LabVIEW
Prolem with While Loop
Solved!
Hi Wasiq,
@WasiqSaleem1122 wrote:
I have attached the vi file for your kind consideration.
No, you did not attach the VI…
@WasiqSaleem1122 wrote:
the problem is my while loop is only taking in one input from the thermistor and once a value is being run, I want it to change it to 2nd input from thermistor. I can do it right now by stopping the code and then changing the input but I want it to do it programmatically.
Sounds like you missed to THINK DATAFLOW!
Place the thermistor reading inside your loop to have it "take the next input" in each iteration…
It seems you are using continuous run, because there is no toplevel loop, so you only read the thermistor value once per run (Yes, "continuous run" is a debugging tool, not a way to run a VI!) and the code cannot complete until both while loops have completed, which is either never or immediately unless you touch the limit controls. Dataflow!!!!
As has been said, all you need is a toplevel loop paced at a reasonable rate continuously reading the thermistor and doing the range checks. Properly done, the code would fit on a quarter postcard.
I recommend to go back to the basic tutorials. Also never maximize the front panel and diagram. That's super annoying because you cannot look at the help while editing!
Your waveform scale properties belong after the case structure. No need to duplicate it in every case!
See if you can create the following (You can guess what's in the TRUE case, of course):
Also make sure that all inputs have reasonable default values before saving. A range min&max of zero is not reasonable! If the four min/max never change, use diagram constants.
Also mind your labels. For example "C or F" is a bad label for a boolean control, because we cannot immediately tell what TRUE means. A label of "C?" would be much more intuitive!
@altenbach wrote:
It seems you are using continuous run, because there is no toplevel loop, so you only read the thermistor value once per run (Yes, "continuous run" is a debugging tool, not a way to run a VI!) and the code cannot complete until both while loops have completed, which is either never or immediately unless you touch the limit controls. Dataflow!!!!
As has been said, all you need is a toplevel loop paced at a reasonable rate continuously reading the thermistor and doing the range checks. Properly done, the code would fit on a quarter postcard.
I recommend to go back to the basic tutorials. Also never maximize the front panel and diagram. That's super annoying because you cannot look at the help while editing!
Your waveform scale properties belong after the case structure. No need to duplicate it in every case!
See if you can create the following (You can guess what's in the TRUE case, of course):
Also make sure that all inputs have reasonable default values before saving. A range min&max of zero is not reasonable! If the four min/max never change, use diagram constants.
Also mind your labels. For example "C or F" is a bad label for a boolean control, because we cannot immediately tell what TRUE means. A label of "C?" would be much more intuitive!
Oh No, .. Ahem, Christian, you really meant for the boolean control to be before the loop right? It would be extremely confusing to have the chart history containing temperature elements with mixed scales (f and C scaled scalar values in the same Chart History array)
Of course, simply migrating the boolean without migrating the M and B scale compontnts and the Chart min max would get that example sent to the Rube-Goldburg thread 😄
We can always clear the chart when the boolean changes. We could also always chart C, then just change the offset/multiplier for the Y axis to adapt the scale for all points, old and new, to show in the new units, right?
I don't make mistakes (famous last words 😄 ) , but sometimes I don't provide a turnkey commercial grade solution to a simple "while loop" (sic) problem, which I solved. It is up to the user to sand the edges and polish things up as needed. I intentionally did not even attach a VI.
Messing with the chart history seems like pure Rube Goldberg compared to just change the Y scaling. 😄
