Maker Pro
Maker Pro

low cost thermocouple DAQ that works with ubuntu linux tia sal22

R

ratullloch_delthis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greetings All

I'm looking for a recommendation for a low cost thermocouple DAQ that works with ubuntu linux.
Can someone recommend one. I'm trying to record temperture measurements over time.
tia sal22
 
D

DA

Jan 1, 1970
0
DA had written this in response to
http://www.electrondepot.com/electr...hat-works-with-ubuntu-linux-tia-s-103208-.htm
:

ratullloch_delthis wrote:

If it's low cost you're after, it would be hard to beat TEMPer USB (
http://www.amazon.com/TEMPer-USB-Thermometer-w-Alerts/dp/B002VA813U )
which Amazon sells for ~$13 but you can use eBay search skills to find one
for for $7 shipped (from Hong Kong tho - need to wait ~2 weeks to get it
here in US) you'd be limited to -40C to +120C range tho

As far as working with Ubuntu (or other Linux flavors for that matter), it
shows up as a HID (Human Interface Device) and there is a Perl library
(Device::USB::pCSensor::HidTEMPer) you can use to poll it.

-------------------------------------
/_/
((@v@))
():::()
VV-VV



##-----------------------------------------------#
Delivered via http://www.electrondepot.com
Electronics Enthusiasts' Community of the Ne
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.repair,sci.electronics.basics - messages and counting
##-----------------------------------------------##
 
B

Bob Masta

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greetings All

I'm looking for a recommendation for a low cost thermocouple DAQ that works with ubuntu linux.
Can someone recommend one. I'm trying to record temperture measurements over time.
tia sal22

I can't help with the Linux part, but maybe you can use some
circuits I developed for my Windows-based Daqarta system.
There is a simple temperature to frequency converter at
<http://www.daqarta.com/dw_kkee.htm>. It uses an LM335
temperature sensor plus an LM331 V-F, powered from a 9V
battery.

Besides the schematic and design formulas, there is a link
there to a printable board layout if you want to roll your
own. There is also a link to an ExpressPCB board layout
that you can modify and/or submit to ExpressPCB to have them
make the boards. (I have no connection to ExpressPCB, but
their software seems to have an easy learning curve, and is
free for non-commercial use.)

Note that all this assumes you have Linux software that can
measure frequencies. (Daqarta does that in Windows, plus
provides calibration for direct temperature readout in C or
F, including negative readings.)

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!
 
R

Rich Webb

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thermocouples are really really horrible temperature sensors--almost as
bad as ICs. Their advantages are small size, relatively low cost, and
(potentially) high speed, but their disadvantage is that it's really
hard to get good measurements.

One reason for this is thermal conduction down the leads (which is a big
problem for most temperature sensors). There's a worse one, though:
due to their very low sensitivity, thermocouples are extremely
vulnerable to errors caused by offset drift in the circuitry. See
Figure 20.3 on P. 803 at http://electrooptical.net/www/book/draftthermal.pdf

"Thermocouples generate a voltage related to the temperature difference
between two junctions of dissimilar metal wires, and are a pain in the
neck. ... For less specialized applications, avoid thermocouples
like fleas."

Okay, now I'm going to *have* to buy that book!
 
T

tuinkabouter

Jan 1, 1970
0
Op 30-11-2010 20:15, Rich Webb schreef:
"Thermocouples generate a voltage related to the temperature difference
between two junctions of dissimilar metal wires, and are a pain in the
neck. ... For less specialized applications, avoid thermocouples
like fleas."

Okay, now I'm going to *have* to buy that book!

Thermocouples are very linear and can messure upto 2320 degrees celsius.

Nice table in the dutch wiki page.
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/wiki/Thermokoppel>
 
G

Glen Walpert

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Thermocouples generate a voltage related to the temperature difference
between two junctions of dissimilar metal wires, and are a pain in the
neck. ... For less specialized applications, avoid thermocouples like
fleas."

