Archive for category technical articles
We like to measure things – and NIST is our source of the best measurement advice. We knew that time has been measured with astonishing accuracy, almost 1 part in 10^15.
Given how accurately time is measured, we wondered ‘how is the kilogram calibrated?’
We learned that, according to NIST,
“The magnitude of many of the units comprising the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, are highly dependent upon the stability of a 131-year-old, golf ball-size cylinder of metal stored in a vault in France”.
And over the years the International Prototype Kilogram, the IPK, and its copies that are distributed around the globe, have ‘gained weight’. There’s more here at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
Here’s the graph to show it:
NIST further explains:
“Mass drift over time of national prototypes K21–K40, plus two of the IPK’s sister copies: K32 and K8(41).[Note 9] All mass changes are relative to the IPK. The initial 1889 starting-value offsets relative to the IPK have been nulled. The above are all relative measurements; no historical mass-measurement data is available to determine which of the prototypes has been most stable relative to an invariant of nature. There is the distinct possibility that all the prototypes gained mass over 100 years and that K21, K35, K40, and the IPK simply gained less than the others”.
Uncertainty, it seems, is here to stay.
However, there’s an improved kilogram standard being worked on, called the Watt Balance, which measures the electrical power used to null the weight of a one kilogram test specimen. To get accurate results, NIST must establish the gravitational force accurately. Here’s a link to a NIST article describing how they do it:
Which reminds me of a Jim Williams article from Linear Tech, where he describes a VERY accurate electronic weigh scale, capable of measuring your heartbeat – since all the blood pumping and flowing changes your weight, a little bit. He called it a ‘ballisto-cardiogram’. Here’s where you can read more, in AN43 that Jim wrote for Linear Tech, about bridge circuits – including how to make a scale that can resolve 0.01 pound at 300 pounds full scale, or about 33 parts per million. It uses a clever circuit to achieve balance quickly and accurately, check it out:
Improvements in machining precision, testing and simulation make the use of aspheres available to improve optical system performance.
Most lenses are spherical, in that each curved surface is some part of a sphere (usually a big radius compared to the lens glass diameter). Lately we’ve been working on some systems that require the use of lenses that have an ‘aspheric’ curve. These are more unusual, but if you can solve a problem that is otherwise unsolvable, ‘unusual’ is a good answer. Ok, maybe since I’m the electronics guy, I’m impressed with the precision of these optics and their measurement – I think you’ll be too, when you look into it.
We’ve found some references about designing and testing these asphere elements. Start with the article by Jay Kumler, and then read the other two about some fancy gear to test these aspheres.
Jay Kumler, Designing and Specifying Aspheres for Manufacturability, by Jay Kumler of Jenoptik-Inc
Interferometric Measurement of Rotationally Symmetric Aspheric Surfaces, by Michael Kuechel of Zygo
Subaperture stitching interferometry of high-departure aspheres by incorporating configurable null optics, by Andrew Kulawiec, Markus Bauer, Gary DeVries, Jon Fleig, Greg Forbes,
Dragisha Miladinovic, Paul Murphy of QED Technologies.
This presentation has a set of clear, well thought out images describing how chopper techniques can reduce 1/f noise, reduce drift, and even how to cancel the nasty charge injection of FET switches. It shows how modulation can reduce noise in a sensor amplifier system.
I first learned of Kofi Makinwa’s excellent work through the recent IEEE Solid State Circuits magazine, Winter 2010, Vol. 2, No. 1. He demonstrates a clever accelerometer that uses a small air volume as the ‘proof mass’. The Wheatstone bridge has been around a long time, but it’s clear it can be taught some new tricks. This is the first I’ve heard of a ‘nested chopper’ architecture. Great stuff. Check out Makinwa’s other publications at the IEEE.
I’ve spent some time trying to squeeze good data from MEMS sensors, and I know how difficult it can be. These articles show why adding some switches and circuit complexity can really pay off. And it’s only CMOS and FETs, so we get ‘em for free from Moore’s law, right?
