Yesterday, I spent the day testing different transistors in the log amplifier, to see whether it made much difference which transistor I used.  I wanted to test all 11 transistors in the iteadstudio assortment, the 5 PNP transistors and the 6 NPN transistors, to see if it made much difference and whether one of the transistors would give me a larger mV/dB scaling than the others.

Here is the test circuit I made (essentially the same as for the tests in Logarithmic amplifier again):

(click image to embiggen) The same circuit can be used for either NPN or PNP transistors. The only difference is whether the 470µF capacitor starts at 0v (for PNP) or 5v (for NPN) before decaying to Vbias through the 16kΩ resistor R5. For many of the tests the voltage-to-current resistor R₂ was 1kΩ rather than 10kΩ.

The op amp at the top is a unity-gain buffer to provide a steady Vbias source that capable of providing some current (unlike the TL431ILP voltage reference shown here as an adjustable Zener diode). The nominal 2.5V reference was closer to 2.48V, which is within the ±2% spec for the part.

The unity-gain buffer on the left is to make the load on the RC circuit as high impedance as possible, so as not to disrupt the RC charging or discharging. The input current of the MCP6002 is typically ±1pA, which is far smaller than other sources of error (such as the parallel resistance of the capacitor itself). The parallel resistance of the capacitor makes the destination voltage of the RC circuit slightly lower than V_bias, which means that we will not get all the way to V_bias when testing PNP transistors, but will overshoot slightly when testing NPN transistors. (We should be able to reverse that by putting the capacitor between +5V and the switch, rather than ground and the switch.)

The right-hand op amp is just a non-inverting amplifier with 3× gain, to get better precision on measuring the output voltage with the Arduino ADC.  I made some measurements with V_out but most with the 3V_out signal. The scaling factor was 3.0 much more accurately than the repeatability of my fits to the data, so the gain in precision was not accompanied by a loss of accuracy. Ideally, I’d like to be able to use more than a 3× gain in the final stage, to get better precision, but I’m limited by the offset voltage of the log amplifier, which is determined by the transistor and by the voltage-to-current converter R₂.

The middle op amp is the log amplifier itself, which relies on the exponential relationship of the emitter current to the voltage across the base-emitter junction. More precisely, we can use the Ebers-Moll model of a bipolar transistor to get

The collector is held at Vbias by the feedback loop of the op amp, so V_BC is zero, simplifying the equation to

Assuming that β_R and I_S are constant, and that V_BE is very large compared to V_T (about 23 times bigger in my measurements), we have the desired exponential relationship: for some constant x.  Note that if we leave the –1 in, then we’ll have a small DC offset to i_C.

(I believe that all this analysis is correct for NPN transistors, where V_{BE is positive, but that some signs may need to be negated for PNP transistors.)}

The log-amplifier output is temperature-dependent, since , which is about 26mV at 300˚K. The scale factor can be multiplied by ln(10) to get 60mV/decade or 3mv/dB.

Note that this scaling is not affected by the current gain β of the transistor—that only affects the offset of the output voltage. This analysis agrees with the statement in Wikipedia, “At room temperature, an increase in V_BE by approximately 60 mV increases the emitter current by a factor of 10.” There is probably an even bigger temperature dependence for the offset of the output than for the scaling, because of changes in β_R and I_S, but that is not included in the Ebers-Moll model.

The theoretical result indicates that I should get about 3mV/dB for any transistor, but that the offset voltage will vary depending on the characteristics of the transistor.  I might also run into effects not included in the Ebers-Moll model, especially at very large or very small collector currents.

Adjusting R₂ to change the current can move the output offset around. If I make R₂ large and the current small, then V_BE will be small, and the approximation will be poor. If I make R₂ small, the current may exceed what the transistor is designed for and there may be saturation effects.

Looking at typical collector currents on the I-vs-V plots for the transistors, I’m seeing values like 8–20mA at the high end, so with a 2.5V drop across R₂, I want R₂ to be at least 300Ω. Initially, I picked 1kΩ, as providing a large current at 2.5V, hoping that this would give a large dynamic range.  Here are a couple of good examples of measurements using the 3× output and R₂=1kΩ.

(click image to embiggen) Typical 3× Vout vs Vin curve for a PNP transistor, here the A1015, using R₂=1kΩ. This uses Arduino-measured Vin, Vout, and Vbias, so is limited to about 2 decades (40dB).

(click image to embiggen) Typical 3× Vout vs. Vin curve for an NPN transistor, using R₂=1kΩ. Again we’re limited by the Arduino ADC to about 40dB of dynamic range.

The exponential decay of the capacitor to about V_bias allows us to extend the range of the fit well past the resolution of the ADC to measure V_in or V_bias. Combining the formulas for the log amplifier and the RC discharge gives us the general formula
.
Fitting the constants for this turns out to be difficult, because v₃ is close to zero. If it were exactly zero, the formula would be , and we could make arbitrary tradeoffs between v₂ and RC.

We can get a nice plot of V_out vs. time as the capacitor decays toward V_bias, particularly for the NPN transistor S9013:

(click picture to embiggen) The S9013 log amplifier shows what looks like a good fit over about 80dB, when using R₂=1kΩ, and good linearity for about 65dB. The upward tail shows where the collector-base junction begins to be forward biased, and the current is no longer controlled by the base-emitter voltage.

Note that this curve shows that the problems we had with direct measurement of RC discharge curves in the physics lab was due to limitations of the Arduino ADC, not to the underlying RC circuit. The tails of the discharge continue to follow the exponential well beyond the resolution of the 10-bit ADC in the Arduino.

Of course, I picked out the S9013 plot to show, because it was the nicest one. Some of the others were weird. For example, consider the 2N5551:

(click image to embiggen) Not that the 2N5551 Vout vs Vin curve is not a simple logarithm—there is some sort of saturation happening for large input voltages, so the straight-line fit is awful.

The same 2N5551 transistor with R₂ at 10kΩ behaves much better:

(click image to embiggen) With a 10kΩ resistor, the currents through the 2N5551 transistor are smaller, and no clipping occurs.

Even weirder was the behavior of the S9018 NPN transistor (the only transistor in the set not matched by a corresponding PNP transistor):

(click image to embiggen) With R₂=1kΩ, the S9018 transistor shows a flat spot in the response for  277mV < V_in-V_bias < 330mV (that is, 277uA < I_C < 330uA) . I have no idea what causes this flat spot.

I’m still mystified by the flat spot in the S9018 response—anyone have any ideas??

By changing R₂ to 10kΩ, we can push the flat spot to 10× higher voltage, just outside the input range that the log amplifier uses:

(click image to embiggen) With R₂=10kΩ, the response of the amplifier with a S9018 transistor is nicely logarithmic.

The time response to the RC discharge also looks good:

(click to embiggen) With R₂=10kΩ, we get a good fit for about 76dB on the S9018 transistor. The larger resistor gives a somewhat softer turn on for the transistor if we go past Vbias.

