10694 error on AI Control with 6071E

[marc lawrence]

Dear All

I am using a 6071E to capture 12 signals at 100kHz which seemed to work fine until earlier this week. I am now recieving the 10694 error with the same configurations which always used to work... I can remove the error by going down to 10 channels. As the total sample rate of 6071E is 1.25MS/s I believe what I am doing should be possible... the scan order is always RSE, with 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12;   1,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,23,23,24 etc... The system still functions and I still get data (despite the error message) which appears to be correct... however I am concerned that something else is happening, or that my data sets are wrong.

Has anyone else experience with this error - or can anyone indicate whether there will be problems with the acquired data? Can I safely ignore it? The sampled signals will be FFTed so it is important that I get the right signals or that I know what the signal error could be,

Many thanks,

Marc Lawrence

[devchander]

Hi Marc,

Since you say you are able to acquire even after getting this error, Looks like you are using Traditional DAQ.

If you use DAQmx, acq will stop once this error is encountered

It is not recommended, to continue at sampling rate which gives this error.

I would suggest you use lower sampling rates, since you also are performing some frequency analysis on the signal.

regards

Dev

[marc lawrence]

Just an update - we actually discard 1/2 of the signals as there is some jitter between our source and measurment system (we cannot externally clock). Hence we sample 12 channels, but throw away the first 3 and last three... only the middle 6 are actually needed. If we sample with 6 channels, we find we can only use the middle two... etc

1) If this is an error, why does it still produce data which appears to be correct? the 6071E is specced to go at these speeds...
2) Why does my P4 machine with 1gb of memory generate this error? (ok I use winamp perhaps too much)...
3) Can I trust the data and just ignore this problem?

Thanks,

Marc