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?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

SnailsAttack

USA
8 Posts

Posted - 01/11/2023 :  14:53:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote


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).

Reply #1

ullix

Germany
1107 Posts

Posted - 01/12/2023 :  00:10:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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 ...

Go to Top of Page
Reply #2

Damien68

France
777 Posts

Posted - 01/12/2023 :  04:56:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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 :)

Mastery is acquired by studying, with it everything becomes simple

Edited by - Damien68 on 01/12/2023 05:04:49
Go to Top of Page
Reply #3

EmfDev

2132 Posts

Posted - 01/12/2023 :  15:02:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi SnailsAttack, yes it may be a bug, I will send it to our devs so they can check it.
Go to Top of Page
Reply #4

SnailsAttack

USA
8 Posts

Posted - 01/12/2023 :  17:09:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.

Go to Top of Page
Reply #5

SnailsAttack

USA
8 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2023 :  06:33:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote


Here's another instance of the bug occurring.
Go to Top of Page
Reply #6

ullix

Germany
1107 Posts

Posted - 01/20/2023 :  01:50:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
:-))

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.
Go to Top of Page
Reply #7

EmfDev

2132 Posts

Posted - 01/26/2023 :  17:48:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
GQ Electronics Technical Support Forum © Copyright since 2011 Go To Top Of Page
Generated in 0.07 sec. Snitz's Forums 2000