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.
09-28-2007 02:20 PM
09-30-2007 04:41 PM - edited 09-30-2007 04:41 PM
Message Edited by Ravens Fan on 09-30-2007 05:42 PM
10-03-2007 12:09 PM
After thinking about this for awhile, I came to the same conclusion.
I found out if I multiplied my seconds by 83190.8437, the number that got outputed was extremely close to the date I wanted. Of course, the amount of time I am off compounded over 4 days - amounts to 3 hours. Which is what it appears my graphs is off by on a total of 4 days. But no worries.
Thanks for your assistance,
Ian H
10-03-2007 12:47 PM
I don't know why you came up with the value of 83190.8437. Their are 86,400 seconds in a day (24 x 3600 in the picture I posted above). And the time base is 1/1/1900 for the database while it is 1/1/1904 for Excel. So you just need to subtract 1096 days from the first number. (By the way, most computers think 1900 was a leap year even though it technically wasn't. They will often miscalculate days of the week prior to 3/1/1900).
I attached a VI (LV 8.2) that does the job. I also put in another control that allows you to adjust for time zone differences in case you want the value to appear in a time zone other than UTC.