From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inventor of triggering?[edit]

In this document, which is used as a reference for this article, the author states (footnote, page 15): The current Wikipedia entry says: The company's founders C. Howard Vollum and Melvin J. "Jack" Murdock invented the world's first triggered oscilloscope in 1946, a significant technological breakthrough. The Dumont 248 circuit description clearly refers to triggered operation, so this is a questionable claim. The statement is supported by a source, but to me this particular source seems more solid. I suggest removing the claim. Wammes Waggel (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to download scope-history.pdf. My reading of Oscilloscope history#Triggered sweep is that the Dumont 248 had an external "driven" rather than an internal "triggered" sweep. The distinction being an external drive pulse started the sweep rather than the scope extracting the drive signal from the input. The applications of driven sweeps (such as radar) would have an easily available drive pulse. Glrx (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dumont Type 248 adverisement on page 39. Scope uses Z-axis modulation to show time.
Here the driven (or "slave"') sweep is triggered by the pulse itself, which is then delayed by a self-contained distortionless network so that the leading edge is not obliterated. The one microsecond markers (or others at intervals of 10 or 100 microseconds) are blanked into the trace by an internal marker oscillator. A beam-control circuit eliminates the bright spot of the beam rest position.
Glrx (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

puff piece[edit]

This reads like a promotional pamphlet from the company.

"These scopes were outstanding performers often preferred over their laboratory bench models. The first models were the 422, a 16 MHz bandwidth and the 453, a 50 MHz bandwidth model. The following year the 454, a 150 MHz portable.[10] These models put Tektronix well ahead of their competitors for years. The US Military contracted with Tektronix for a model 453 "ruggedized" for field servicing. The 400 series models would continue to be popular choices in the 1970s and 80's. In addition the styling of the 400 series would be copied by Tektronix's competitors. 400 series oscilloscopes are still being used currently.[11]"

The whole article reads like this. It's got valid information in there, but a lot of "probably the world's first" type weasel words and unnecessary promotion. (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is UK trademark litigation relevant?"[edit]

In looking at many other corporate entries, I rarely if ever see information about trademark infringement litigation. Therefore, I do not believe this is relevant or important and should be deleted. If every instance of a company suing or being sued over trademarks were to be covered, corporate listing on Wikipedia would be unreadable. I tried to delete this mention, but it was reverted. Let's not have a battle over this and agree that it needs to be removed as it is not adding value in the effort to provide a good overview on Tektronix. Bryawn (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should stay as a example of the legal culture of the company. In the 1970s, Tek kept a whole army of attorneys busy hassling little companies with tek in their names. I don't recall any specifics offhand, but if there were a tiny company on the west coast named microtech in those days, Big Tek would have been on them like white on rice. —EncMstr (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I did the revert. Tek presumably had a world-wide reputation in 2008, so a company using "Tektronix Ltd" would seem to clearly infringe. It is surprising Tektronix lost the suit. The article does not say what services/products the 2008 company made, and the trademark link is dead. Glrx (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)