it is out of my hobby price range. For me interesting would be better price and 4, preferably 8 channels, and decent sampling rate. Also I must admit that automotive picoscope has much higher sampling rate and frequency bandwidth that might be beneficial for fast speed data buses. It can also read and decode CAN and other data.

Not sure If you have something to do with autoscope.eu site. I was trying to compare autoscope specifications form autoscope.eu/features/ to picoscope automotive. Atoscope specifications on that site is not correctly written. Maximum sampling frequency for channel (in 1 channel sub mode - 12.5 MHz) and lower for others. For digital oscilloscopes there are 2 independent parameters, and both are important. Channel analog bandwidth (analog part where high frequencies signals get weaker) and sampling rate (how often voltage is measured). In outoscope page sampling frequency is in MHz (correctly would be to show it in MS/s). If there is only 12.5 MS/s than this scope is only good for 1 to 2 MHz signals on one channel, because there should be at least 5 to 10 more MS/s than MHz for signal you attempt to measure. 10 MHz signal requires at 50 to 100 MS/s sampling rate to be accurately measured. For example picoscope automotive has analog bandwidth of 20Mhz, no matter how many channels are used, and it should not change for any digital scope. Picoscope also has 400 MS/s total sampling rate (400MS/s if one channel is used, 200MS/s for 2 channels and and 100MS/s if 3 or 4 channels are used). That is correct way how to write specifications for any digital oscilloscope.

@@Janisg616 Just to clarify. There are substantial waveform databases available for the Autoscope as well. I have found that the connectors on the Autoscope are better (more reliable with repeated use) than the BNC connectors on the Picoscopes.

Veré que podemos hacer

Excellent information. No waste. 👏👏👏

Same with ATS people don't understand that Pico really wasn't an automotive scope where as the ATS and Autoscope were made for automotive and not an after thought, this autoscope has some killer features im in states only thing that stopped me from buying is it looks hard to use and hard to get here lots are out of stock. i want one for my channel tho so i can show people like you did. good stuff

I am glad you like it!

I am glad to see you here and glad you like the videos.

Very true. The early FORD MAP and BARO sensors used a 5V 50% duty cycle square wave signal. On a true RMS voltmeter the voltage would read 2.5V. The frequency normally varied between approximately 100 to 158 Hz.

@@Daaremikkel I was wrong. It's 5V. Not 12V. Thank you.For those who not have a scope or frequency meter I gave them the advise to use an old analog RPM-meter. Also you can see if the sensor works.

I am glad you like it.

In present production. There have been 4 different iterations over the years.