Leaderboard

The last version of LabVIEW released for Solaris was LV 6.0 *I think*. Contact your local NI sales rep and he/she can probably (with a bit of searching) find an installer disk. I don't know cost for older versions -- that's something to ask your sales rep.

Hey Jon, I'll ping you off-line to talk with you a little bit about how JKI handles this. We may eventually offer some features in VIPM Professional that address this use case. As you've mentioned, we have technology that we use in-house to do this. Thanks, -Jim

Ben, the government impinges upon your right to own and bear arms all the time. Without all kinds of regulations, limitations, certifications, or permits, the average citizen can't own artillery, fully-automatic weapons, or even a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Your birthright only exists because at the founding of this country there was no standing military. It was the expectation that every able-bodied man would show up equipped with his own gun, ready to fight the Redcoats. Every 2nd Amendment case that has gone before the Supreme Court has ended up being interpreted within this historical context. 230 years later, we have standing armies, and furthermore we don't need to go out and hunt for our meals. One could well make an argument that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Keep in mind my stance on this: I agree with you that the government should not be able to take away individual ownership of guns (unless you're a convicted felon, which is yet another digression...) But I also believe that rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Our right to keep and bear arms comes with an implicit social responsibility that this will be done in a manner which does not infringe on the next guy's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so we have laws and regulations which delineate actions for the common good. Watch what happens when I take your statement about cars and change a few words here and there: I could shoot any type of gun I want as long as bullets never leave my own property. To shoot a gun in a public space, I need a license. Public spaces are a shared resource built and maintained by the community for our mutual benefit. The community agrees on the rules under which that shared resource is used. I can't fire a gun on the public spaces and render them dangerous for others... I love a good debate, too. Thankfully, this is a forum with polite, educated, and articulate contributors. Ever try this stuff on, say, the Rants and Raves page on Craigslist? Some real whackos there.

I don't want to fight but I do enjoy a good discusion. It is importatnt that we share these thoughts. I could drive any type of vehicle I want as long as I never leave my own property. To drive a car on a public road, I need a license. Roads are a shared resource built and maintained by the community for our mutual benefit. THe community agrees on the rules under which that sharde resource is used. I can't drive a tank on the roads and render them useless for others. Similarly I can't drive on the road with a vehicle that is not inspected. Use of the public road ways is a privledge that is accesable via a license as per the public agreement. The right to own and bear arms can not be impinged apon. This is right that I received as result of being born a US citizen and has been mine ever since. To place restriction on my access to acquiring guns is in effect determining if I have one that I can bear. I feel that is was no accident that this was ammendment #2 right after the right to free speech. The founding fathers set up the FEDERAL government (not national, the states agreed to associate) in such a way as to limit it powers (the tenth ammendment is currently being threatened). I am glad they explicitly spelled out hte right to own guns. Thank you for reading and I welcome your thoughts. Ben That image illustrates what the recent G20 in Pittsburgh looked like from a residents point of view. Ben

It's not a conspiracy if you are paying attention. Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” Video here. "Why would you throw out data from the 80's?! I still have Penthouses from the 70's ... LAMINATED!!

I'm a little late to the party here, but I'll put in a vote for LuaVIEW. I have found this to be a very powerful tool for writing Lua scriptable applications for deployment (and I don't mean LabVIEW scripting). I use an object oriented LabVIEW framework for building code that encapsulates the test equipment (and collections of test equipment) for stimulus and measurement and includes classes for data persistence, evaluation, and reporting. I then use Lua (in the OO style calling convention) to build scripts that are specific to particular tests. The heavy lifting gets done by LabVIEW, and the scripts can be very lightweight. One huge advantage to this approach to my customers is that the deployed app is now scriptable in a language that feels mostly natural to them (most of my customers are in R&D type environments and are scientists and engineers and know languages like Python, Perl, etc). They don't need LabVIEW to modify tests or experiments - and couldn't use it any way, since they don't have the source code on the testers - and there is no additional licensing fee (there is a license fee for the development toolkit) for the deployments. So they can tinker as much as the project API allows - the API is the set of Lua callable LabVIEW functions I expose plus the Lua callable LabVIEW functions LuaVIEW exposes plus the entire native Lua 5.0 language (which is Turing complete) - without me having to worry that they mucked up my source code. Heres' an example ----------------------------- test function -------------------------- function testOne() -- create objects - uses unique names and an action engine to -- create by-val objects that are retrieved by-ref powerSupply = PowerSupply.new("powerSupply") powerMeter = RF_Power_Meter.new("powerMeter") dataSaver = DataSaver.new("dataSaver") -- configure objects - I use LabVIEW clusters/classes flattened -- to XML because they are easily embedded in a text script powerSupply:configure([[ <Cluster> <Name>UUT Power</Name> <NumElts>5</NumElts> <String> <Name>Description</Name> <Val>Configure UUT Input Power</Val> </String> <Refnum> <Name>Power Supply (Agilent E6644) VISA Resource Name</Name> --6038A <RefKind>VISA</RefKind> <Val>GPIB0::5::INSTR</Val> </Refnum> <DBL> <Name>Voltage</Name> <Val>28.00000000000000</Val> </DBL> <DBL> <Name>Current Limit</Name> <Val>2.00000000000000</Val> </DBL> <EW> <Name>foldback protection (0:off)</Name> <Choice>off</Choice> <Choice>constant voltage</Choice> <Choice>constant current</Choice> <Val>0</Val> </EW> </Cluster> ]]) powerMeter:config([[ <Cluster> <Name>RF Power Meter</Name> <NumElts>5</NumElts> <String> <Name>Description</Name> <Val>UUT Power Measurement</Val> </String> <Refnum> <Name>Agilent E4418B VISA Resource Name</Name> <RefKind>VISA</RefKind> <Val>GPIB0::13::INSTR</Val> </Refnum> <I32> <Name>Unit A (0: dBm)</Name> <Val>0</Val> </I32> <DBL> <Name>Lower Limit A (-90.00E+0)</Name> <Val>90.00000000000000</Val> </DBL> <DBL> <Name>Upper Limit A (90.00E+0)</Name> <Val>90.00000000000000</Val> </DBL> </Cluster> ]]) powerSupply:apply() -- applies power to the UUT power = powerMeter:measure() -- take a measurement - RF Power in this case dataFile:writeObjectAsXML(powerMeter) -- save the data taken by the powerMeter powerSupply:remove() -- remove power from the UUT return power ------------- end of function ----------------------------- -- the test script calls the functions --#import c:\scripts\functions result = testOne() if resultOne >= someLimit then -- if we pass the first test repeat result = someOtherTest() -- this test loops until the limit is met until (result < someOtherLimit) end ----------- end of test ------------------------------------ The XML configs can be edited in the text editor (I use SciTE since it's free and Lua syntax aware) or I have an app that parses the script, extracts the LV clusters, and loads them into their respective controls for editing. So, the specific tests become functions that get called in the main script - the main script (and functions) can have any feature of the Lua language - control structures, math functions, system calls, file IO, etc. It's powerful, flexible, and relatively easy to maintain. This approach lets LabVIEW do what it's best at (instrument control, DAQ, threading) and lets Lua do what it's best at (imperative, easy to read and follow test directions). New functions can be deployed to the API without changing the exe (plug-in style). Mostly I just wanted to present this as an alternative to TestStand (disclaimer - I have no interest in LuaVIEW other than as a satisfied user and I have very little exposure to TestStand, so maybe I've completely misinterpreted what TestStand does). And don't read this as "TestStand is bad" - I don't know TestStand but I think NI in general puts out quality products. I am a LabVIEW user, after all Mark

