I had noticed *empty* posts like the one above before and wondered why. I
posted a reply this morning at work through Google and all that has shown up
is Pete's original post. I must have done something wrong I suppose.

Anyway what I posted was:

"Pete_UK" wrote in message
oups.com...

adding back in 10 raised to the power (number of dials). The formula
from Sandy seems to be getting very complex.

It's would not be so bad if it was just complex but it is wrong to boot!

What I should have posted was:

=MOD(LOOKUP(10^LEN(C2),D2:IV2)-LOOKUP(10^LEN(C2),D2:IV2,C2:IV2),10^LEN(C2))*B2+(( LOOKUP(10^LEN(C2),C2:IV2,C1:IV1)<"")*10^LEN(C2))

But I would think that if there was any chance of the meter turning over
more than its capacity then Maria should be looking at replacing the meter
with one of greater capacity.

--

Sandy
In Perth, the ancient capital of Scotland


with @tiscali.co.uk


wrote in message
ups.com...

Pete_UK wrote:
Maria,

In my first response to you I suggested using one sheet for each meter,
with some header rows to store data for that meter, eg location,
description etc. You could use these header rows to record the number
of dials on the meter, as well as the multiplier for that meter. These
would always be in the same location, eg cells B3 and B4, and so you
could make use of them through absolute addresses in the formulae which
follow.

If you have 5 dials, then the meter clocks round when it reaches 99999
(or 1 less than 10 to the power 5). With 6 dials it wraps at 10 to the
power 6 etc. As you are planning to read the meters every month, then a
lower later reading implies that the meter has wrapped around, as you
won't have estimated readings which subsequently need correcting back.
Thus, your formula can take account of the wrapping and, if you can
refer to the number of dials, you can correct a negative reading by
adding back in 10 raised to the power (number of dials). The formula
from Sandy seems to be getting very complex.

Hope this helps.

Pete