Multifunction DAQ

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

PCI 6255 cables

Solved!
Go to solution

We have been running LabVIEW 2010 for 10 years with a PCI 6254 reading 10 analogue signals (+-5V) and one digital. We have upgraded to LabVIEW 2019 and our hardware supplier changed the PCI 6254 to a PCI 6255 as he regarded the 6254 as obsolete. He also changed the SCB68 connector cards to SCB 68A.  We now find there are subtle differences between the two cards, such as there is no provision for digital I/O on connector 1 of the 6255.

I have studied the manuals and found that the recommended connector cables are different. between the 6254 and 6255. We have SHC68-68-EPM on Connection 0 and Connection 1 which worked OK on the 6254. The manual says the recommended cable for the PCI 6255 Connection 1 is the SHC68-68.

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two cables, and will it affect the readings?

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 4
(730 Views)

The -EPM indicates better performance and less noise because of higher shielding. You can read more about it here: Main Page : DAQ Multifunction I/O Cable Guide 

 

Regards,

0 Kudos
Message 2 of 4
(671 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author Humph

Hi, As per the M-series DAQ users manual, you will need two different cables to work with PCI 6255 module as shown below. Its slightly different for PCI 6254 (it uses SHC68-68-EPM for both connector 0 and 1). I hope this helps.

 

cables.png

Regards,
Dharani | CLA | CTD
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 4
(655 Views)

Thanks very much for this. We will order an SHC68-68 cable fo Connector 1 of the PCI6255. 

But can anyone tell me why extra shielding would make a difference?

Sorry for slow response. Have been on holiday. 

Humph


@Dharani.R wrote:

Hi, As per the M-series DAQ users manual, you will need two different cables to work with PCI 6255 module as shown below. Its slightly different for PCI 6254 (it uses SHC68-68-EPM for both connector 0 and 1). I hope this helps.

 

cables.png


 

0 Kudos
Message 4 of 4
(620 Views)