On Friday, July 20, 2001 11:53 AM, Marty Kraimer [mailto:[email protected]]
sent
> EOFF and ESLO cant be computed by softRaw support
>
> Russell Redman suggests that we add fields RAWL and RAWF.
> Instead of this why dont we just allow the user to assign values
> to ESLO and EOFF, i.e. just add promptgroup definitions to the dbd files.
I do not really want to add new fields, but my logic is as follows:
1) We do not need to assign values to EOFF and ESLO because the same
functionality is already available through the AOFF and ASLO fields.
2) The ranges of the raw and engineering units are both normally simple
numbers, easily understood by engineers and programmers. For instance, the
voltage range [0.0, 5.0] volts may transform to raw counts [0, 4095]. The
slope, however is an awkward quantity ESLO=(EGUH-EGUL)/(RAWH-RAWL) =
5.0/4095 = 1.21001221001221e-3.
(Oops, I made a typo in that slope. How many of you caught it just looking
at the number?)
EPICS applications will be more maintainable if the fields contain values
that are simple and physically meaningful.
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why the variable "value" in convert
is set to 0.0 when LINR==LINEAR and ESLO==0.0, instead of just being left
alone?
Cheers,
Russell O. Redman
- Replies:
- Re: Apropos making fields configurable Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Apropos making fields configurable Marty Kraimer
- Next:
[Fwd: socket errors] Geoff Savage
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<2001>
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Apropos making fields configurable Ralph . Lange
- Next:
Re: Apropos making fields configurable Marty Kraimer
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<2001>
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|