problem in detecting amplitude of peaks in waveform

[kausi]

Respected sir,

i have a problem in detecting amplitude of peaks in waveform..i have a waveform with both positive and negative values ..while using peak detector it shows amplitude well..but it ignors the negative values...if my wave form is (from base to peak) -0.005 to +0.017 means ...it shows as my peak amplitude as 0.017 oly (from zero to 0.017) ...

but i need , it should shows as 0.022..(adding lowest value and peak value  0.005+0.017=0.022 as it's amplitude)..what shoud i do to get this result? help me..

thank you

[kausi]

Respected sir/madam,

  or otherwise , how can i shift this negative lower value in the waveform to zero line? if it is possible means the same peak detector much usfull for detecting peak amplitude in waveform...

thank you

[kausi]

Respected sir/madam,

  or otherwise , how can i shift this negative lower value in the waveform to zero line? if it is possible means the same peak detector much usfull for detecting peak amplitude in waveform...

thank you

[GerdW]

Hi kausi,

you might think about some offset correction: simply subtract the minimum value of the waveform from the waveform.

And about those peak values: they are just what the name says: peak values. They aren't peak to peak amplitudes…

And for the next time you could attach a VI with some relevant data instead of just a picture of a waveform!

[camerond]

kausi,

You have been asking questions about this project for a while now and gotten some pretty good answers. And you have thanked people who have answered you. But, you have not let the community know which answers you have adopted (or just who you are thanking), nor how you have adapted your program to take care of your problem. In order for anyone to help you further without having to take a guess at exactly where you are, you should consider (1) ending each question thread by referring to the specific answer(s) you decided to use and attaching your program (code, not a picture) to show how you used it, and (2) starting out a question thread with attached code of where you are right then, not just a picture of current results. One of us may well have already given you a solution or at least the kernel of one, and it is inefficient for someone else to have to start from scratch to help you further.

If you follow this advice, you may not only get better answers quicker, but you might just find that you are able to answer your question before you even get finished typing it to send out.

Cameron