All of my transistors gave mV/dB scaling that was about the same (just under 9 mV/dB after the 3× gain, so just under 3mV/dB for the unamplified output), as is predicted by the Ebers-Moll model.  I got better dynamic ranges for the NPN transistors than for the PNP transistors, but this may have been due to artifacts of the test setup.  In any case, it looks like 60–70dB ranges are fairly easily achieved.

[UPDATE 2013 July 15: I know I said I was done with the log amplifiers, but I had to do just one more test.  In addition to the 16kΩ resistor to Vbias, I added a 5.7MΩ resistor to +5V, giving me a slightly higher target voltage so that I had some overshoot when testing PNP transistors.  With this setup I could test the S9012 PNP transistor for 82dB with R₂=1kΩ, and 63dB with R₂=10kΩ.  So the better dynamic range of the NPN was just an artifact of my test setup, as I thought.]

If one were to try to make a measuring instrument with a log amplifier, there would have to be some temperature compensation as the log-amplifier offset and scaling are both temperature sensitive.  Having a temperature-independent voltage source for calibration would be a good idea.

I think I’m about burned out on log amplifiers now.  Perhaps later his week I’ll try doing some precision rectifier circuits.

Yesterday, I spent the day testing different transistors in the log amplifier, to see whether it made much difference which transistor I used.  I wanted to test all 11 transistors in the iteadstudio assortment, the 5 PNP transistors and the 6 NPN transistors, to see if it made much difference and whether one of the transistors would give me a larger mV/dB scaling than the others.

Here is the test circuit I made (essentially the same as for the tests in Logarithmic amplifier again):

(click image to embiggen) The same circuit can be used for either NPN or PNP transistors. The only difference is whether the 470µF capacitor starts at 0v (for PNP) or 5v (for NPN) before decaying to Vbias through the 16kΩ resistor R5. For many of the tests the voltage-to-current resistor R₂ was 1kΩ rather than 10kΩ.

The op amp at the top is a unity-gain buffer to provide a steady Vbias source that capable of providing some current (unlike the TL431ILP voltage reference shown here as an adjustable Zener diode). The nominal 2.5V reference was closer to 2.48V, which is within the ±2% spec for the part.

The unity-gain buffer on the left is to make the load on the RC circuit as high impedance as possible, so as not to disrupt the RC charging or discharging. The input current of the MCP6002 is typically ±1pA, which is far smaller than other sources of error (such as the parallel resistance of the capacitor itself). The parallel resistance of the capacitor makes the destination voltage of the RC circuit slightly lower than V_bias, which means that we will not get all the way to V_bias when testing PNP transistors, but will overshoot slightly when testing NPN transistors. (We should be able to reverse that by putting the capacitor between +5V and the switch, rather than ground and the switch.)

The right-hand op amp is just a non-inverting amplifier with 3× gain, to get better precision on measuring the output voltage with the Arduino ADC.  I made some measurements with V_out but most with the 3V_out signal. The scaling factor was 3.0 much more accurately than the repeatability of my fits to the data, so the gain in precision was not accompanied by a loss of accuracy. Ideally, I’d like to be able to use more than a 3× gain in the final stage, to get better precision, but I’m limited by the offset voltage of the log amplifier, which is determined by the transistor and by the voltage-to-current converter R₂.

The middle op amp is the log amplifier itself, which relies on the exponential relationship of the emitter current to the voltage across the base-emitter junction. More precisely, we can use the Ebers-Moll model of a bipolar transistor to get

The collector is held at Vbias by the feedback loop of the op amp, so V_BC is zero, simplifying the equation to

Assuming that β_R and I_S are constant, and that V_BE is very large compared to V_T (about 23 times bigger in my measurements), we have the desired exponential relationship: for some constant x.  Note that if we leave the –1 in, then we’ll have a small DC offset to i_C.

(I believe that all this analysis is correct for NPN transistors, where V_{BE is positive, but that some signs may need to be negated for PNP transistors.)}

The log-amplifier output is temperature-dependent, since , which is about 26mV at 300˚K. The scale factor can be multiplied by ln(10) to get 60mV/decade or 3mv/dB.

Note that this scaling is not affected by the current gain β of the transistor—that only affects the offset of the output voltage. This analysis agrees with the statement in Wikipedia, “At room temperature, an increase in V_BE by approximately 60 mV increases the emitter current by a factor of 10.” There is probably an even bigger temperature dependence for the offset of the output than for the scaling, because of changes in β_R and I_S, but that is not included in the Ebers-Moll model.

The theoretical result indicates that I should get about 3mV/dB for any transistor, but that the offset voltage will vary depending on the characteristics of the transistor.  I might also run into effects not included in the Ebers-Moll model, especially at very large or very small collector currents.

Adjusting R₂ to change the current can move the output offset around. If I make R₂ large and the current small, then V_BE will be small, and the approximation will be poor. If I make R₂ small, the current may exceed what the transistor is designed for and there may be saturation effects.

Looking at typical collector currents on the I-vs-V plots for the transistors, I’m seeing values like 8–20mA at the high end, so with a 2.5V drop across R₂, I want R₂ to be at least 300Ω. Initially, I picked 1kΩ, as providing a large current at 2.5V, hoping that this would give a large dynamic range.  Here are a couple of good examples of measurements using the 3× output and R₂=1kΩ.

(click image to embiggen) Typical 3× Vout vs Vin curve for a PNP transistor, here the A1015, using R₂=1kΩ. This uses Arduino-measured Vin, Vout, and Vbias, so is limited to about 2 decades (40dB).

(click image to embiggen) Typical 3× Vout vs. Vin curve for an NPN transistor, using R₂=1kΩ. Again we’re limited by the Arduino ADC to about 40dB of dynamic range.

The exponential decay of the capacitor to about V_bias allows us to extend the range of the fit well past the resolution of the ADC to measure V_in or V_bias. Combining the formulas for the log amplifier and the RC discharge gives us the general formula
.
Fitting the constants for this turns out to be difficult, because v₃ is close to zero. If it were exactly zero, the formula would be , and we could make arbitrary tradeoffs between v₂ and RC.

We can get a nice plot of V_out vs. time as the capacitor decays toward V_bias, particularly for the NPN transistor S9013:

(click picture to embiggen) The S9013 log amplifier shows what looks like a good fit over about 80dB, when using R₂=1kΩ, and good linearity for about 65dB. The upward tail shows where the collector-base junction begins to be forward biased, and the current is no longer controlled by the base-emitter voltage.

Note that this curve shows that the problems we had with direct measurement of RC discharge curves in the physics lab was due to limitations of the Arduino ADC, not to the underlying RC circuit. The tails of the discharge continue to follow the exponential well beyond the resolution of the 10-bit ADC in the Arduino.

Of course, I picked out the S9013 plot to show, because it was the nicest one. Some of the others were weird. For example, consider the 2N5551:

(click image to embiggen) Not that the 2N5551 Vout vs Vin curve is not a simple logarithm—there is some sort of saturation happening for large input voltages, so the straight-line fit is awful.

