[time-nuts] uC ADC resolution (was: Poor man's oven)

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi,

What papers would you recommend reading?

One of the things that we experimented on and improved was the passive 
wall to prohibit quick cooling of oven. A puff of air or the forced 
convection (fans) needed for other electronics would tie the metal 
shield very well to surrounding environment. Using a simple plastic 
wall/box as a windshield has a quite drastic effect at the rate of 
change in temperature, and allowed the oven to react better to it.
It has proven a very good strategy to reduce the systematic effect that 
eats up stability. As systematic effect, it should not be part of ADEV, 
but if you ADEV it is there loud and clear.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 06/11/2017 04:45 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote:
> Hi
>
> One of the bigger  unknowns in all this is how tight your control point needs to be held
> in order that your crystal only sees 0.1C. So far we have sort of assumed that the
> control point and the crystal see the same thing. That’s never the case.
>
> If the outside temperature goes from -30 to +70 (100C range), a 0.1 C change would
> be a thermal gain of 1,000. A +/- 0.1 C change would be a thermal gain of 500. Both
> are pretty respectable numbers for a basic single oven.
>
> It is not at all uncommon to see references to “0.0001C temperature control” (or some
> looney number) on ovens that obviously do not have a thermal gain  of much over 100.
> Yes, those references were a lot more common 40 years ago than they are today. The
> take away is that often set point control is much tighter at the sensor than at the crystal.
>
> It is not uncommon for people to ask “what is the control at a constant ambient (room
> conditions maybe). The answer is inevitably a very small change. If your room varies
> by 1 C and you have a thermal gain of 1,000, the oven changes by 0.001C. If your room
> changes by 0.1 C then the oven would change by 0.0001 C. Inevitably the phrase “plus
> circuit noise” needs to be added in there somewhere as the numbers get ever smaller.
> ADEV is a more common way to look at controller noise than TC.
>
> As I keep pointing out, there are some good papers on all of this. I claim absolutely
> no original insight  in any of the above.
>
> Bob
>
>> On Jun 10, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> albertson.chris at gmail.com said:
>>> I say "effective" because we can dither the low order bits to gain maybe 6
>>> effective bits form 4 real bits (we can filter the switching noise from a
>>> low frequency dither)
>>
>> It's hard to filter low frequencies and the more bits you gain by dithering
>> the lower the filter you need and the closer in the spurs move.
>>
>>
>>> Lets say my goal is regulation within 0.1C.  After filtering I have 10
>>> "good" bits in my ADC.  That is 1024 counts.   My set point is S.
>>
>>> I scale the ADC so that 0 == (S - 0.5) and 1023 == (S + 0.5)    This means
>>> that each ADC count is 0.001 degree C and within the 0.1C range there are
>>> 100 ADC counts.
>>
>> That's not enough to describe the system so you can decide if it will meet
>> your 0.1C goal.
>>
>> You also need to know the sampling rate, the delay time from heater to
>> temperature sensor, the PID parameters, and maybe the rate of change of the
>> environmental temperature and the delay from the environment to your system.
>> ("delay" should probably be transfer function or impulse response but a
>> simple exponential is probably good enough.)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>