Aww, Chris... do you have to go? I only just came out to play and so enjoy healthy debate! What do you consider "reputable?" I'd hate to take the time to link sources only to have you dismiss them out of hand as not reputable enough. Unfortunately, "climate change" (and "global warming") is an ambiguous phrase. The precise meaning--is the climate changing?--is largely meaningless without constraints on the timeframe. Is the climate today different than it was 3 million years ago? Not really. 300 years ago? Yep. 30 years ago? Maybe. 3 years ago? No. On the other hand, the political meaning and common understanding of "climate change" generally refers to climate change caused by human activities, or more specifically, by human production of CO2. This is what Climategate is about and I believe this is what Paul is referring to as the scam. (That's what I'm referring to anyway...) So although I'd love to discuss this with you I need to know which definition you're working with. If you restate that as '10 years is a pretty short time to reach conclusions in this instance,' I'll agree with you. Data is, after all, information in itself and doesn't need to be turned into it. Your professor was wrong. Data can be bad. For example, a faulty sensor that continuously outputs a single value produces bad data. I don't see how any interpretation or corrections can make anything useful out of it. (Although I suppose you could claim that wouldn't be "data.") I do agree with what I believe the idea behind his statement is. Namely, statistics don't lie. They can't--they are simply math. The lie comes in manipulating data and analysis to produce an interpretation that supports your preconceived views. I have to admit I find this argument unconvincing on several counts: The data and processes used to reach the conclusions arrived at by the CRU has never been made available for objective scientists to review, much less the general public and commentators. Sometimes commentators DO have a personal stake in interpreting data a certain, less than honest, way. However, in your earlier posts you seem to completely discount the notion that a scientist may also have a personal stake in a certain interpretation. (i.e. How does one provide a reference to show that additional research grants generally depend on the research bearing fruit? Are grant decisions completely random?) Scientists are human too and subject to same desires as everyone else: Money, power, prestige, pride, etc. Why should we take it as a given that commentators can succumb to those influences while scientists are above reproach? This issue is more than just a few scientists fiddling with some numbers. On the whole it's about deliberate, considered, and unethical actions taken by prominent scientists to ramrod a political agenda down the throats of governments. I disagree the issue is that both sides spin data. Extremists at either end of any issue will spin data the way that makes their cause look the most favorable. That, while extremely frustrating to me, is to be expected. The issue here is that in this particular instance the extremists (defined as so by their willingness to spin the information) have obtained very prominent positions with the ability to influence economics on a global scale. (Hmm... in rereading perhaps the "issue here" you are referring to was more narrowly referring to Daryl's comment on 10-year cooling rather than the larger topic of climategate in general. If so, I withdraw my disagreement, though I stand by the rest of the statement.) Naw... then there would just be arguments about what to do about it. Or whose fault it is.

I know that this can happen if you have both dynamic events and static events fire at the same time because they go into two queues and the order is only determined by the millisecond timer. See here. As far as I know, this should NOT apply to val(sgnl) events you string together. I believe they should execute in order.

This is NOT true on desktop platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux). Only real-time operating systems maintain the synchronicity of timed loops. On the other platforms, LV will try, but inevitably there will be slippage since there's no real-time guarantees from the OS. True concurrency can be achieved with the Synchronization primitives -- queues, notifiers, rendezvous and semaphores. Sequence structures are to LabVIEW what sentence fragments are to English. Both are so problematic that we have to teach newbies "never use these" and then later we can say, "ok, now you can use them because you now understand how they work with relation to the rest of the grammer." Sequence structures have value, but new users to LV tend to over use them gratuitously and thus end up killing the performance of their code. Similar with sentence fragments. ;-)