From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
12-29-2006 10:23 AM
12-29-2006 10:26 AM
01-02-2007 11:32 AM
Hello yongster.
I was able to open up both of your attached programs (V5 and V6) and am not able to tell a difference immediately. Could you please point me to where this difference is? I tried searching for a 'check scan.VI', but was unable to locate one and am not sure that this is a VI in the 435x driver. I also checked both programs for a 'check.VI', but was unable to locate one of these either. Please post what case of your case statement holds this difference and confirmation that the VI is indeed called 'check scan'. The entire VI name will make it much easier for me to search for it in your program.
In regards to your timing question, you could get the time at the very beginning of your program so you always have a reference time. This would allow you to get the current time whenever you wanted, and then subtract it from the beginning time to get the time elapsed.
I look forward to helping you with your application. Have a great day!
Brian F
Applications Engineer
National Instruments
01-02-2007 06:09 PM
01-02-2007 06:11 PM
01-02-2007 08:05 PM
hi
i not sure will this help also
when i run the vi with the ni 435X check scan vi, i attached an indicator to see how many scan no it input to the NI435X read vi, the return value is 16
so i try to input 16 as a constant value into NI435X read vi (without the use of check scan vi), however
the data that is read is the same as attached in the previous mail-i.e.with check scan-presence of -ve values
without check scan, no -ve values but very much less readings.......
thks
01-03-2007 07:05 PM
01-04-2007 12:23 AM
Hi Brian
there is a few things which i tried
i tried to put "wait" state in the loops
ranging from wait 100ms to 1s
the attached are the data i obtained
seems that by putting wait = 1s, it helps to prevent negative reading
with decreasing wait time, more -ve reading is being read
i also discovered though not sure, sometimes the negative values seems to appear when one case is completed and "moving" to the next case...........
does this look reasonable to you, and is it rite to do it this way??
thks
(BTW, the data in attachment is temperature, setpoint, time, no of cycles
01-04-2007 05:20 AM
01-05-2007 10:12 AM