The same 2N5551 transistor with R₂ at 10kΩ behaves much better:

(click image to embiggen) With a 10kΩ resistor, the currents through the 2N5551 transistor are smaller, and no clipping occurs.

Even weirder was the behavior of the S9018 NPN transistor (the only transistor in the set not matched by a corresponding PNP transistor):

(click image to embiggen) With R₂=1kΩ, the S9018 transistor shows a flat spot in the response for  277mV < V_in-V_bias < 330mV (that is, 277uA < I_C < 330uA) . I have no idea what causes this flat spot.

I’m still mystified by the flat spot in the S9018 response—anyone have any ideas??

By changing R₂ to 10kΩ, we can push the flat spot to 10× higher voltage, just outside the input range that the log amplifier uses:

(click image to embiggen) With R₂=10kΩ, the response of the amplifier with a S9018 transistor is nicely logarithmic.

The time response to the RC discharge also looks good:

(click to embiggen) With R₂=10kΩ, we get a good fit for about 76dB on the S9018 transistor. The larger resistor gives a somewhat softer turn on for the transistor if we go past Vbias.

All of my transistors gave mV/dB scaling that was about the same (just under 9 mV/dB after the 3× gain, so just under 3mV/dB for the unamplified output), as is predicted by the Ebers-Moll model.  I got better dynamic ranges for the NPN transistors than for the PNP transistors, but this may have been due to artifacts of the test setup.  In any case, it looks like 60–70dB ranges are fairly easily achieved.

[UPDATE 2013 July 15: I know I said I was done with the log amplifiers, but I had to do just one more test.  In addition to the 16kΩ resistor to Vbias, I added a 5.7MΩ resistor to +5V, giving me a slightly higher target voltage so that I had some overshoot when testing PNP transistors.  With this setup I could test the S9012 PNP transistor for 82dB with R₂=1kΩ, and 63dB with R₂=10kΩ.  So the better dynamic range of the NPN was just an artifact of my test setup, as I thought.]

If one were to try to make a measuring instrument with a log amplifier, there would have to be some temperature compensation as the log-amplifier offset and scaling are both temperature sensitive.  Having a temperature-independent voltage source for calibration would be a good idea.

I think I’m about burned out on log amplifiers now.  Perhaps later his week I’ll try doing some precision rectifier circuits.

Yesterday, in Logarithmic amplifier, I ended with the following plot:

(click plot to see larger version) The cloud of points is broad enough to be consistent with slightly different parameter values.

I was bothered by the broad cloud of points, and wanted to come up with a better test circuit—one that would give me more confidence in the parameters.  It was also quite difficult to get close to Vbias—the closest this could measure was one least-significant-bit of the DAC away (about 5mV).  A factor of 512 from the largest to the smallest signal is 54dB, but only about the upper 40dB of that was good enough data for fitting (and very little time was spent at near the Vbias value).

I think that part of the problem with the cloud was that the input signal was changing fairly quickly, and the Arduino serializes its ADC, so that the input and output are measured about 120µsec apart.  I decided to use a very simple slow-changing signal: a capacitor charging toward Vbias through a large resistor.  My first attempt used a 1MΩ resistor and a 10µF capacitor, for a 10-second time constant:

Output voltage from log amplifier (with 3x gain in second stage) as capacitor charges. (click picture for larger version) One fit uses the Arduino-measured Vin and Vbias voltages, the other attempts to model the RC charging as well. What are the weird glitches?

The capacitor charging should be a smooth curve exponential decay to Vbias, so the log amplifier output should be a straight line with time. There were two obvious problems with this first data—the output was not a straight line and there were weird glitches about every 15–20 seconds.

The non-straight curve comes from the capacitor not charging to Vbias. Even when the capacitor was given lots of time to charge, it remained stubbornly below the desired voltage. In think that the problem is leakage current: resistance in parallel with the capacitor. The voltage was about 1% lower than expected, which would be equivalent to having a 100MΩ resistor in parallel with the capacitor.  I can well believe that I have sneak paths with that sort of resistance on the breadboard as well as in the capacitor.

According to Cornell Dublier, a capacitor manufacturer, a typical parallel resistance for a 10µF aluminum electrolytic capacitor would be about 10MΩ [http://www.cde.com/catalogs/AEappGUIDE.pdf‎]:

Typical values are on the order of 100/C MΩ with C in μF, e.g. a 100 μF capacitor would have an Rp of about 1 MΩ.

So I may be lucky that I got as close to Vbias as I did.

The glitches had a different explanation: they were not glitches in the log amplifier circuit, but in the 5V power supply being used as a reference for the ADC on the Arduino board—I had forgotten how bad the USB power is coming out of my laptop, though I had certainly observed the 5V supply dropping for a second about every 20 seconds on previous projects.  The drop in the reference for the ADC results in a bogus increase in the measured voltages.  That problem was easy to fix: I plugged in the power supply for the Arduino rather than running off the USB power, so I had a very steady voltage source using the Arduino’s on-board regulator.

(click picture for larger version) With a proper power supply, I get a clean charge and the output is initially a straight line, but I’m still not getting close to Vbias. Again the blue fit uses the measured Vin and Vbias voltages, while the green curve tries to fit an RC decay model. Note the digitization noise on the measured inputs towards the end of the charging time.

To solve the problem of the leakage currents, I tried going to a larger capacitor and smaller resistor to get a similar RC time constant. At that point I had not found and read the Cornell Dublier application note, though I suspected that the parallel resistance might scale inversely with the capacitor size, in which case I would be facing the same problem no matter how I chose the R-vs-C tradeoff. Only reducing the RC time constant would work for getting me closer to Vbias.

Using a 47kΩ resistor and a 470µF capacitor worked a bit better, but the time constant was so long that I got impatient:

(click image for larger version) The blue fit is again using the measured Vin and Vbias, and has a pretty good fit. The green fit using an RC charge model does not seem quite as good a fit.

The calibration of 9.7mV/dB seems pretty good, so the 409mV range of the recording corresponds to a 42dB range. The line is straighter, but I’m still not getting as close to Vbias as I’d like.

I then tried a smaller RC time constant (hoping that the larger current with the same capacitor would result in getting closer to Vbias, and so testing a larger dynamic range on the log amplifier). I tried 16kΩ with the 470µF capacitor:

(click image to embiggen) I’m now getting a clear signal from the log amplifier even after the input voltage has gotten less than one least-significant-bit away from Vbias (the blue fit). I found it difficult to fit parameters for modeling the RC charge (the green fit).

The two models I fit to the data give me somewhat different mV/dB scales, though both fit the data fairly well. The blue curve fits better up to about 65 seconds, then has quantization problems. Using that estimate of 9.8mV/dB and the 560mV range of the output, we have a dynamic range here of 57dB. There is still some flattening of the curve—we aren’t quite getting to the Vbias value, but it is pretty straight for the first 50 seconds.

Note: the parallel resistance of the capacitors would not explain the not-quite-exponential behavior we saw in the RC time constant lab, since those measurements were discharging the capacitor to zero. A parallel resistance would just change the time constant, not the final voltage.

