Mysterious data points %\ ...

[Solarmew]

Clearly I'm doing something wrong, but I can't figure out what ... (I know, I know, ugly stack structures and everything = -___- = ... but aside from that ... )

I would like the VI to decrement current from 1mA to 0.1mA, and then increment in back from 0.1mA to 1mA, all while taking voltage readings.

Not sure why the first point it records is at 0mA for both runs %\ ... could someone please have a quick look at it (RvsI Sample 1 cycle)? it's probably somethiing super simple that I'm just not seeing @.@ ... Thanks muchly.

(dunno if you want the subvi's too, but included them just in case)

[altenbach]

You are decrementing from 0.9 to 0.

Simply create a DBL array containing all desired voltages, then iterate over them. No duplicate code, and no deeply stacked sequences needed

[Solarmew]

How am I decrementing from 0.9?

I don't really see where it's messing up 😞 but I changed the "Starting current" to 1.1 and recorded two separate runs back to back. Got different results 😕 ...

0.000000 Inf
1.000000 0.281704
0.900000 0.278008
0.800000 0.275036
0.700000 0.269224
0.600000 0.263418
0.500000 0.252832
0.400000 0.240307
0.300000 0.214960
0.200000 0.171040
0.000000 Inf
0.100000 0.645260
0.200000 0.480110
0.300000 0.421470
0.400000 0.395190
0.500000 0.377574
0.600000 0.366970
0.700000 0.357549
0.800000 0.352764
0.900000 0.347000

and 

0.100000 3.132890
1.000000 0.282743
0.900000 0.279121
0.800000 0.276083
0.700000 0.270854
0.600000 0.264453
0.500000 0.255012
0.400000 0.242368
0.300000 0.215720
0.200000 0.174085
1.000000 0.034969
0.100000 0.654000
0.200000 0.485750
0.300000 0.423667
0.400000 0.396807
0.500000 0.378664
0.600000 0.368342
0.700000 0.358779
0.800000 0.353524
0.900000 0.347958

I would rather not make an array of values because I want to test it for different ranges and wouldn't that mean I have to make a whole bunch of arrays?

Why does it start at 0.1 instead of 1.1 and then at 1 instead of 0.1? X.x ... that is so random ... is it storing some values somewhere that I don't know about?

[Solarmew]

oh, i see what you mean... not sure why i had the "+1" in the first frame X.x ... 

still doesn't change anything tho -__-

[altenbach]

You should also get rid if the feedback node. It makes no sense here.

[Solarmew]

Yeah, you're right x.x I just wasn't sure how to pass info to a different frame, and somehow ended up with that... I'll fix it when I get to the lab today. Do you have any suggestions how to get those first two points to not be screwy tho? It's really messing up my data >.< like if you look at resistance values at 0.2mA during the cooling and warming runs, they are significantly different because of the hysteresis and current jumping to 1mA for that first point.

... At least I think that's what's happening... Otherwise I don't even know X.x

[Solarmew · Accepted solution]

... nevermind, i fixed it by using a sequence local instead -__- ... see, i knew it was something easy, you guys couldn't've just said that? XD

[Dennis_Knutson]

That is the correct solution for an incorrect design. Stacked Sequences are to be avoided.

[Solarmew]

You guys all keep saying that, I wish someone would suggest an alternative %\

[altenbach]

---

@Solarmew wrote:

... nevermind, i fixed it by using a sequence local instead -__- ... see, i knew it was something easy, you guys couldn't've just said that? XD

---

That's not a fix, but a kludge. That's like a mechanic with only a roll of duct tape. 😄

As I said, you need to redesign your code. Combine all your duplicate code and unnecessary constructs. Code that solves a simple problem has to be simple and the program task is trivial here. I am sure your code could be simplfied down to 25% of the current complexity and still do everything needed. I would be easier to debug and easier to expand later. The current diagram is not manitainable.