Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
- MoMoney$$$;)0)
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
- Division: C
- State: OH
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
So I was wondering how exact you guys are getting your detector to be since mine is still around ± 0.5 Degrees and sometimes more accurate, but how exact have you guys gotten you detector to get to place. Thanks!
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
-
- Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: February 16th, 2020, 9:07 am
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
in total or 0.5 degrees per test for a total of 2?MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑February 16th, 2020, 3:58 pm So I was wondering how exact you guys are getting your detector to be since mine is still around ± 0.5 Degrees and sometimes more accurate, but how exact have you guys gotten you detector to get to place. Thanks!
- MoMoney$$$;)0)
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
- Division: C
- State: OH
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
Either one is fine, and Thanks for the reply!lifeof3.141592 wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 8:21 amin total or 0.5 degrees per test for a total of 2?MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑February 16th, 2020, 3:58 pm So I was wondering how exact you guys are getting your detector to be since mine is still around ± 0.5 Degrees and sometimes more accurate, but how exact have you guys gotten you detector to get to place. Thanks!
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
- zandaddy
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: March 17th, 2019, 9:34 am
- Division: C
- State: WI
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
I'm assuming you mean plus or minus 0.5 per test. And as for accuracy, all you can do is test. Finding what factors cause inconsistencies in results helped me immensely.
Code: Select all
sudo rm -rf /
-
- Member
- Posts: 95
- Joined: January 10th, 2016, 8:41 am
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
The biggest suggestion I can give you is to improve your entire set up. More data isn't the solution - if your setup is inherently inaccurate, more data won't do anything. Try to reduce electrical noise as much as possible.
-
- Member
- Posts: 171
- Joined: March 16th, 2017, 3:34 pm
- Division: C
- State: CA
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
Depend on what sensor you use.
For TMP36, You should not use its linear formula, come up with your own high level polynomial (or LUT).
More important, its output noice extremely depends on the source. Better use standalone battery pack (like 2AA or 3AA). Still, read like 1000 time and take average. With all these, you may still not be able to get 0.1C resolution, but it should be way better than 0.5C.
For thermistor, normal setup of 10K resistor and 10K thermistor with 1000 average reading should easily get you 0.2C with Arduino UNO, it should get you 0.1C with Arduino DUE.
Student here cuts Steinhart formula into 4 sections with 5 datapoint, got 0.0, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1C.
3 dataPoint direct got like 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2C.
Hope these help.
For TMP36, You should not use its linear formula, come up with your own high level polynomial (or LUT).
More important, its output noice extremely depends on the source. Better use standalone battery pack (like 2AA or 3AA). Still, read like 1000 time and take average. With all these, you may still not be able to get 0.1C resolution, but it should be way better than 0.5C.
For thermistor, normal setup of 10K resistor and 10K thermistor with 1000 average reading should easily get you 0.2C with Arduino UNO, it should get you 0.1C with Arduino DUE.
Student here cuts Steinhart formula into 4 sections with 5 datapoint, got 0.0, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1C.
3 dataPoint direct got like 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2C.
Hope these help.
- These users thanked the author jinhusong for the post:
- karmanyaahm (April 27th, 2020, 9:06 pm)
- MTV<=>Operator
- Member
- Posts: 142
- Joined: February 8th, 2019, 12:41 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
When you say normal setup, what type of equation are you using? Also how exactly do you cut the formula into 4 sections?jinhusong wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 3:44 pm Depend on what sensor you use.
For TMP36, You should not use its linear formula, come up with your own high level polynomial (or LUT).
More important, its output noice extremely depends on the source. Better use standalone battery pack (like 2AA or 3AA). Still, read like 1000 time and take average. With all these, you may still not be able to get 0.1C resolution, but it should be way better than 0.5C.
For thermistor, normal setup of 10K resistor and 10K thermistor with 1000 average reading should easily get you 0.2C with Arduino UNO, it should get you 0.1C with Arduino DUE.
Student here cuts Steinhart formula into 4 sections with 5 datapoint, got 0.0, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1C.
3 dataPoint direct got like 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2C.
Hope these help.