I was using the Duemilanove board for the log-amplifier tests. I retried with the Uno board, to see if differences in the ADC linearity make a difference in the fit:

(click to embiggen) Using the Uno Arduino board I still had trouble with the fit, and the Uno ADC seems to be noisier than the Duemilanove ADC. The missing parts of the blue curve are where the Uno board read the input as having passed Vbias.

The 625 mV range over 250 seconds corresponds to about 69dB, assuming that the 9.1 mV/dB calibration is reasonably accurate (and 64dB if the earlier 9.8mV/dB calibration is better).
My measurements of the log amplifier do not seem to yield a very consistent mV/dB parameter, with values from 9.1mV/dB to 9.8mV/dB using just the Arduino measurements (and even less consistency when a model of RC charging is used).  I’m not sure how I can do more consistent measurements with the equipment I have.  Anyone have any ideas?
Incidentally, my son has decided not to include a microphone in his project.  The silicon MEMS mic was small enough, but the op amp chip for the analog processing was too big for the small board area he had left in his layout, and he decided that the loudness detector was not valuable enough for the board area and parts cost. I believe that his available board area shrunk a little today, because he discovered that the keep-away check had not been turned on in the Eagle design-rule checker.  Turning it on indicated that he had packed the capacitors too close in places, and he had to spread them out. (At least, I think that’s what he told me—I’ve not been following his PC board layout very closely.)
I’m still interested in learning about log amplifiers and precision rectifiers, so I’m still going to breadboard the components of the design and test them out.  I’m not sure when I’ll ever use the knowledge, since the Applied Circuits course does not cover the nonlinear behavior of pn junctions nor the forward-voltage drop of diodes (we don’t use diodes in the course).

Yesterday, in Logarithmic amplifier, I ended with the following plot:

(click plot to see larger version) The cloud of points is broad enough to be consistent with slightly different parameter values.

I was bothered by the broad cloud of points, and wanted to come up with a better test circuit—one that would give me more confidence in the parameters.  It was also quite difficult to get close to Vbias—the closest this could measure was one least-significant-bit of the DAC away (about 5mV).  A factor of 512 from the largest to the smallest signal is 54dB, but only about the upper 40dB of that was good enough data for fitting (and very little time was spent at near the Vbias value).

I think that part of the problem with the cloud was that the input signal was changing fairly quickly, and the Arduino serializes its ADC, so that the input and output are measured about 120µsec apart.  I decided to use a very simple slow-changing signal: a capacitor charging toward Vbias through a large resistor.  My first attempt used a 1MΩ resistor and a 10µF capacitor, for a 10-second time constant:

Output voltage from log amplifier (with 3x gain in second stage) as capacitor charges. (click picture for larger version) One fit uses the Arduino-measured Vin and Vbias voltages, the other attempts to model the RC charging as well. What are the weird glitches?

The capacitor charging should be a smooth curve exponential decay to Vbias, so the log amplifier output should be a straight line with time. There were two obvious problems with this first data—the output was not a straight line and there were weird glitches about every 15–20 seconds.

The non-straight curve comes from the capacitor not charging to Vbias. Even when the capacitor was given lots of time to charge, it remained stubbornly below the desired voltage. In think that the problem is leakage current: resistance in parallel with the capacitor. The voltage was about 1% lower than expected, which would be equivalent to having a 100MΩ resistor in parallel with the capacitor.  I can well believe that I have sneak paths with that sort of resistance on the breadboard as well as in the capacitor.

According to Cornell Dublier, a capacitor manufacturer, a typical parallel resistance for a 10µF aluminum electrolytic capacitor would be about 10MΩ [http://www.cde.com/catalogs/AEappGUIDE.pdf‎]:

Typical values are on the order of 100/C MΩ with C in μF, e.g. a 100 μF capacitor would have an Rp of about 1 MΩ.

So I may be lucky that I got as close to Vbias as I did.

The glitches had a different explanation: they were not glitches in the log amplifier circuit, but in the 5V power supply being used as a reference for the ADC on the Arduino board—I had forgotten how bad the USB power is coming out of my laptop, though I had certainly observed the 5V supply dropping for a second about every 20 seconds on previous projects.  The drop in the reference for the ADC results in a bogus increase in the measured voltages.  That problem was easy to fix: I plugged in the power supply for the Arduino rather than running off the USB power, so I had a very steady voltage source using the Arduino’s on-board regulator.

(click picture for larger version) With a proper power supply, I get a clean charge and the output is initially a straight line, but I’m still not getting close to Vbias. Again the blue fit uses the measured Vin and Vbias voltages, while the green curve tries to fit an RC decay model. Note the digitization noise on the measured inputs towards the end of the charging time.

To solve the problem of the leakage currents, I tried going to a larger capacitor and smaller resistor to get a similar RC time constant. At that point I had not found and read the Cornell Dublier application note, though I suspected that the parallel resistance might scale inversely with the capacitor size, in which case I would be facing the same problem no matter how I chose the R-vs-C tradeoff. Only reducing the RC time constant would work for getting me closer to Vbias.

Using a 47kΩ resistor and a 470µF capacitor worked a bit better, but the time constant was so long that I got impatient:

(click image for larger version) The blue fit is again using the measured Vin and Vbias, and has a pretty good fit. The green fit using an RC charge model does not seem quite as good a fit.

The calibration of 9.7mV/dB seems pretty good, so the 409mV range of the recording corresponds to a 42dB range. The line is straighter, but I’m still not getting as close to Vbias as I’d like.

I then tried a smaller RC time constant (hoping that the larger current with the same capacitor would result in getting closer to Vbias, and so testing a larger dynamic range on the log amplifier). I tried 16kΩ with the 470µF capacitor:

(click image to embiggen) I’m now getting a clear signal from the log amplifier even after the input voltage has gotten less than one least-significant-bit away from Vbias (the blue fit). I found it difficult to fit parameters for modeling the RC charge (the green fit).

The two models I fit to the data give me somewhat different mV/dB scales, though both fit the data fairly well. The blue curve fits better up to about 65 seconds, then has quantization problems. Using that estimate of 9.8mV/dB and the 560mV range of the output, we have a dynamic range here of 57dB. There is still some flattening of the curve—we aren’t quite getting to the Vbias value, but it is pretty straight for the first 50 seconds.

Note: the parallel resistance of the capacitors would not explain the not-quite-exponential behavior we saw in the RC time constant lab, since those measurements were discharging the capacitor to zero. A parallel resistance would just change the time constant, not the final voltage.

I was using the Duemilanove board for the log-amplifier tests. I retried with the Uno board, to see if differences in the ADC linearity make a difference in the fit:

(click to embiggen) Using the Uno Arduino board I still had trouble with the fit, and the Uno ADC seems to be noisier than the Duemilanove ADC. The missing parts of the blue curve are where the Uno board read the input as having passed Vbias.

