Rube Goldberg Code

[altenbach]

To solve a 3x3 system of linear equations takes an...

• 18 frame sequence
• 48 local variables
• 18 sequence locals.

Then we need to run it in "continuous mode" and press the button for each recalculation.

Somehow, I don't want to see the code to solve the 10x10 case!!! 😮

(See http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=280774 for details and alternatives)

Message Edited by altenbach on 10-30-2007 11:09 AM

[chilly_charly]

A classic one ?

What's less classic is that this piece of code was produced by an application engineer at NI 😮

This being said, the LabVIEW Text-To-Speech example was great  !

Message Edité par chilly charly le 11-01-2007 06:26 AM

[altenbach]

Of course this needs to be done every 10ms while the program is not really doing anything useful. 😄

---

@chilly charly wrote:
This being said, the LabVIEW Text-To-Speech example was great  !

---

I agree, Pretty cool! 🙂

It does not work correctly on my PC under LabVIEW 8.5. The step 2 property node generates an error because the "disable items" receives a "-1". Thus the "devices" field remains empty. The "get audio devices" does not properly propagate the error, but actually clears the error without returning any devices. To fix this, the error cluster in the FOR loop (inside "get audio devices") needs to use a shift register. (A FOR loop with zero iterations returns the default data (no error!) on an output tunnel, but would returns the input value on a shift register).

It works fine if I simply delete the error wire going into the "get audio devices".

[chilly_charly]

On my MacBook Pro (running LV 8.5 under WinXP with Fusion from VMware...), I had no problem, except the first run, when I forgot to select explicitely the only audiocard emulated on my machine. So nothing to remove, nothing to change (I even left the beautifull piece of code that I reproduced in the last post !):D

Message Edité par chilly charly le 11-01-2007 08:17 AM

[shoneill]

CC,

firstly, I'm happy to see you taking a more active role in the forums again.  Welcome back!

There have been quite a few pieces of code posted in this thread with a boolean constant wired to some kinf of "If true then.." structure.

I have to admit that I'm sometimes guilty of that too.  During programming, it's occasionally not quite clear which "polarity" the signals should have to produce the required effect in a given situation.  This is a (quick and dirty) way to allow a quick "swapping" of the polarity if it's found to be wrong in the first place.

Of course one could argue that it should be found out once and replaced with a simple boolean constant, but sometimes the time is too short for such niceties.

My name is Shane, And I'm a Goldberger. >Phew< I feel kind of relieved to get that off my chest.......

[Ray.R]

---

@shoneill wrote:

My name is Shane, And I'm a Goldberger. >Phew< I feel kind of relieved to get that off my chest.......

---

LOL!!  We'll have to start the Goldberger Anonymous  Wireworkers (GAW) thread!  😄

[craigc]

My Name is Craig and im a goldberger, i have stayed clear of array size wiring of for loops and I have now been using auto indexing as a substitute for over 6 months! 😄

[TCPlomp]

Hi Greg

[altenbach]

Here's a way to do some hex formatting on a simple number. Of course it does not produce the desired result, but that's a side issue. At least this will scale very well to multicore CPUs because of all the duplicate parallel data paths. 😮 (just kidding!).

(taken from http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=284795#M284795)

Message Edited by altenbach on 11-16-2007 10:16 AM

[chilly_charly]

I think I could win a prize with this one :

The conversion of a series of 60 chars received on a serial port could be done with the following code,

but was attempted with the code below. Of course it didn't work...

Adapted from this thread

Message Edité par chilly charly le 11-19-2007 04:39 PM