Okay, now I'm going to *have* to buy that book!

Yes, that is a good one, and I can't argue with Phil's assessment of TC
accuracy, but "You can learn all you ever wanted to know about them from
the Omega Engineering catalogue." is true only if you have no interest in
how they actually work (as opposed to how to use them) or how to make a
really good low drift TC measurement system with accurate CJC and high
immunity to EMI, for instance.

There are many trade-offs in sensor selection, and thermocouples excel in
temperature range and durability as well as (sometimes) speed. A TC can
be smashed flat with a hammer and suffer no loss in accuracy until the
wires break, or welded to metal parts for excellent thermal contact with
the part being measured, for instance. Try that with a thermistor :).
 
B

Bob Masta

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thermocouples are really really horrible temperature sensors--almost as
bad as ICs. Their advantages are small size, relatively low cost, and
(potentially) high speed, but their disadvantage is that it's really
hard to get good measurements.

One reason for this is thermal conduction down the leads (which is a big
problem for most temperature sensors). There's a worse one, though:
due to their very low sensitivity, thermocouples are extremely
vulnerable to errors caused by offset drift in the circuitry. See
Figure 20.3 on P. 803 at http://electrooptical.net/www/book/draftthermal.pdf

Not to mention that they involve a reference junction for
which you must know the temperature. Unless you have an ice
bath handy, this involves an independent non-thermocouple
sensor like a thermistor, diode, or IC. So just use that
instead! (Unless you need really high temperatures.)

One good thing about TCs is that they don't need typically
calibration... they are supposed to conform to a standard
for the TC type (J, K, R, S etc). You just measure the
output voltage, correct for the reference junction
temperature, and look up the temperature for that voltage.
Accuracy is typically +/-2 degrees C. But the voltages are
really small: 1 mv or less at room temperature (0.10 mV
for R or S types).

I'd say, save the thermocouples for the really hot stuff.
For "normal" temperatures (say, freezing to boiling water
ranges), you can get much better precision and accuracy, not
to mention convenience, from an IC.

Best regards,





Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!
 
G

Glen Walpert

Jan 1, 1970
0
You can solder RTDs down, which is about the same thing. And the
circuit details aren't really information about the _sensor_--any
sufficiently poor sensor will have those problems.

I've used thermocouples reasonably often, generally running inside an
evaporator or someplace like that, and attached to a Fluke thermocouple
thermometer with built-in cold junction compensation. That was probably
good to a couple of degrees, which was all I really needed, especially
since I didn't have to replace the TCs, so the measurements correlated
pretty well over time.

From the perspective of your book - temperature stabilization of electro-
optical components - I agree completely that thermocouples should
generally be avoided like fleas. From my perspective, with a background
in power plant control, thermocouples and RTD's are the rule and
thermistors the rare exception.

What really irks me about Omega is that their "Thermocouple Introduction
and Theory" section is actually a "thermocouple introduction and
completely bogus theory". Correct theory can be found at:
<http://www.electronics-cooling.com/Resources/EC_Articles/JAN97/
jan97_01.htm>

And better yet is another article which I can no longer find on the web,
which I will post on ABSE with thread title "thermocouple theory article"
in case anyone is interested.

Glen
 
H

hamilton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hmm, that link sends me to "Microthermal imaging in the infrared"
Nothing about thermal couples?

George H.
Did you fix the wrap ??
 
T

TheQuickBrownFox

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not too impressed with the Electronics Cooling article. The
thermoelectric effect is treated as magic--the two integrals at the
beginning of the article just integrate the magic along the length of
the wire without explaining anything. There's some useful applications
advice, but there's some pure nonsense, e.g. saying that 20 wire
diameters' worth of lead length is enough to get a good measurement of
gas temperature. The ratio of the wire's thermal conductance (in W/K)
to its surface area goes as diameter/(length**2), so for a given
accuracy, the required lead length goes as the square root of the wire
diameter.