The 625 mV range over 250 seconds corresponds to about 69dB, assuming that the 9.1 mV/dB calibration is reasonably accurate (and 64dB if the earlier 9.8mV/dB calibration is better).
My measurements of the log amplifier do not seem to yield a very consistent mV/dB parameter, with values from 9.1mV/dB to 9.8mV/dB using just the Arduino measurements (and even less consistency when a model of RC charging is used).  I’m not sure how I can do more consistent measurements with the equipment I have.  Anyone have any ideas?
Incidentally, my son has decided not to include a microphone in his project.  The silicon MEMS mic was small enough, but the op amp chip for the analog processing was too big for the small board area he had left in his layout, and he decided that the loudness detector was not valuable enough for the board area and parts cost. I believe that his available board area shrunk a little today, because he discovered that the keep-away check had not been turned on in the Eagle design-rule checker.  Turning it on indicated that he had packed the capacitors too close in places, and he had to spread them out. (At least, I think that’s what he told me—I’ve not been following his PC board layout very closely.)
I’m still interested in learning about log amplifiers and precision rectifiers, so I’m still going to breadboard the components of the design and test them out.  I’m not sure when I’ll ever use the knowledge, since the Applied Circuits course does not cover the nonlinear behavior of pn junctions nor the forward-voltage drop of diodes (we don’t use diodes in the course).

I’ve been thinking of expanding the pressure sensor lab for the Applied Circuits Course to do something more than just measure breath pressure.  Perhaps something that conveys another physics or engineering concept.

One thing I thought of doing was measuring the back pressure and air flow on an aquarium air pump bubbling air into an aquarium. Looking at the tradeoff of flow-rate and back pressure would be a good characterization of an air pump (something I wish was clearly shown in advertisements for aquarium air pumps and air stones).  Measuring flow rate is a bit of a pain—about the best I could think of was to bubble air into an inverted soda bottle (or other known volume) and time it.

This would be a good physics experiment and might even make a decent middle-school product-science science fair project (using a cheap mechanical low-pressure gauge, rather than an electronic pressure sensor), but setting up tanks of water in an electronics lab is a logistic nightmare, and I don’t think I want to go there.

I can generate back pressure with just a simple clamp on the hose, though, and without a flow rate measurement we could do everything completely dry.

Setup for measuring the back pressure for an aquarium air pump (needs USB connection for data logger and power).

Using the Arduino data loggger my son wrote, I recorded the air pressure while adjusting the clamp (to get the y-axis scale correct, I had to use the estimated gain of the amplifier based on resistor sizes used in the amplifier).

The peak pressure, with the clamp sealing the hose shut, seems to be about 14.5 kPa (2.1psi).

I was interested in the fluctuation in the pressure, so I set the clamp to get about half the maximum back pressure, then recorded with the Arduino data logger set to its highest sampling frequency (1ms/sample).

The fluctuation in back pressure seems to have both a 60Hz and a 420Hz component with back pressure at about half maximum.

Because the Arduino data logger has trouble dealing with audio frequency signals, I decided to take another look at the signals using the Bitscope pocket analyzer.

The waveform for the pressure fluctuations from the AQT3001 air pump, with the back pressure about 7.5kPa (half the maximum).

One advantage of using the Bitscope is that it has FFT analysis:

Spectrum for the back pressure fluctuation. One can see many of the multiples of 60Hz, with the particularly strong peak at 420Hz.

I was also interested in testing a Whisper40 air pump (a more powerful, but quieter, pump). When I clamped the hose shut for that air pump, the hi-gain output of the amplifier for the pressure sensor saturated, so I had to use the low gain output to determine the maximum pressure (24.8kPA, or about 3.6psi). The cheap Grafco clamp that I used is a bit hard to get complete shutoff with (I needed to adjust the position of the tubing and use pliers to turn the knob).  It is easy to get complete shutoff if the tube is folded over, but then modulation of less than complete shutoff is difficult.

The fluctuation in pressure shows a different waveform from the AQT3001:

The Whisper40 air pump, with the clamp set to get a bit less than half the maximum back pressure, produces a 60Hz sawtooth pressure waveform, without the strong 420Hz component seen from the AQT3001. The peak-to-peak fluctuation in pressure seems to be largest around this back pressure. The 3kPa fluctuation is larger than for the AQT3001, but the pump seems quieter.

The main noise from the pump is not from the fluctuation in the pressure in the air hose, but radiation from the case of the pump. That noise seems to be least when the back pressure is about 1.1kPa (not at zero, surprisingly). The fluctuation is then all positive pressure, ranging from 0 to 2.2kPa and is nearly sinusoidal, with some 2nd and 3rd harmonic.

As the back pressure increases for the Whisper40, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th harmonics get larger, but the 60Hz fundamental gets smaller. The 4th harmonic is maximized (with the 1st through 4th harmonics almost equal) at about 22.8kPa, above which all harmonics get smaller, until the air hose is completely pinched off and there is no pressure variation.

When driving the large airstone in our aquarium, the Whisper40 has a back pressure of about 7.50kPa (1.1psi) with a peak-to-peak fluctuation of about 2.6kPa.

I’m not sure whether this air-pump back-pressure experiment is worth adding to the pressure sensor lab.  If I decide to do it, we would need to get a dozen cheap air pumps.  The Tetra 77853 Whisper 40 air pump is $11.83 each from Amazon, but the smaller one for 10-gallon aquariums is only $6.88.  With 12 Ts and 12 clamps, this would cost about $108, which is not a significant cost for the lab.

I’ve been thinking of expanding the pressure sensor lab for the Applied Circuits Course to do something more than just measure breath pressure.  Perhaps something that conveys another physics or engineering concept.

One thing I thought of doing was measuring the back pressure and air flow on an aquarium air pump bubbling air into an aquarium. Looking at the tradeoff of flow-rate and back pressure would be a good characterization of an air pump (something I wish was clearly shown in advertisements for aquarium air pumps and air stones).  Measuring flow rate is a bit of a pain—about the best I could think of was to bubble air into an inverted soda bottle (or other known volume) and time it.

This would be a good physics experiment and might even make a decent middle-school product-science science fair project (using a cheap mechanical low-pressure gauge, rather than an electronic pressure sensor), but setting up tanks of water in an electronics lab is a logistic nightmare, and I don’t think I want to go there.

I can generate back pressure with just a simple clamp on the hose, though, and without a flow rate measurement we could do everything completely dry.

Setup for measuring the back pressure for an aquarium air pump (needs USB connection for data logger and power).

Using the Arduino data loggger my son wrote, I recorded the air pressure while adjusting the clamp (to get the y-axis scale correct, I had to use the estimated gain of the amplifier based on resistor sizes used in the amplifier).

The peak pressure, with the clamp sealing the hose shut, seems to be about 14.5 kPa (2.1psi).

I was interested in the fluctuation in the pressure, so I set the clamp to get about half the maximum back pressure, then recorded with the Arduino data logger set to its highest sampling frequency (1ms/sample).