THHS '21 Builder Cult Member
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020: GV (9 YUSO, 5 NYC), Detector (8 YUSO, 7 NYC), WS (10 NYC), PPP
2020-2021 Events/ Yosemite/HUSO/River Hill/ NYC South Regional
Vehicle Design / 1/--/--/--
WICI / 3/--/--/--
Circuits /--/ 3/ 5/ 1
Machines /--/ 4/ 2/ 2
Detector /--/--/ 2/--
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020: GV (9 YUSO, 5 NYC), Detector (8 YUSO, 7 NYC), WS (10 NYC), PPP
2020-2021 Events/ Yosemite/HUSO/River Hill/ NYC South Regional
Vehicle Design / 1/--/--/--
WICI / 3/--/--/--
Circuits /--/ 3/ 5/ 1
Machines /--/ 4/ 2/ 2
Detector /--/--/ 2/--
- MoMoney$$$;)0)
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
- Division: C
- State: OH
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
It's quite easily actually once you know what you're doing, and if you're acquainted with the language you're working with. I'm pretty sure he's talking about using the Stienhart-Hart equation given with a thermistor, and then changing it with some testing.MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 5:56 pmWhen you say normal setup, what type of equation are you using? Also how exactly do you cut the formula into 4 sections?jinhusong wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 3:44 pm Depend on what sensor you use.
For TMP36, You should not use its linear formula, come up with your own high level polynomial (or LUT).
More important, its output noice extremely depends on the source. Better use standalone battery pack (like 2AA or 3AA). Still, read like 1000 time and take average. With all these, you may still not be able to get 0.1C resolution, but it should be way better than 0.5C.
For thermistor, normal setup of 10K resistor and 10K thermistor with 1000 average reading should easily get you 0.2C with Arduino UNO, it should get you 0.1C with Arduino DUE.
Student here cuts Steinhart formula into 4 sections with 5 datapoint, got 0.0, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1C.
3 dataPoint direct got like 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2C.
Hope these help.
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
- MTV<=>Operator
- Member
- Posts: 142
- Joined: February 8th, 2019, 12:41 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
Changing it as in adding a constant? I don't see how one could find new coefficients in the 20 minutes of allotted calibration time.MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 7:13 pmIt's quite easily actually once you know what you're doing, and if you're acquainted with the language you're working with. I'm pretty sure he's talking about using the Stienhart-Hart equation given with a thermistor, and then changing it with some testing.MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 5:56 pmWhen you say normal setup, what type of equation are you using? Also how exactly do you cut the formula into 4 sections?jinhusong wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 3:44 pm Depend on what sensor you use.
For TMP36, You should not use its linear formula, come up with your own high level polynomial (or LUT).
More important, its output noice extremely depends on the source. Better use standalone battery pack (like 2AA or 3AA). Still, read like 1000 time and take average. With all these, you may still not be able to get 0.1C resolution, but it should be way better than 0.5C.
For thermistor, normal setup of 10K resistor and 10K thermistor with 1000 average reading should easily get you 0.2C with Arduino UNO, it should get you 0.1C with Arduino DUE.
Student here cuts Steinhart formula into 4 sections with 5 datapoint, got 0.0, 0.0, 0.2, 0.1C.
3 dataPoint direct got like 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.2C.
Hope these help.
THHS '21 Builder Cult Member
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020: GV (9 YUSO, 5 NYC), Detector (8 YUSO, 7 NYC), WS (10 NYC), PPP
2020-2021 Events/ Yosemite/HUSO/River Hill/ NYC South Regional
Vehicle Design / 1/--/--/--
WICI / 3/--/--/--
Circuits /--/ 3/ 5/ 1
Machines /--/ 4/ 2/ 2
Detector /--/--/ 2/--
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020: GV (9 YUSO, 5 NYC), Detector (8 YUSO, 7 NYC), WS (10 NYC), PPP
2020-2021 Events/ Yosemite/HUSO/River Hill/ NYC South Regional
Vehicle Design / 1/--/--/--
WICI / 3/--/--/--
Circuits /--/ 3/ 5/ 1
Machines /--/ 4/ 2/ 2
Detector /--/--/ 2/--
- MoMoney$$$;)0)
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: January 14th, 2019, 6:38 pm
- Division: C
- State: OH
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Accuracy of Detectors (Overall)
More than doable with the right tools. This can be like quickly using a good graphing calculator to take points with corresponding voltage and temperature. Then finding a line of best fit. Personally I've done it in a time crunch, with a little under 20 minutes. Definitely can happen.MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 5:45 pmChanging it as in adding a constant? I don't see how one could find new coefficients in the 20 minutes of allotted calibration time.MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 7:13 pmIt's quite easily actually once you know what you're doing, and if you're acquainted with the language you're working with. I'm pretty sure he's talking about using the Stienhart-Hart equation given with a thermistor, and then changing it with some testing.MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 5:56 pm
When you say normal setup, what type of equation are you using? Also how exactly do you cut the formula into 4 sections?
Division C - Northeast Ohio
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
Gravity Vehicle
Machines
Detector Building
Circuit Lab
Protein Modeling
2019-2020 Medal Count: 5
"Don't be upset by the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do'
Memberships: Builder Cult
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest