Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering
ElectronicsKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Electronics Forum / Design / August 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Not-too-conductive material

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Scott - 24 Jul 2008 20:50 GMT
I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
time constant to indicate water level in a reservoir.  The resistance is the
effective resistance between two conductive probes partially covered with water.
The trouble is when the water is any more than 2 inches deep, the resistance is
so low that the PIC cannot source that much current directly from a digital
output - not without severely dropping the applied voltage.  So I would like the
resistance to be higher.  I tried replacing the solid metal probes with very
thin bare wire (wire-wrap size).  That helped a little, but the resistance is
still too low.  What I would really like is to make the probe out of a material
that has much less conductivity - about 100K for a 6-inch length.  I can
consider placing a coating on a plastic substrate, but only if that coating is
rugged enough to stand up to occasional cleanings with a damp rag.  Can anyone
suggest a good probe material for this purpose?

Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Spehro Pefhany - 24 Jul 2008 21:30 GMT
>I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
>PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Robert Scott
>Ypsilanti, Michigan

There are resistive inks, some of which can be cured at relatively low
temperatures, but you'd have to evaluate them for your application.

Eg.
http://www.conductivecompounds.com/docs/HTC-350%20CARBON%20FILLED%20INK.pdf

Why not just put a fractional cent resistor in series? It will help
protect the CMOS MCU as well.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

RST Engineering (jw) - 24 Jul 2008 22:51 GMT
If you can find an old-fashioned graphics supply house, the pencil leads
(graphite) for the old 8" mechanical pencil might just work.  You certainly
have enough "mixes" of graphite in pencil lead to try a few and see if it
will work for you.  You *will* have trouble connecting wires to the
graphite.

I'm also not sure if you are measuring the "resistance" of the water between
the probes.  If so, you'd best be absolutely sure that the water is going to
have precisely the same impurities in it every time or your readings will be
useless.  And, if it is distilled enough to be "pure" water the readings
will be infinite at any water level.

Jim

Signature

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
       --Aristotle

>I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using
>a
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan
jrwalliker@gmail.com - 24 Jul 2008 23:10 GMT
I'm sure a similar question came up recently...

Anyway, you could consider dipping a pair of insulated wires (with
thin insulation) into the water, each of them looped so that both ends
are above the surface, and fixed a constant distance apart.  The depth
of the water will cause the capacitance between the wires to vary.  In
conjunction with a high value resistor you can make an oscillator and
measure the frequency with the PIC.

This method avoids corrosion and will be much less affected by
impurities in the water than trying to measure the resistance between
two bare metal electrodes.  Consistent resistance measurements with dc
are almost impossible because the electrodes become polarised by an
unpredictable amount depending on many variables.  AC resistance
measurements are better, but still hard to do accurately.  Capacitance
measurements have a good chance of being repeatable.

John
ehsjr - 25 Jul 2008 04:17 GMT
> I'm sure a similar question came up recently...
>
> Anyway, you could consider dipping a pair of insulated wires (with
> thin insulation) into the water, each of them looped so that both ends
> are above the surface, and fixed a constant distance apart.  The depth
> of the water will cause the capacitance between the wires to vary.  

Yes!  I did an experiment 2 weeks ago with a piece of Romex.
I hot glued one end of a piece 6" long to insulate it, and
hot glued it to the inside of a plastic container 5" tall.
With the cap meter connected I added water - and got 1 pF per
inch change in the reading.  I did that several times with the
same result.

I still need to experiment with changing the temperature of
the water to see whether it changes the capacitance, but the
method you suggest shows promise, from both a logical and an
experimental perspective.

Ed

> In
> conjunction with a high value resistor you can make an oscillator and
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> John
Phil Hobbs - 25 Jul 2008 15:09 GMT
>> I'm sure a similar question came up recently...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Ed

Cute.  It will drift over time, though, because plastic is permeable to
water.  Metal and glass are much better, so if you can get some glass
tubing and fuse it around a piece of wire, you'll have a much more
stable capacitance probe.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
ehsjr - 26 Jul 2008 04:38 GMT
>>> I'm sure a similar question came up recently...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Phil Hobbs

Thanks!  I'll have to try that.  The experimentation is a
variation on another experiment where I was using a PTO
to measure tide height.  A "bit awkward" mechanically -
a large coil (42" long) with a threaded rod in the center.
The frequency alters as the rod penetrates the coil
more or less with tide height change.  It measured
well for the 36" that was required, accurate to within
1 inch. (3" accuracy is the requirement).  But I can imagine
crud and corrosion will ruin the thing, and it is mechanically
unwieldy.

But I figured it could be as simple mechanically as
affixing a piece of romex (or similar) to an existing
pier and measuring the capacitance.  That's what
prompted the initial "probe" experiment.  I didn't
know about plastic being permeable to water, so
you've saved me some aggravation as the experiments
proceed!

Ed
Den - 26 Jul 2008 14:02 GMT
>>>> I'm sure a similar question came up recently...
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Ed

Sounds like this would do the job:

http://www.unidata.com.au/products/water/6521/
ehsjr - 27 Jul 2008 17:49 GMT
>>>>>I'm sure a similar question came up recently...
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> http://www.unidata.com.au/products/water/6521/ 

Thanks - nice link!

