Well, that's pretty neat. I have the 869s. Is the Bu 86x the software sold by Brymen, or is it an independently created program? If it is an independent version, where can I find it? A very long while back, I participated in some forum that was sniffing the software. IIRC, they came up with a simple program that would read the rear port, but it was written in Python and I never could get Python working on my computer. (I am not so much of a computer person.) They were also working on the hardware to read the rear port. They were using various MCUs to read the Phototransistor and IR LED and to pass the data along to the laptop, via USB. My contribution was to create the PCB boards that supported the Phototransistor and IR LED. I was tricky enough to even get the PCBs to interlock correctly with the locking tangs on the rear port. I checked and I do still have the files, but they are in Eagle. I changed to KiCad long ago, when Eagle quit being so friendly.
Very nice video, thanks. Still I have one question left: is it possible to get more accurate times? As I read the data-logger it only gives 1/10 of a sec in precision, can that be change?
I think the "00.01" you saw was the conductance in nanosiemens, the time periods were the "16:54:51.0 / 16:54:51.5" values which would be a 0.5, or 1/2 second interval. I believe the fastest logging rate I had seen on any settings was 0.5 seconds, and most were at 1 second intervals, set to the fastest recording settings. If someone needed something that recorded at a faster interval, I would look into another device more suited to do this type of logging.
@@poormanselectronicsbench2021 No at 3:40 it state that data list 47 fore example is 16:40:03.3, so I saw that as a 1/10 sec accuracy compared to the computer system timer. Can't it store a more accurate system times? If I have other instruments that data-logs the better resolution will give better data pairing.
@@OldAndNewStuf Data log interval #1 there was at ".3" ,and #2 was ".8" , so, it just started at .3 seconds on the computer clock, but still was spaced at 0.5 second intervals.
@@poormanselectronicsbench2021 Yes, but the times above .1s times essentially are set by the data-loggers stepping of time, not the computers system time. Perhaps it is not possible to get a better timing because of Windows. Under Linux, even in Python it is easy to get a below 1ms (0.001s) accuracy. Still you should try to check if it is possible to get better time stamps. If not, then maybe Bryman could fix the issue if asked?
Well, that's pretty neat. I have the 869s. Is the Bu 86x the software sold by Brymen, or is it an independently created program? If it is an independent version, where can I find it? A very long while back, I participated in some forum that was sniffing the software. IIRC, they came up with a simple program that would read the rear port, but it was written in Python and I never could get Python working on my computer. (I am not so much of a computer person.) They were also working on the hardware to read the rear port. They were using various MCUs to read the Phototransistor and IR LED and to pass the data along to the laptop, via USB. My contribution was to create the PCB boards that supported the Phototransistor and IR LED. I was tricky enough to even get the PCBs to interlock correctly with the locking tangs on the rear port. I checked and I do still have the files, but they are in Eagle. I changed to KiCad long ago, when Eagle quit being so friendly.
Ahh... I see that there is a part one episode. I will go watch that...
Yes, it is a Brymen software that comes with the BU-86X meter to USB interface module and is a separate purchase item from the meter itself.
Very nice video, thanks. Still I have one question left: is it possible to get more accurate times? As I read the data-logger it only gives 1/10 of a sec in precision, can that be change?
I think the "00.01" you saw was the conductance in nanosiemens, the time periods were the "16:54:51.0 / 16:54:51.5" values which would be a 0.5, or 1/2 second interval. I believe the fastest logging rate I had seen on any settings was 0.5 seconds, and most were at 1 second intervals, set to the fastest recording settings. If someone needed something that recorded at a faster interval, I would look into another device more suited to do this type of logging.
@@poormanselectronicsbench2021 No at 3:40 it state that data list 47 fore example is 16:40:03.3, so I saw that as a 1/10 sec accuracy compared to the computer system timer. Can't it store a more accurate system times? If I have other instruments that data-logs the better resolution will give better data pairing.
@@OldAndNewStuf Data log interval #1 there was at ".3" ,and #2 was ".8" , so, it just started at .3 seconds on the computer clock, but still was spaced at 0.5 second intervals.
@@poormanselectronicsbench2021 Yes, but the times above .1s times essentially are set by the data-loggers stepping of time, not the computers system time. Perhaps it is not possible to get a better timing because of Windows. Under Linux, even in Python it is easy to get a below 1ms (0.001s) accuracy. Still you should try to check if it is possible to get better time stamps. If not, then maybe Bryman could fix the issue if asked?