Take a look at the enclosed ResultsFull.txt - the result of leaving the Spyder3 on screen for about 9 hours :)... Open it in any spreadsheet and plot the X data - you will notice a "dog's tail" at the beginning, then, after about 2000 readings, it stabilises.
So it seems to be an internal, instrument warm up, rather than an externally imposed one ? (This instrument seems to actually have a temperature sensor in it, although this doesn't seem to made any use of.)
Reading X Y Z 1 0.000000 0.175008 0.124630 2 0.000000 0.176625 0.126857 3 0.000000 0.177723 0.127206 4 0.106032 0.187275 0.159078 5 0.106109 0.187766 0.162659Now this is interesting!!! Have you used the original integration time or did you incorporate my "hack" that was aimed at exactly thisproblem...
I used the original integration time for these results.
Note that Y and Z values are OK whereas X is often a "trash read"... I do not think X is set to zero when it is less than 0.100 - I have managed to see values of about X=0.05 when covering the spyder by hand (I do not have a monitor dark enough to see blacks of such a low level). It was "flapping (switching between zero and 0.05) all the time also the results were very inaccurate (it does not trouble me as the error on X seems to be more than 0.04... All the results were made using the increased integration time.
Try running with -D3. You can see the raw sensor values then. Graeme Gill.