Ed
Spehro Pefhany - 25 Jul 2008 02:55 GMT
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:51:44 -0700, the renowned "RST Engineering
\(jw\)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote:

>If you can find an old-fashioned graphics supply house, the pencil leads
>(graphite) for the old 8" mechanical pencil might just work.  You certainly
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Jim

I measured a 0.5mm Pentel mechanical pencil lead and it was only a few
ohms for a couple of inches. No way that's getting up to 100K.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

RST Engineering (jw) - 25 Jul 2008 05:40 GMT
For what hardness?

Jim

Signature

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
       --Aristotle

> I measured a 0.5mm Pentel mechanical pencil lead and it was only a few
> ohms for a couple of inches. No way that's getting up to 100K.
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany
Spehro Pefhany - 26 Jul 2008 14:19 GMT
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:40:39 -0700, the renowned "RST Engineering
\(jw\)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote:

>For what hardness?
>
>Jim

Probably HB. Measuring two other samples (Staedtler 0.5mm HB micro
carbon, and Selectum (Taiwan brand, bought there) 0.5mm HB) I get
around 5 ohms for a couple of inches.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Signature

"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Robert Scott - 25 Jul 2008 03:26 GMT
Regarding the capacitance method:  The normal insulation on regular hookup wire
is too thick to generate an easily-measured capacitance.  I would need to get
into the RF spectrum to do it (I've tried), and this device is too
cost-sensitive to allow it.

As for calibrating for differences in the water, I have that taken care of.
Periodically, the reservior is filled to the top.  A third go/no-go probe tells
me that.  At that time I take a time constant measurement and associate it with
the full state.  The water I will have to measure will always contain some ionic
impurities, so I don't have to worry about non-conductive water.

From the experiments I have done so far, the effective resistance between the
probes depends very little on how far apart the probes are, and much more on the
total conductive surface area in contact with the water.

And Spehro, how did you measure the .5mm pencil leads?  I also measured the same
size leads and got more like 100 Ohms for a few inches.  I found that DC
measurements are invalid because of the DC offsets that appear from ionic
activity.  But if you use true AC measurements, that should get rid of those
offsets.  At least it did for me.

Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan
bill.sloman@ieee.org - 25 Jul 2008 05:56 GMT
> Regarding the capacitance method:  The normal insulation on regular hookup wire
> is too thick to generate an easily-measured capacitance.  I would need to get
> into the RF spectrum to do it (I've tried), and this device is too
> cost-sensitive to allow it.

Have you tried it with enamelled wire (transformer wire)? The enamel
is only a few microns thick  (4 to 10 micron).

http://www.enameledwire.com/iecspecifications.aspx

but you will want the spacing between the wires to be comparable with
their diameter.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Dave Platt - 25 Jul 2008 06:01 GMT
>Regarding the capacitance method:  The normal insulation on regular hookup wire
>is too thick to generate an easily-measured capacitance.  I would need to get
>into the RF spectrum to do it (I've tried), and this device is too
>cost-sensitive to allow it.

How about enamel (Formvar, Polyvar, whatever...) insulated magnet
wire?

>From the experiments I have done so far, the effective resistance between the
>probes depends very little on how far apart the probes are, and much more on the
>total conductive surface area in contact with the water.

How much spatial (vertical) resolution do you need?

If the answer is "not very much" you could fabricate the probes out of
a thin rectangle of PCB material (something water-resistant) with a
series of pads etched into it, and solder down to the pads a whole row
of SMT resistors (in effect, connected head-to-tail).  You'd get a
discrete step in resistance each time the water rose high enough to
bridge a resistor.  Choose the resistance per step to suit your needs.

Some sort of silk-screened conductive ink might also be a possibility?

Signature

Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org>                                   AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
 I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
    boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Robert Scott - 25 Jul 2008 12:36 GMT
>..you could fabricate the probes out of
>a thin rectangle of PCB material (something water-resistant) with a
>series of pads etched into it, and solder down to the pads a whole row
>of SMT resistors (in effect, connected head-to-tail).  You'd get a
>discrete step in resistance each time the water rose high enough to
>bridge a resistor.  Choose the resistance per step to suit your needs.

Yes, that would give me enough resolution.  But this probe may need to be
cleaned occasionally with a damp rag.  Chip resistors would catch on the rag.
--unless I put the resistors on the back side of the PCB and put vias to the
pads that touch the water on the other side.  But a PCB is still not the ideal
form factor.  Something shaped like a dowel would be easiest to clean.

As for the range, it is 6 inches from full to empty.  The resolution only needs
to be . 5 inches.

Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Dave Platt - 25 Jul 2008 22:20 GMT
>>..you could fabricate the probes out of
>>a thin rectangle of PCB material (something water-resistant) with a
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>As for the range, it is 6 inches from full to empty.  The resolution only needs
>to be . 5 inches.

