Distance on picoforce driver -curves with Nanoscope 6.13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Measure the distance of the curve (end to end)

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
This curve should be 500 nm long (it's a parameters that I have manually
set on the nanoscope software!). The distance gave me about 2000 nm.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Hooke 0.8.3_devel (Seinei)
Released on: 2008-04-16
GNU/Linux

Please provide any additional information below.

Please try to measure the curve in attachment.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by fabrizio...@gmail.com on 12 Jun 2009 at 8:10

Attachments:

• 20090611_i27_1090nmsec.004

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, it measures 2000 nm here too.

If you open it with the nanoscope software, is it 500 nm?

Does it do that for all curves?

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 3 Jul 2009 at 5:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 3 Jul 2009 at 5:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The bug is reproducible for every curve... And in the picoforce software I have 
500
nm for the distance (I have just checked it).

Original comment by fabrizio...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 11:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Does the picoforcealt driver suffer the same bug?

What version of Nanoscope software are you using?

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:01

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Priority-High
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The version of nanoscope is 6.13R1.
With picoforcehalt Hooke doesn't show the deflection (I think it show the Z 
piezo).

Original comment by fabrizio...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 2:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ok, I think both issues mean that there's something weird in the files 
outputted by
newer versions of Nanoscope.

All what I can tell you now is, it won't probably be trivial to figure it out.

You could do a wonderful thing however to help us all: email people at Veeco 
and try
to see if they can tell you what changed in file format between 6.12 (or 
whatever we
used in Italy) and 6.13.

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 3:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If you compare the raw files outputted by our software (v6.12) and the curve you
attached here, there are pretty dramatic differences (you should definitely
double-check that the old driver still looks in meaningful places of the new 
files).
However, I noticed that the part of the file detailing the voltage/distance
conversion factor is identical, EXCEPT for each instance of the parameter 
"\@4:Ramp
size", which is different in your file (it's exactly 50% of our value).
I hope this helps

Original comment by marcobru...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 4:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your comment! Do you think we should need another driver for 
Nanoscope
6.13 and superior, or does it seem "patchable" (I mean, they're still similar 
enought
that one can add some quirky logic into the driver to deal with the two slightly
different formats)?

Original comment by devicera...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 4:29

• Changed title: Distance on picoforce driver -curves with Nanoscope 6.13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Probably I have found the problem.   The picoforce software have the 
possibility to
swap the graphs in the window.  You can put for example z vs time upper, 
deflection
vs time in the middle and deflection vs z down (there is this possibility in 
one of
the tab of the software).  I think that this influence the disposition of the 
data in
the file (I am not sure! and do not ask to me how the picoforce software can
recognize it...).
In fact if I change this line in picoforce.py
z_curves=[item*Zlsb_zt*zsensorsens for item in
self.data_chunks[1].ext()],[item*Zlsb_zt*zsensorsens for item in
self.data_chunks[1].ret()] 

whit this:

z_curves=[item*Zlsb_zt*zsensorsens for item in
self.data_chunks[0].ext()],[item*Zlsb_zt*zsensorsens for item in
self.data_chunks[0].ret()]

The ramp size and then the distances are correct.

Let me know what do you think.

Original comment by fabrizio...@gmail.com on 28 Aug 2009 at 9:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The picoforce driver in the wtk branch also handles this correctly.

Original comment by tvrkng@gmail.com on 7 Aug 2010 at 12:15

Attachments:

• 0x06130001.png