PSN-L Email List Message
Subject: AD7745 (was AD7142 ?)
From: Brett Nordgren Brett3kg@.............
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:48:15 -0400
To see what the 7745 could do, I assumed a balanced sensor with plates=20
spaced 1mm on either side of the moving plate and found I needed an area of=
3.4 cm^2 to best use the range of the 7745 (+/- 4pF). Then I assumed a=20
sampling rate of 50Hz. The biggest issue is that the output is digital and=
that presents some serious problems when you try to design it into a=20
At 09:25 PM 4/12/2006 -0700, you wrote:
> STM wrote as a solution to LVDTs "The common solution is to use a=20
> capacitive bridge transducer, where a moving vane moves between two fixed=
> plates that form a capacitive bridge that is unbalanced by the movement=20
> of the vane. With proper geometry, these can be very sensitive and linear=
> over a range of several hundred microns.
>However, they are difficult to construct and have a working gap of less=20
>than a millimeter, and are prone to off axis sensitivity. They usually=20
>operate at relatively high frequencies, from khz to mhz, which complicates=
>design and implementation problems"
>It looks like the AD device would solve some of these concerns.
>He then goes on to describe the VRDT. I suppose for the VBB sensor this=20
>would greatly simplify the electronic design if one can deal with small=20
Biggest VRDT problem seems to be its low drive frequency. In a feedback=20
design the large demod filters are prime contributors to loop oscillation=20
>I'm not sure about the noise. Does the VBB measure displacements in the 1=
>=B1 nm range?
With the sensor plates above, 1LSB=3D0.08nm. But I think noise is what=20
determines the useful resolution. However 0.3nm / sqrt-Hz and 2.1nm RMS at=
50 SPS isn't too shabby. It would be interesting to assume a seismic-mass=
system and model how this would compare with commercial instruments and=20
earth-noise models. I'm betting it won't look so bad.
>--- Just thinking out loud. I think it greatly depends on what type of=20
>sensing one wants to do local,regional or teleseismic. I like the=20
It would be gread to be able to use this with feedback. No question that=20
you could use it for integral feedback, which mainly works below the low=20
frequency rolloff (say, below 0.011 Hz). You could make an awesome=20
integrator by digital summing, then feed back with a D/A. Mid frequency=20
range (derivative feedback) may not be practical. Although you could keep=
your beam well centered with integral feedback, without derivative feedback=
at higher frequencies, you're limited by the +/- 1.0mm (+/- 0.5 mm max, for=
linearity) sensor gap. I'm suspecting that clipping levels in the=20
mid-frequency range are going to be the biggest limitation.
Many thanks for your inputs,
Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
[ Top ]
[ Back ]
[ Home Page ]