The fluctuation in back pressure seems to have both a 60Hz and a 420Hz component with back pressure at about half maximum.

Because the Arduino data logger has trouble dealing with audio frequency signals, I decided to take another look at the signals using the Bitscope pocket analyzer.

The waveform for the pressure fluctuations from the AQT3001 air pump, with the back pressure about 7.5kPa (half the maximum).

One advantage of using the Bitscope is that it has FFT analysis:

Spectrum for the back pressure fluctuation. One can see many of the multiples of 60Hz, with the particularly strong peak at 420Hz.

I was also interested in testing a Whisper40 air pump (a more powerful, but quieter, pump). When I clamped the hose shut for that air pump, the hi-gain output of the amplifier for the pressure sensor saturated, so I had to use the low gain output to determine the maximum pressure (24.8kPA, or about 3.6psi). The cheap Grafco clamp that I used is a bit hard to get complete shutoff with (I needed to adjust the position of the tubing and use pliers to turn the knob).  It is easy to get complete shutoff if the tube is folded over, but then modulation of less than complete shutoff is difficult.

The fluctuation in pressure shows a different waveform from the AQT3001:

The Whisper40 air pump, with the clamp set to get a bit less than half the maximum back pressure, produces a 60Hz sawtooth pressure waveform, without the strong 420Hz component seen from the AQT3001. The peak-to-peak fluctuation in pressure seems to be largest around this back pressure. The 3kPa fluctuation is larger than for the AQT3001, but the pump seems quieter.

The main noise from the pump is not from the fluctuation in the pressure in the air hose, but radiation from the case of the pump. That noise seems to be least when the back pressure is about 1.1kPa (not at zero, surprisingly). The fluctuation is then all positive pressure, ranging from 0 to 2.2kPa and is nearly sinusoidal, with some 2nd and 3rd harmonic.

As the back pressure increases for the Whisper40, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th harmonics get larger, but the 60Hz fundamental gets smaller. The 4th harmonic is maximized (with the 1st through 4th harmonics almost equal) at about 22.8kPa, above which all harmonics get smaller, until the air hose is completely pinched off and there is no pressure variation.

When driving the large airstone in our aquarium, the Whisper40 has a back pressure of about 7.50kPa (1.1psi) with a peak-to-peak fluctuation of about 2.6kPa.

I’m not sure whether this air-pump back-pressure experiment is worth adding to the pressure sensor lab.  If I decide to do it, we would need to get a dozen cheap air pumps.  The Tetra 77853 Whisper 40 air pump is $11.83 each from Amazon, but the smaller one for 10-gallon aquariums is only $6.88.  With 12 Ts and 12 clamps, this would cost about $108, which is not a significant cost for the lab.

I feel pretty good about today’s lecture, though things got a little rushed at the end.

Three-resistor voltage divider for the first question.

I started with a “do now” question, similar to the one from Monday. Actually, I started with 2 questions. The first just asked what the output voltage would be for a 3-resistor voltage divider. The second repeated the question from Monday, but with the additional constraint that the power supply was 5 volts:

You have sensor whose resistance varies from 1kΩ to 4kΩ with the property it measures and a 5v power supply.  Design a circuit whose output voltage varies from 1v (at 1kΩ) to 2v (at 4kΩ).

Several students realized that the first question was a hint for the second one and that the variable resistor had to be RB or RC, and could set up the equations and solve for RA and RC.  This is a better performance than on Monday’s “do now”, but only about 1/3 of the class got it completely, and several of them were not confident of their results, so we again took time to go over the whole solution. I think that everyone (or almost everyone) understood the design process and how to set up and solve the equations by the end of the presentation, which I drew out of the students as much as possible.  I also mentioned that we could have solved the problem with a different circuit (putting RC in parallel with RB instead of in series), but did not further elaborate on that point.

The do-now plus going over the solution took about 33 minutes, which is a little more time than I’d like to be spending on these questions.  It would be good to get the time down to 15 minutes, but I don’t see how to do that without losing half the class.  If the problems are easy enough that everyone gets them, then there is no point to taking up any class time with them, and if they are hard enough that 1/3 to 2/3 of the class don’t get them, then they need to be gone over in class.

After the do-now, we spent a little time discussing the “fit” command of gnuplot, since the students have to fit models to the data they collect tomorrow, and I’m not providing them a script this time (though they can modify the script that was provided in the first lab).

Finally, we got to the theoretical meat of the class—we discussed what sound was (ending up with variations in pressure for a fluid, though we discussed briefly transverse and shear waves in solids).  Then I introduced microphones as transducers, trying to get the students to remember their elementary mechanics, so that we could do pressure→force→displacement→1/capacitance→voltage for electret mics.  The hardest part was getting students to remember that a spring-mounted object had force proportional to displacement (a lot remembered the energy was somehow related to displacement squared and got stuck on that formula).  I suspect that the local physics department would not be seeing a high score on the Force Concept Inventory for students coming out of their physics classes, as a lot of them seem to have concentrated on cramming formulas rather than learning fundamental concepts.  Someone did remember Q=CV and someone else could reason from wanting voltage proportional to displacement to needing constant charge which let me introduce both conventional capacitance microphone (with a large resistor to voltage source) and electrets.  I also explained that the electret had an enormous resistance, so we couldn’t get any measurable current out of it, and we needed an FET transistor to convert the voltage to a current.

Because both the do-now and extracting vague memories of physics from the students took longer than I had planned, we were a bit rushed for the last part of the lesson, which was a simple model of I_ds vs V_ds for the FET output stage of the electret mic. I asked for advice on drawing the plots for resistors and for current sources, and got the appropriate straight lines.  I then drew a smooth transition between them and claimed that the simple FET models usually consisted of a linear region at low voltage (which my co-instructor refers to as the “triode” region, a usage I’ve seen in some other presentations) and a saturation region at high voltage, and that we usually try to stay out of the sublinear region in between.

I also said that the saturation region is not really constant, but has a slight upward slope, since they will be measuring the I-vs-V characteristic of the electret microphones tomorrow, and they will certainly be observing that.  The lab handout gives them 4 models to fit: linear, constant current, an empirical blend of the two, and a model that allows current increase in the saturation region.  Neither the 3rd nor the 4th model match the ones usually used in circuit simulators, but I had trouble fitting parameters to those models, even with voltage-modulated channel lengths, so I gave up and produced simple models with few parameters that can be fit pretty easily. We’ll be revisiting FETs again before the power-amp lab (where they’ll use pMOS and nMOS power FETs to make a class-D amplifier). Somewhere around then, I’ll have to give them some usable models for how saturation current varies with gate voltage, which I deliberately did not cover in this lecture.

I’m a bit worried about how big tomorrow’s lab is.  There are again 2 parts:

• the DC characterization of the mic using the Arduino to gather data (plus a few hand-collected points for higher voltages than we can subject the Arduino to)
• designing a pull-up resistor to bias the mic into its normal operating range (in the saturation region) and observing the microphone output on the oscilloscope.  I also asked students to hook up their loudspeakers to the signal generators, to provide known inputs to the mic, and some other little stuff, but I’ll probably be happy if everyone gets the first part done and manages to observe waveforms on the scope.

