Maybe they should.

The CAN was transmitted and sampled at 100hz, versus 500hz for the analog so that may have had something to do with the improved signal clarity but I think the majority can be attributed to the removal of the analog output stage.HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:For the ones that I have looked at, it looks pretty reasonable.
On your parts, did the change in noise ( CAN vs. analog ) owe more to the increased sample rate? Or, the analog stages ?
OK, more info.DelSolid wrote:No, not for this test and come to think of it, I don't believe the test unit came with one and the online instructions don't mention it (I just checked). I vaguely remember an earlier one having it but maybe that's just an implanted memory prompted by your question. I have not played with the PLX for something like 6 months so it certainly may have.HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:Does the PLX measurement include the little filtering capacitor that they include in the kit ?
No. Nothing that would be of any use. All my data is from the response test rig and gathered over the course of a couple weeks of work. Over that time I changed the gas bottles multiple times and never recorded which bottle was used for which test since it didn't matter to the work I was doing as the data was normalized. While the gasses are all really close to each other (they need to be since they are cal gas), they are not exactly the same so there could be as much as a 0.5% error just between the bottles. Add that to the fact that I didn't follow a strict calibration procedure before testing each one and even used the same sensor for a few of the units rather than a brand new one each time and you can see why the data is not really useful.HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:Do you have the "unofficial" accuracy data ?