Yeah you are for sure right about that.
I am going to go with
http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/208990
Unless someone gives me a good reason not too.
The ebay deal is nice but I'm thinking warranty might be useful. I'll
decide on that here pretty quick unless someone else buy's it and solves
that for me.
I gotta get some work done today.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Test Stand DAQ
From: Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 1:35 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My one piece of advice on a test-stand DAQ setup, is, run through your
planned configuration, total up the number of channels you need and the
bandwidth you want for sampling them - then triple the number of
channels and multiply the bandwidth x10 before you spec hardware. (At
minimum, make sure you have a fast affordable option to add channels and
bandwidth.)
That way, you have a 50-50 chance of getting through your first major
project without running out of channels/bandwidth.
The moment your project starts acting oddly and you can't figure out
why, you'll discover you need data from more points at a higher rate to
sort out causes and effects.
The extreme case is a catastrophic BANG, where many instruments and
kilohertz sample rates are your best hope for figuring out exactly where
it started and how it propagated. (High-speed video is good too, but
doesn't always catch what you need to see.)
Of course, if you're *sure* you'll be running an entirely predictable
process, by all means go with minimal instrumentation and 10 Hz
sampling. heh.
Henry
On 12/16/2015 12:25 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:
Yeah I actually worked at NI back in the GPIB days in the early 80's
Their shop was about the size of a large 7-11 back then lol. Back when
we hand soldered boards Oh! lol yeah we could smoke on the assembly line
back then too. Wow wish I had bought some stock back then.
Ok yeah Labview it is. Now to figure out what board to get.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Test Stand DAQ
From: Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 12:15 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
There's no good one size fits all solution for DAQ hardware. Everyone is
solving slightly different problems under different sets of constraints.
That's a situation that supports common software -- you can usually add
more features and let users turn off ones they don't need. However,
hardware doesn't really work that way. National Instruments has some
instrument chassis options that come close, but they're quite expensive.
-p
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah I figured Labview would be the defacto standard.
I think one of the reasons the wheel keeps getting reinvented is
because rocket guy's are pretty disorganized and use so many different
approaches and I bet DAQ is one area we could all use a defacto
standard.
The one thing that stands in the way of a lot of amateurs getting
organized is it seems like EVERYONE is on some kind of secret mission
and nearly EVERYONE is afraid of ITAR.
I must say that kind of thinking just keeps rocketeers in the stone
age.
There should be an organization for Amateur Rocketeers that has nothing
to do with HPR.
It's the small incremental successes that add up to benefits for the
greater good of all. The main problem I see is the loss of so much work
done by individuals which is very sad to me indeed.
At least we have arocket
-------- Original Message --------prefer
Subject: [AR] Re: Test Stand DAQ
From: Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 16, 2015 10:56 am
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The most common software in the world for this sort of thing is probably
LabView. LabView is commercial software and its relentlessly visual
paradigm takes some getting used to for those more used to conventional
programming languages. That said, it's a very powerful tool and it
encapsulates a lot of tricky stuff.
As for common hardware and sensors... no.
-p
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there a standard DAQ and sensor array used by most of you guy's on
the list?
Is there a standard software used?
The reason I am asking is because I want to use what most of the guy's
use and understand. Sure I can come up with something but I would
something the most people could work with.