On Friday, most of the lecture will be standard EE stuff by my co-instructor (probably current sources, Thévenin equivalents, and Norton equivalents).  I may have a do-now question at the beginning of the class, if I can come up with one that I think is pedagogically useful.

I feel pretty good about today’s lecture, though things got a little rushed at the end.

Three-resistor voltage divider for the first question.

I started with a “do now” question, similar to the one from Monday. Actually, I started with 2 questions. The first just asked what the output voltage would be for a 3-resistor voltage divider. The second repeated the question from Monday, but with the additional constraint that the power supply was 5 volts:

You have sensor whose resistance varies from 1kΩ to 4kΩ with the property it measures and a 5v power supply.  Design a circuit whose output voltage varies from 1v (at 1kΩ) to 2v (at 4kΩ).

Several students realized that the first question was a hint for the second one and that the variable resistor had to be RB or RC, and could set up the equations and solve for RA and RC.  This is a better performance than on Monday’s “do now”, but only about 1/3 of the class got it completely, and several of them were not confident of their results, so we again took time to go over the whole solution. I think that everyone (or almost everyone) understood the design process and how to set up and solve the equations by the end of the presentation, which I drew out of the students as much as possible.  I also mentioned that we could have solved the problem with a different circuit (putting RC in parallel with RB instead of in series), but did not further elaborate on that point.

The do-now plus going over the solution took about 33 minutes, which is a little more time than I’d like to be spending on these questions.  It would be good to get the time down to 15 minutes, but I don’t see how to do that without losing half the class.  If the problems are easy enough that everyone gets them, then there is no point to taking up any class time with them, and if they are hard enough that 1/3 to 2/3 of the class don’t get them, then they need to be gone over in class.

After the do-now, we spent a little time discussing the “fit” command of gnuplot, since the students have to fit models to the data they collect tomorrow, and I’m not providing them a script this time (though they can modify the script that was provided in the first lab).

Finally, we got to the theoretical meat of the class—we discussed what sound was (ending up with variations in pressure for a fluid, though we discussed briefly transverse and shear waves in solids).  Then I introduced microphones as transducers, trying to get the students to remember their elementary mechanics, so that we could do pressure→force→displacement→1/capacitance→voltage for electret mics.  The hardest part was getting students to remember that a spring-mounted object had force proportional to displacement (a lot remembered the energy was somehow related to displacement squared and got stuck on that formula).  I suspect that the local physics department would not be seeing a high score on the Force Concept Inventory for students coming out of their physics classes, as a lot of them seem to have concentrated on cramming formulas rather than learning fundamental concepts.  Someone did remember Q=CV and someone else could reason from wanting voltage proportional to displacement to needing constant charge which let me introduce both conventional capacitance microphone (with a large resistor to voltage source) and electrets.  I also explained that the electret had an enormous resistance, so we couldn’t get any measurable current out of it, and we needed an FET transistor to convert the voltage to a current.

Because both the do-now and extracting vague memories of physics from the students took longer than I had planned, we were a bit rushed for the last part of the lesson, which was a simple model of I_ds vs V_ds for the FET output stage of the electret mic. I asked for advice on drawing the plots for resistors and for current sources, and got the appropriate straight lines.  I then drew a smooth transition between them and claimed that the simple FET models usually consisted of a linear region at low voltage (which my co-instructor refers to as the “triode” region, a usage I’ve seen in some other presentations) and a saturation region at high voltage, and that we usually try to stay out of the sublinear region in between.

I also said that the saturation region is not really constant, but has a slight upward slope, since they will be measuring the I-vs-V characteristic of the electret microphones tomorrow, and they will certainly be observing that.  The lab handout gives them 4 models to fit: linear, constant current, an empirical blend of the two, and a model that allows current increase in the saturation region.  Neither the 3rd nor the 4th model match the ones usually used in circuit simulators, but I had trouble fitting parameters to those models, even with voltage-modulated channel lengths, so I gave up and produced simple models with few parameters that can be fit pretty easily. We’ll be revisiting FETs again before the power-amp lab (where they’ll use pMOS and nMOS power FETs to make a class-D amplifier). Somewhere around then, I’ll have to give them some usable models for how saturation current varies with gate voltage, which I deliberately did not cover in this lecture.

I’m a bit worried about how big tomorrow’s lab is.  There are again 2 parts:

• the DC characterization of the mic using the Arduino to gather data (plus a few hand-collected points for higher voltages than we can subject the Arduino to)
• designing a pull-up resistor to bias the mic into its normal operating range (in the saturation region) and observing the microphone output on the oscilloscope.  I also asked students to hook up their loudspeakers to the signal generators, to provide known inputs to the mic, and some other little stuff, but I’ll probably be happy if everyone gets the first part done and manages to observe waveforms on the scope.

On Friday, most of the lecture will be standard EE stuff by my co-instructor (probably current sources, Thévenin equivalents, and Norton equivalents).  I may have a do-now question at the beginning of the class, if I can come up with one that I think is pedagogically useful.

Today’s class went much better than last Friday’s.

I took the advice one of the students gave me last we and started with a “do now” question.  (She had actually suggested an “exit ticket”, but I don’t have the time management skills to leave a block of time at the end of class.)  The question I asked was a design task that was easy if you knew what you were doing, but subtly harder than the standard sort of text-book question, because it was a design question, not an analysis question:

You have sensor whose resistance varies from 1kΩ to 4kΩ with the property it measures.  Design a circuit whose output voltage varies from 1v (at 1kΩ) to 2v (at 4kΩ).

I gave the students 10 minutes to work on this at the beginning of class.  A good question to prompt discussion (according to the peer instruction blogs and websites) should be answerable by 30–80% of the students.  More than that and the question was too easy to be useful, and less than that and the question is too hard for peer discussion to be worthwhile.  It turned out that no one had gotten it after 10 minutes (too hard to use as a peer instruction question), so we used it as the basis for a class discussion.

Almost everyone realized that the desired circuit was a voltage source and a voltage divider (not too surprising, since that’s the only circuit they’ve used so far).  The majority also realized that the variable resistor had to be on the lower leg, between the output and ground, and a couple of the students could articulate why.  I suggested the common heuristic of trying extreme values (0 and ∞) for the variable resistor, to see whether the output voltage would go up or down as the resistance changed.

The students were then able to set up the simultaneous equations to solve for the input voltage and the fixed resistance.  The hole in everyone’s thinking when working on the problem initially is that they had not considered the voltage of the source as a design parameter to solve for, though one student had asked about it. This was the blind spot I was expecting, so I was able to use it as a teachable moment.  After we had the equations set up using mainly student input, I gave the students another minute or two to solve them, and about half the class was able to solve them correctly in the time provided. (I suspect that everyone could have if given enough time, but I didn’t want to take any more time in class—those who didn’t solve it in class could practice their algebra at home if they needed to.)  One student had made an algebra or arithmetic mistake, and gotten a source voltage smaller than one of the desired output voltages.  This was also a good mistake to get, since we could use it to talk about sanity checks on results.