Here’s a curious article by Steve Smith, author of The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing, where he shows that 1/f noise is its own Fourier transform!
I find it much easier to remember complicated ideas when there’s a clear graph. Smith shows a range of graphs, showing that “there is an inverse relationship; if the time domain decays faster, then the frequency domain decays slower, and vice-versa. This means that there must be a certain decay rate that is unique, where both domains are equal.”
Read the article – the mystery of 1/f noise continues. Perhaps the observation of this mathematical property will point toward learning the physical underpinnings that cause 1/f noise.
The measurement of light is complicated by a variety of units and concepts that are not used in other fields. For example, the ‘light level’ could be measured in units appropriate to the sensitivity of our eyes (lux), or by the power level (Watts) – but that’s confounded by the wavelength (nano-meters, but sometimes Angstroms) and you need to think in steradians, etendue must be conserved … you get the idea.
We’ve written about some of these issues in earlier posts, but this is one big, complete reference manual – a kind of ‘everything you wanted to know about light, but were afraid to ask’ – and it’s from NIST. They call it a ‘Self-Study Manual’ and it’s a clearly written tutorial on optical radiometry.
And it’s a free download. Enjoy. The test is Tuesday.
The official title is The Self-Study Manual on Optical Radiation Measurements, edited by Fred Nicodemus
Careful consideration of all the elements of a system’s design can lead you to some very improved performance. Imagine improving a benchtop NMR system by making it 60 times lighter (120kg to 2kg), 40 times smaller, and yet 60 times more sensitive!
This article, from the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits (Vol. 44, No. 5, May 2009), shows an excellent example of how this occurs.
link to IEEE abstract of ‘CMOS RF Biosensor Utilizing Nuclear Magnetic Resonance’ by Sun, Liu, Lee, Weissleder, and Ham
I recommend reading the article – it’s very well written, it describes how NMR works, and it details their systems approach to their improved design. Much can be learned here. The use of a resonant circuit for gain (they call it ‘passive amplification’) is detailed in Figure 8 of the article. (It reminded me of the old ‘regenerative’ type radio receivers, back when a vacuum tube had a power gain of about 12).
Put another way, this article shows that the ‘building block’ approach, when off-the-shelf 50 Ohm compatible RF modules are used, makes it easy to build a system that works – but that it leaves out some great performance improvements that are only possible when you analyze the basic system operation and theory. The design improves when you ask questions like ‘why 50 Ohms’ or ‘where does that noise originate and how can I maximize the signal’ and ‘how can I make this work with a much smaller and lighter magnet’? The article also answers ‘now that I can use a small magnet, can I make a custom CMOS IC that performs the RF detection, and seriously reduce system cost and size’?
Buying as much stuff off the shelf is not bad – it’s a great way to get a proof of principle working FAST, and it demonstrates that an idea or technique can work. Nothing says ‘success’ like working hardware – it allows the investors, managers and engineers to breathe easier.
But that extra performance gain from really digging into the details of how things work can pay off – in this case, it changes a benchtop lab instrument into a battery operated portable clinical test platform – this opens new opportunities and situations where this NMR system can be utilized.
This tech note was motivated by the question – how does the response of our eyes
differ from the response of a CCD camera sensor.
Using the data of a particular Hammamatsu CCD camera as an example,
we compared how silicon ‘sees’ to the photopic eye response
and compared both to a Planck black-body curve of a light at a particular
We don’t know what those lumps are in that CCD response curve – maybe some
strange reflection interference??
If you know – tell us!
Color temperature is based upon the idea of a Planck black-body radiator.
Here’s a Tech Note that shows how our eyes respond to the Planck Black-Body radiator.
For a lamp filament at a certain ‘color temperature’ there’s a curve of how our eyes
respond to the lamp. Pete put this into a MathCAD model, and there’s a pdf here
that shows off a few nice graphs.
Our eyes and silicon light detectors see things differently.
AND the units of photometrics differ from units used by normal MKS systems
here’s an Actinica tech note that tries to sort this out, click link for pdf file