Starting user programming on a work related project

[RavensFan]

---

@dsabene wrote:

---

I need to eliminate the PXI system at the same time as being able to handle all of the functionality it provides and the flexibility that my boss is looking for.

---

It's not clear why you need to eliminate the PXI system.  What is wrong with the PXI system?  What about it is causing you problems?  As Jeff B  says, it is just a form factor.  It is a PC with a chassis optimized for handling DAQ cards.

It seems to me there is a problem you need to solve, and the boss is probably saying something like "we need to get rid of that PXI system!" and just using it as a blanket label for what you have now rather than accurately describing the problems you are having now.  A PXI system is flexible since it is a PC.  It can run Windows, or it can run a real-time OS depending on your needs.  And it has the ability to install multiple DAQ cards in whatever arrangements you need to handle all the different test needs.

[RTSLVU]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

---

@dsabene wrote:

---

I need to eliminate the PXI system at the same time as being able to handle all of the functionality it provides and the flexibility that my boss is looking for.

---

It's not clear why you need to eliminate the PXI system.  What is wrong with the PXI system?  What about it is causing you problems?  As Jeff B  says, it is just a form factor.  It is a PC with a chassis optimized for handling DAQ cards.

It seems to me there is a problem you need to solve, and the boss is probably saying something like "we need to get rid of that PXI system!" and just using it as a blanket label for what you have now rather than accurately describing the problems you are having now.  A PXI system is flexible since it is a PC.  It can run Windows, or it can run a real-time OS depending on your needs.  And it has the ability to install multiple DAQ cards in whatever arrangements you need to handle all the different test needs.

---

If I may chime in here... I am guessing it is the cost of the PXI systems that his boss is concerned about. Specially for manufacturing, which is sounds like where he is coming from. I know our manufacturing side hates to buy any capitol equipment. Let alone one for every production line in every facility, as the costs add up really fast.

We do not have a single PXI system here and last time I tried to get one management balked at the cost.  

[dsabene]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

---

@dsabene wrote:

---

I need to eliminate the PXI system at the same time as being able to handle all of the functionality it provides and the flexibility that my boss is looking for.

---

It's not clear why you need to eliminate the PXI system.  What is wrong with the PXI system?  What about it is causing you problems?  As Jeff B  says, it is just a form factor.  It is a PC with a chassis optimized for handling DAQ cards.

It seems to me there is a problem you need to solve, and the boss is probably saying something like "we need to get rid of that PXI system!" and just using it as a blanket label for what you have now rather than accurately describing the problems you are having now.  A PXI system is flexible since it is a PC.  It can run Windows, or it can run a real-time OS depending on your needs.  And it has the ability to install multiple DAQ cards in whatever arrangements you need to handle all the different test needs.

---

It is not clear to me why we need to get rid of it either but nonetheless that is the direction that I have been given. I am going to dig deeper on this. Believe it or not you all are helping me in my suspicions to the ambitiousness of this project.

[dsabene]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

If I may chime in here... I am guessing it is the cost of the PXI systems that his boss is concerned about. Specially for manufacturing, which is sounds like where he is coming from. I know our manufacturing side hates to buy any capitol equipment. Let alone one for every production line in every facility, as the costs add up really fast.

We do not have a single PXI system here and last time I tried to get one management balked at the cost.  

---

True observation. The point of the project it to have a device capable of testing a product with a cost of approximately $300 dollars per unit. As it stands right now, my company can spend anywhere between $20,000 and $50,000 and maybe more for current test stations. I am sure that the brunt of that cost is not just the PXI systems.

EDIT: Can I ask what type of testing scenarios/products does your company develop?

[Ben]

Sounds like ti COULD be a simple as adapting the old version to use a hardware abstraction layer and then implementing a scaled down hardware layer based on lower cost hardware.

For R&D a lot of exotics tests are often done to aid product development research while on the prodcution side quick cheks are "good enough" becuase they are concerened with throughput and all of the "why" questions are left the the design team.

Ben

[dsabene]

---

@Ben wrote:

Sounds like ti COULD be a simple as adapting the old version to use a hardware abstraction layer and then implementing a scaled down hardware layer based on lower cost hardware.

For R&D a lot of exotics tests are often done to aid product development research while on the prodcution side quick cheks are "good enough" becuase they are concerened with throughput and all of the "why" questions are left the the design team.

Ben

---

Ben,

I feel like it is possible but I FEAR that it is going to be much more code to replace the relevance of the DAQ cards. This is the basis of my originial question of the feasibility of replacing the current LabVIEW test plan and PXI system with straight up LabVIEW code.

[Ben]

One of the beutiful aspect of DAQmx is that the code that uses a cDAQ OR a PXI chassis may differ only in the syntax used to selcted the I/O points.

I had developed some nice code to run a wind tunnel using cDAQ that was latter reused to run a filter cartidge certification fume hood and then latter used to replace and high channel count PXI-SCXI system.

Same under lying code. Only the channel count and configuration options required changing as the code moved from one appltion to another.

The above does not apply to the exotic stuff like routing triggers, and synchronizing modualr instruments of course. That is were YOU need to figure what parts of the current system will be duplicated for your task and the hardware required for those cuntions.

Ben 

[dsabene]

---

@Ben wrote:

One of the beutiful aspect of DAQmx is that the code that uses a cDAQ OR a PXI chassis may differ only in the syntax used to selcted the I/O points.

I had developed some nice code to run a wind tunnel using cDAQ that was latter reused to run a filter cartidge certification fume hood and then latter used to replace and high channel count PXI-SCXI system.

Same under lying code. Only the channel count and configuration options required changing as the code moved from one appltion to another.

The above does not apply to the exotic stuff like routing triggers, and synchronizing modualr instruments of course. That is were YOU need to figure what parts of the current system will be duplicated for your task and the hardware required for those cuntions.

Ben 

---

Will do Ben, Thank you everyone.

[Ben]

---

@dsabene wrote:

---

...

---

Ben,

I feel like it is possible but I FEAR that it is going to be much more code to replace the relevance of the DAQ cards. This is the basis of my originial question of the feasibility of replacing the current LabVIEW test plan and PXI system with straight up LabVIEW code.

---

Good!

"Fools rush in where wise men fear to go."

If the original code was developed properly, it could go as I mentioned previously. If the original code sucked then it could be a real pain to adapt and may warrent a rewrite.

Ben

[RTSLVU]

---

@dsabene wrote:

---

EDIT: Can I ask what type of testing scenarios/products does your company develop?

---

Our main products are UPS's for the telecomunications industry and inverters for alternative energy.  

Our production ATE does not require high speed DAQ so we base our ATE stations around the Keysite 34970A/2A DAQ/Switch unit I mentioned before.