I think that the 20 or so minutes of class was well spent, as we uncovered several important misconceptions, and raised awareness of all unspecified variables as potential design parameters, reasoning using extreme values, and the usefulness of sanity checks.

After that, we spent some time discussing different temperature sensors.  From the students, I got thermistor, infrared thermometer, mercury thermometer+camera, and enzyme + other sensor (pH, conductivity, color, …). I added RTD, silicon band-gap, and thermocouple to the mix.  We talked a little about the advantages and disadvantages of each. At the end, I also threw in bimetallic strips and tilt switches for one-bit digitization of temperature.  I wonder how many students will look at the thermostats in their apartments and try to figure out what sensor they include.

For the remainder of the class, we talked about gnuplot commands, particularly the “plot” command.

After class, several of us went over to the lab, where my son met us and helped the students install the DataLoger, python, pyserial, the Arduino environment, and gnuplot.  While he was doing that, I borrowed an Uno R3 Arduino board and made sure that all the computers in the labs had the drivers installed for it.  We had 2 installation failures: on one Windows laptop, my son was unable to get the serial ports to work and one Mac laptop couldn’t install gnuplot.

The problem with the gnuplot installation on that Mac was not solvable by the techniques in the comments for Installing gnuplot—a nightmare, because all the methods there assume that you can install the command-line tools “make” and “gcc”.  The Mac had 10.6.8 installed, but the student had never bothered to install the development tools and had lost the original CD-ROM with the Xcode tools on it.  The Apple Developer site does not provide the command-line tools for anything older than 10.7.3.  The only workaround we could find was to download the 4.1GByte complete Xcode suite for OS 10.6.8, which I was not willing to wait around for. (Other students with 10.6.8 had no trouble installing gnuplot, because they already had the command-line tools, though they’d never used them.)

I did not look at the problem on the Windows machine (the student had to leave for class before I became available), but I don’t know that I could have done anything—my son knows more about Windows than I do, so if he was stuck, I probably would have been also.

Next year I’m going to want to do an install session before the first lab.  (Or, if we go to 2 labs a week, as the first lab.)

On Wednesday, I’ll start with another “do now” question, though I’m not sure what it’ll be on, since I’ve not yet gotten to the material for this week’s lab: how a microphone works. I’ll do a tiny bit of gnuplot (just the “fit” command) and try to get through how a microphone works and an idealized i-vs-v plot for the FET output of the microphone.

Today’s class went much better than last Friday’s.

I took the advice one of the students gave me last we and started with a “do now” question.  (She had actually suggested an “exit ticket”, but I don’t have the time management skills to leave a block of time at the end of class.)  The question I asked was a design task that was easy if you knew what you were doing, but subtly harder than the standard sort of text-book question, because it was a design question, not an analysis question:

You have sensor whose resistance varies from 1kΩ to 4kΩ with the property it measures.  Design a circuit whose output voltage varies from 1v (at 1kΩ) to 2v (at 4kΩ).

I gave the students 10 minutes to work on this at the beginning of class.  A good question to prompt discussion (according to the peer instruction blogs and websites) should be answerable by 30–80% of the students.  More than that and the question was too easy to be useful, and less than that and the question is too hard for peer discussion to be worthwhile.  It turned out that no one had gotten it after 10 minutes (too hard to use as a peer instruction question), so we used it as the basis for a class discussion.

Almost everyone realized that the desired circuit was a voltage source and a voltage divider (not too surprising, since that’s the only circuit they’ve used so far).  The majority also realized that the variable resistor had to be on the lower leg, between the output and ground, and a couple of the students could articulate why.  I suggested the common heuristic of trying extreme values (0 and ∞) for the variable resistor, to see whether the output voltage would go up or down as the resistance changed.

The students were then able to set up the simultaneous equations to solve for the input voltage and the fixed resistance.  The hole in everyone’s thinking when working on the problem initially is that they had not considered the voltage of the source as a design parameter to solve for, though one student had asked about it. This was the blind spot I was expecting, so I was able to use it as a teachable moment.  After we had the equations set up using mainly student input, I gave the students another minute or two to solve them, and about half the class was able to solve them correctly in the time provided. (I suspect that everyone could have if given enough time, but I didn’t want to take any more time in class—those who didn’t solve it in class could practice their algebra at home if they needed to.)  One student had made an algebra or arithmetic mistake, and gotten a source voltage smaller than one of the desired output voltages.  This was also a good mistake to get, since we could use it to talk about sanity checks on results.

I think that the 20 or so minutes of class was well spent, as we uncovered several important misconceptions, and raised awareness of all unspecified variables as potential design parameters, reasoning using extreme values, and the usefulness of sanity checks.

After that, we spent some time discussing different temperature sensors.  From the students, I got thermistor, infrared thermometer, mercury thermometer+camera, and enzyme + other sensor (pH, conductivity, color, …). I added RTD, silicon band-gap, and thermocouple to the mix.  We talked a little about the advantages and disadvantages of each. At the end, I also threw in bimetallic strips and tilt switches for one-bit digitization of temperature.  I wonder how many students will look at the thermostats in their apartments and try to figure out what sensor they include.

For the remainder of the class, we talked about gnuplot commands, particularly the “plot” command.

After class, several of us went over to the lab, where my son met us and helped the students install the DataLoger, python, pyserial, the Arduino environment, and gnuplot.  While he was doing that, I borrowed an Uno R3 Arduino board and made sure that all the computers in the labs had the drivers installed for it.  We had 2 installation failures: on one Windows laptop, my son was unable to get the serial ports to work and one Mac laptop couldn’t install gnuplot.

The problem with the gnuplot installation on that Mac was not solvable by the techniques in the comments for Installing gnuplot—a nightmare, because all the methods there assume that you can install the command-line tools “make” and “gcc”.  The Mac had 10.6.8 installed, but the student had never bothered to install the development tools and had lost the original CD-ROM with the Xcode tools on it.  The Apple Developer site does not provide the command-line tools for anything older than 10.7.3.  The only workaround we could find was to download the 4.1GByte complete Xcode suite for OS 10.6.8, which I was not willing to wait around for. (Other students with 10.6.8 had no trouble installing gnuplot, because they already had the command-line tools, though they’d never used them.)

I did not look at the problem on the Windows machine (the student had to leave for class before I became available), but I don’t know that I could have done anything—my son knows more about Windows than I do, so if he was stuck, I probably would have been also.

Next year I’m going to want to do an install session before the first lab.  (Or, if we go to 2 labs a week, as the first lab.)

On Wednesday, I’ll start with another “do now” question, though I’m not sure what it’ll be on, since I’ve not yet gotten to the material for this week’s lab: how a microphone works. I’ll do a tiny bit of gnuplot (just the “fit” command) and try to get through how a microphone works and an idealized i-vs-v plot for the FET output of the microphone.