write from 2D array to GPIB write

[PvW]

Hi, How do i go about the following: I have to upgrade my VI's as our multi functional calibrator has been replaced with a newer model. This means that I have to use different drivers, the Fluke 5730A drivers.

I am looking to connect a 2D array to a GPIB write function to test my AC V to work. I tried to use different functions from the String palette. Is it possible to get it to work?

I have attached a simplified screenshot with my set up.

If possible I want it to work so that it first outputs the horizontal row and then the 2nd row.

Any info is appreciated.

[GerdW]

Hi PvW,

---

@PvW wrote:

I have to upgrade my VI's as our multi functional calibrator has been replaced with a newer model. This means that I have to use different drivers, the Fluke 5730A drivers.

I am looking to connect a 2D array to a GPIB write function to test my AC V to work.

If possible I want it to work so that it first outputs the horizontal row and then the 2nd row.

Any info is appreciated.

---

Wiring that array to your loop will autoindex it row by row, so the first requirement is fulfilled automatically.

Then all you need to do is to either use ArrayToSpreadsheetString (to fulfill your written requirement word by word) - or to create a new routine (aka subVI) to convert the 1D array of strings into a string complying to the requirements of your new Fluke device (driver)!

Btw.:

Why do you still use those old GPIB functions? Use VISA instead…

There is no error handling in your VI.

What's the point of that sequence structure? Use dataflow!

Which LabVIEW version do you use?

Is that new Fluke device compatible to your old device? Does it use the very same commands and parameters?

You should attach the real VI instead of plain images: we cannot debug images using LabVIEW!

[PvW]

Hi GerdW,

All the VI's are in GPIB. ( I'm not the maker of the VI's just the user (owner is long gone.)) in the original VI there is error handling.

I have 5 volt levels to check, 0.19 ACV, 1.9, 19, 190 and 750 with 20 Hz, 50 Hz, 1kHz, 5kHz, 25 kHz, 50 kHz, 100 kHz, 200 kHz and 1MHz.

190mV is applied on all Hz ranges and one by one is the value compared with the high and low spec level. If the result is in between the high/ low, it goes to the next step. ie 190mv/20Hz > 190/50Hz > 190/1kHz ect.

We use the vi's for verification purposes in a calibration routine. ( keithley 2001 dmm ) that is why the sequencing was chosen I believe.

Win 7 / LV 2018 is used 2018.

The command structure of both calibrators are not the same. That's why i run into problems.

Attached is the vi that has the same problem but only in volt dc.

I know a bit in Labview but not enough to start developing vi's.

PvW

[PvW]

Note: I've just seen that inside the GPIB message read vi are more Keithtley 2001 sub vi's. They don't let themselves easy transform to VISA.

[GerdW]

Hi PvW,

---

@PvW wrote:

Hi GerdW,

All the VI's are in GPIB. ( I'm not the maker of the VI's just the user (owner is long gone.)) 

The command structure of both calibrators are not the same. That's why i run into problems.

I know a bit in Labview but not enough to start developing vi's.

---

When you need to change your program then you should learn LabVIEW. Especially as you also need to change the whole commands needed to setup your device.

Or hire a qualified LabVIEW programmer...

[billko]

In the OP's defense, you'd be surprised at how many managers buy into NI's claim that "LabVIEW is so easy to use, even an engineer can use it" and expect any software engineer to be able to make drastic changes with zero LabVIEW experience.

[PvW]

GerdW,

Thanks for the reply. I think I will go with an simplified solution. It might add another 40 seconds to the test but he, i have the time. As long as it runs.

I have figured out the command structure with the new calibrator, it wasn't that hard. The older calibrator had only numeric inputs.

The newer calibrator is using a mix of text and numeric making things a bit more complex. I learned a lot over the years but obviously not enough to tackle this problem. Persistence will rule in time.

Paul.