I agree that Omega isn't the best place to look for the actual physics
of thermocouples, but they do have nice pictures. Anyway, that physics
is more or less bottomless...you can stick with classical thermodynamics
and use the grand canonical ensemble, but then you get into actual solid
state physics and have to worry about things like the density of states
differences in different crystal orientations, and then you get into the
real quantum mechanics of disordered systems stuff. As I said,
bottomless, and although I talk a good game, my actual solid state
physics expertise goes about ankle deep. (I did take graduate solid
state from Walt Harrison, who is the biggest wildman in all of
theoretical sold state physics, but didn't pay enough attention. Same
with graduate statistical mechanics.)

I'm not the worst offender, though. A lot of the explanations you hear
about physics have as much merit as the Friday afternoon stock market
guy 'explaining' what happened on Wall Street that week. The idea that
an electret mic is a variety of capacitance mic is one example, and
almost anything mentioning 'surface states' and 'traps' is another.
It's not that traps and surface states don't exist, but they're very
commonly used as a cloak for ignorance--understandably, since real solid
state measurements are hard, and tend to involve ultrahigh vacuum.

All of that said, for instrument purposes delving into the fine details
of thermocouples is putting lipstick on a pig. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Take a look at this month's (or maybe last month's) Linux Journal.

It has an article in it about data logging and controlling a fridge
from Linux using a Linux embedded device meant for an entirely different
purpose.
 
B

Bob Masta

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:01:33 -0500, Phil Hobbs

I'm not the worst offender, though. A lot of the explanations you hear
about physics have as much merit as the Friday afternoon stock market
guy 'explaining' what happened on Wall Street that week. The idea that
an electret mic is a variety of capacitance mic is one example... <snip>

OK, I'll bite: What's wrong with explaining electrets as
permanently polarized capacitance mics? Are you saying
that this is *not* the basic concept, or that it just
doesn't go deep enough to do justice?

Like the various "electricity as a flowing liquid"
analogies, sometimes a flawed analogy can nevertheless help
get a basic concept across... as long as it's clear that it
is an analogy and not an equivalence.

Best regards


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!
 
S

Sum Ting Wong

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:01:33 -0500, Phil Hobbs



OK, I'll bite: What's wrong with explaining electrets as
permanently polarized capacitance mics? Are you saying
that this is *not* the basic concept, or that it just
doesn't go deep enough to do justice?

Like the various "electricity as a flowing liquid"
analogies, sometimes a flawed analogy can nevertheless help
get a basic concept across... as long as it's clear that it
is an analogy and not an equivalence.

Best regards


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!


Well, that was masta-fooly stated...


What goes up, must come down...

Spinning wheels, got to go 'round...
 
T

TheQuickBrownFox

Jan 1, 1970
0
Greetings All

I'm looking for a recommendation for a low cost thermocouple DAQ that works with ubuntu linux.
Can someone recommend one. I'm trying to record temperture measurements over time.
tia sal22


Here is one way...

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10809?page=0,0

Another is to buy a cheap $30 Harbor Freight multimeter that has a
serial or USB port on it, and then hack at the output streams from within
Ubuntu, if there is no actual Linux app.

Usually, there are only windows applets for that stuff, but you could
run that in a window within Ubuntu as well. If DOS applets are available,
you could then simply use DOSBox, if it can see the serial or USB
ports.
 
I

I AM THAT I AM

Jan 1, 1970
0
If all you need is a degree or two's accuracy near room temperature,
almost any method will work. IC temperature sensors are generally
fairly putrid--slow, inaccurate, and noisy.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Resistor bolometer 2 mm sq, 2 mm behind probably a Ge window (in a
little to-39 pkg) at whatever needed distance behind a half inch diameter
plastic Fresnel lens with some nice read circuitry and LCD display with
read and hold mode, etc., and a little laser focal point spotter.

