GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum Active Users: / Visits Today:
Highest Active Users:
GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 GQ Electronics Forums
 2.GQ Geiger Muller Counter
 GMC-300S CPM computation error?

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List Spell Checker
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

   Insert an Image File
Check here to include your profile signature.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
SnailsAttack Posted - 01/11/2023 : 14:53:21


My counter is computing 12981 counts in 12 hours as "18.2" CPM when it's supposed to read 18.03 CPM, rounding to the hundredths place.

12981 / (12 * 60) = 18.02917 ...

I think it somehow dropped the tenths place because it's a zero, and didn't factor in the thousandths place (although to be fair the difference is negligible).

Is this a known bug? It usually gives correct CPM estimates from the duration and number of counts (aside from not considering the thousandths place when rounding).

7   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
EmfDev Posted - 01/26/2023 : 17:48:34
Damien68 is right and has appeared before in the forum. Not sure if it was from 500/600+ but I thought this bug was fixed on all devices but actually not for 300/320 series. Now it has been fixed and will be released in the next firmware update together with alarm volume addition.
ullix Posted - 01/20/2023 : 01:50:09
:-))

It would be hilarious if Damien's suspicion became true, because the C language - in which the firmware is coded - has a well established function for formatting numbers since eons.
SnailsAttack Posted - 01/19/2023 : 06:33:44


Here's another instance of the bug occurring.
SnailsAttack Posted - 01/12/2023 : 17:09:42
quote:
Originally posted by ullix

In this case it does not matter much, but it makes you wonder where else the calculation is done incorrectly ...

Yes. It's not a big error in this case, but it has the potential to be, particularly for low CPM measurements that happen to have a large number in the hundredths place (e.g. 10.09 CPM misread as 10.90).

quote:
Originally posted by EmfDev

Hi SnailsAttack, yes it may be a bug, I will send it to our devs so they can check it.

Okay. Thank you.

EmfDev Posted - 01/12/2023 : 15:02:53
Hi SnailsAttack, yes it may be a bug, I will send it to our devs so they can check it.
Damien68 Posted - 01/12/2023 : 04:56:19
I already saw a bug like that somewhere I don't remember where, it was a bug when displaying:
maybe it should display:
- the integer part: 18 is OK
- followed by a dot '.' is OK
- followed by the fractional part 02 displayed as an integer i.e. like a 2 . is NOK.

I think it looks like :)
ullix Posted - 01/12/2023 : 00:10:01
Strange, indeed.

I tried it the other way: producing 12981 counts with CPM=18.2 would take 405.5 sec or 6.76 min LESS than 12h. That is a lot.

In this case it does not matter much, but it makes you wonder where else the calculation is done incorrectly ...


GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum © Copyright since 2011 Go To Top Of Page
Generated in 0.05 sec. Snitz's Forums 2000