Oof.  At that resolution I'm not sure I'd bother using a resistance
type of sensor at all.  I'd probably just run a bunch of individual
sense wires down the inside of a rod to little contact on the rod
surface, and use CMOS inverters or something like that to detect a
discrete open/closed state for each.

Or, if you still want to use resistance sensing methods, here's a
possible way to fabricate it which will give you an easily-cleaned,
waterproof sensing rod.  

Get yourself a block of Plasticene.  Reshape it into a rectangle 8"
long or so, a couple of inches thick, and a couple of inches wide.
Press an acrylic dowel/rod around 3/4" in diameter halfway down into
it and then pull out the rod, leaving yourself with a trough as long
as you need.

Buy a box of "escutcheon pins" at your local hardware store... they
look like short round-headed brads made out of brass.  Even better
would be round-headed copper pins, if you can find them, or silver-
plated PC-board turrets.

Push a series of escutcheon pins, head-down, gently into the bottom
of the trough in the plasticene... just deeply enough for the head to
stick in the plasticene and not fall over.  Place one every half-inch
or so (at your desired resolution).

Mix up, and pour into the trough, just enough epoxy (or polyester)
resin to cover the heads and first parts of the shafts of the
escutcheon pins.  Allow to harden... this will hold the pins in place
during the next part of the procedure.

Trim and shape the leads of a bunch of 1/8-watt resistors (leaded, not
surface-mount), and then go down the length of the rod, placing each
resistor between adjacent escutcheon pins and bendings its leads
around the pin to hold it.  Crimp the leads gently into place with
needle-nose pliers.

When all of the resistors are in place, either solder them quickly to
the pins (use an active rosin solder, as brass can be hard to solder),
or apply a dab of silver-bearing conductive epoxy and allow it to
harden.  Also, solder a wire lead to the pin at one end of the trough
and run it up out of the trough.

When you're done, measure the resistance from the wire lead to each
pin in sequence (making sure that the contacts are OK).  When you're
satisfied, mix more epoxy or polyester resin, and fill the trough up
to the top (covering the ends of the pins, and encapsulating the
resistors).  Allow to harden.  Remove from the plasticene.  Clean off
the slightly-projecting round heads of the escutcheon pins.

Signature

Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org>                                   AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
 I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
    boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

linnix - 25 Jul 2008 04:50 GMT
> I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
> PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan

How about several 10K resistors in series?  As the water level rise,
it will short out the lower Rs but keeping the upper Rs.
Martin Griffith - 25 Jul 2008 13:10 GMT
>> I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
>> PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>How about several 10K resistors in series?  As the water level rise,
>it will short out the lower Rs but keeping the upper Rs.
Put the 10K's in series above the max water line, and have vertical
tracks going downwards from each junction, make the tracks stop at
different heights.( or depths)

martin
Rich Grise - 28 Jul 2008 21:57 GMT
> I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor
> using a PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> coating is rugged enough to stand up to occasional cleanings with a damp
> rag.  Can anyone suggest a good probe material for this purpose?

Don't use resistive probes for water level. If you totally insist on
doing it electronically (i.e., no sight glass, no floats, no nothing?)
then use a capacitive sensor - two concentric pipes with a little gap
between them, and measure their capacitance - it should be directly
proportional to the water depth; I think water's dielectric constant
is a lot more predictable than the water's conductivity would be.

Good Luck!
Rich
RST Engineering (jw) - 28 Jul 2008 22:34 GMT
Or two flat plates held together with nylon hardware and a nylon washer
separating the plates at each screw.

Jim

> Don't use resistive probes for water level. If you totally insist on
> doing it electronically (i.e., no sight glass, no floats, no nothing?)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Good Luck!
> Rich
bill.sloman@ieee.org - 31 Jul 2008 04:55 GMT
On Jul 29, 7:34 am, "RST Engineering \(jw\)" <j...@rstengineering.com>
wrote:
> Or two flat plates held together with nylon hardware and a nylon washer
> separating the plates at each screw.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > proportional to the water depth; I think water's dielectric constant
> > is a lot more predictable than the water's conductivity would be.

Rich's concentric pipes are potentially a lot better shielded than two
flat plates (particularly if the outer pipe is grounded).

Three flat plates (with the two outer plates grounded) is even better,
and has the advantage that the plates can be double-sided printed
circuit boards, with the bridge-driving and monitoring circuitry on
the middle board (preferably out of the water and embedded in a
tolerably water-resistant encapsulent).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
LVMarc - 10 Aug 2008 22:50 GMT
> I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
> PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan

If this is for a commercial project please contact me, I can supply
probes molded in a robust metal and offer a resistance that you can "RC"
for water detection.
Marc
Don Klipstein - 11 Aug 2008 00:24 GMT
>> I am designing a very cost-sensitive and low-power water level sensor using a
>> PIC microcontroller.  The idea is to run pulse an RC network and measure the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>probes molded in a robust metal and offer a resistance that you can "RC"
>for water detection.

 Keep in mind how the conductivity of the water will vary with
temperature.  Also, you should know how much or how little you have
variations of concentration of substances in your water that affect its
conductivity.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.