Pretty damned good accuracy from every test I could put it through,
from new batteries, all the way down to both cells being dead... the
damned thing reads. (obviously the data cell is not completely dead at
that point)

$20 at Harbor Freight.

http://www.harborfreight.com/infrared-thermometer-93984.html
 
I

I AM THAT I AM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Some of those things are pretty useful--microbolometers have come a
really long way. Consistency is not the same as accuracy, though, and
all sensors relying on radiation are (a) vulnerable to emissivity
variations, and (2) slow, at least compared to an RTD or thermistor (or
thermocouple).

Temperature control lives and dies by loop bandwidth, just like every
other control system. Slow sensors ==> poor control. Inaccurate
sensors ==>poor control. Fast, accurate sensors plus intelligent sensor
placement, insulation to reduce thermal forcing, thermal grounding of
leads, .... ==>good control.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


IR sensors are faster, and that includes a bolometer. There is zero
settling time, and emissivity will not be a factor, because just like
your sensor, this would be "placed" the same every time. Accuracy is
dead on, if it was calibrated right in the first place as the circuitry
is usually VERY linear and very accurate if any linearization corrections
are needed, they are usually hard wired in. I'll bet that it even has
ambient compensation built into a single custom MCU/do-it-all chip.
Things we had to engineer in with discreet components back when the
finished product was $500.

Well, it was precision lab instrumentation outputs. All the Harbor
Freight item has is a readout.

I'll bet that it can be relied on to plus or minus 0.3 degrees though.

They range from about 1.5 us to about half a second in response time.

It probably takes a typical TC junction a tenth of a second to settle
through with a 'bead' size of about .75 to 1 mm.
 
I

I AM THAT I AM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you really have to use thermocouples? They are the hardest way to
measure temperature. I prever the Analog Devices AD590 series, I think
there is also a plastic-package version, the AD592. They are a
2-terminal sensor, where current is proportional to absolute
temperature. So, room temperature is 20 C or 293 K, so it conducts a
current of 29.3 uA.

Jon

They can have long soak times, lengthening response time. If that is a
factor.

IR is much faster and just as accurate and repeatable, and especially
so if the usage is meant to look at the same target constantly.

Why folks shy away from IR thermometry is beyond me.
 
I

I AM THAT I AM

Jan 1, 1970
0
0.3 degrees is nowhere near close enough for instruments.

I never said that it was. I am talking about the device I posted a
link to. The devices I used to make, twenty years ago were far more
accurate than that, so they have gotten even better since. That has
nothing to do with this cheap cen-tech device for consumer use.
For
industrial control, that would often be just fine.

Usually not.
However, you
massively underestimate the contribution of emissivity error.

Not at all. All the operator need to do is make the needed
compensations for his readings. Again it comes down to operator
understanding.

So IF you had said it is very easy to forget about emissivity, you
might be closer to being right. Instead you make a blanket claim that I
do not know about emissivity, which is untrue.
Radiation coupling is very poor at room temperature--a vacuum gap
between two surfaces of unit emissivity is equivalent to the thermal
conductivity of about 5 mm of air. (I once had occasion to calculate
that for a sensor design.) That means that the same sensor in intimate
contact with the given surface would be at least an order of magnitude
faster, and probably two orders.

That is silly. IR is instant. it travels at light speed. The
thermocouple has to soak up the temperature it is sensing, and it has to
settle in at that temperature. That takes time because metal does not
conduct heat through itself instantaneously. The IR device gives an
accurate reading within milliseconds of viewing the target.

IR and the air gap between it and what it reads has no such restriction
because the air AND the bolometer do NOT need to be brought up to the
test temperature.
Optical pyrometry also doesn't work too well through insulation. ;)
Another KNOWN factor. However, my cheap device still tells me the wall
temp of my room from 12 feet away just as well as it does from an inch
away. It works fine.
 
Top