October 25th, 2012, 06:09 PM

Prg calculate T from Rntc
Please read the comments:
/* Find the NTC temperature when Rntc is measured*/
// R in ohms T value at 0,5,10,15 in บC
//R0 = 27335; R5 =22146 ; R10 = 17941 ; R15 =14719
/*********************ffm Oct 2012********************************/
/* You well may ask
....having equation Rntc = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+27335.25....
Why not use the inverse equation T = f(Rntc) ?
This f(Rntc) turns out to be a monster with cubic terms. No No.
My question: T value last iteration and T value in foundT: often differ by 0.1 degree
Any good guru got an answer? Please.
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
float Rntc,T=4;
int n, c = 1,ADC;
printf("Introduce number of loop iterations:(say 200) ");
scanf("%d", &n); // It is assumed that n >= 1
printf("\n");
printf("Introduce an ADC o/p value for Rntc\n ");
printf("( Valid values range 14500 to 28000 ) ");
scanf("%d", &ADC);
print: // label
Rntc = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+27335.25 ;
printf("R is %.0f\n",Rntc);
printf("T is %.1f\n",T);
printf(" c is %d\n",c);
//Rntc==R
T=T+0.1;
if (Rntc < ADC)
goto foundT;
c++;
if (c <= n)
goto print;
foundT: printf("\n");
printf("ADC o/p is Rntc > %.0f ohms\n",Rntc);
printf("Giving T as %.1f degrees C\n",T);
printf(" c is %d\n",c);
getch();
return 0;
}
October 25th, 2012, 09:41 PM

You have a thermistor and you want to interpolate temperature given the resistance which you measure. Plotting this data I see that it looks fairly linear but slightly concave upward. Call this file a
Code:
#Ohms dC
27335 0
22146 5
17941 10
14719 15
Code:
gnuplot> plot 'a'u 2:1w l,19.67*x*x1136.15*x+27335.25
This quadratic looks really good.
So why don't you just find the roots of the quadratic equation?
Rntc = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+27335.25
Example, you measure 20000 ohms. What is the temperature?
20000 = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+27335.25
Subtract 20000 from each side
0 = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+7335.25
Use quadratic equation to find the temperatures at which this is true.
T = (b +/ Sqrt[b^2  4 a c])/(2 a)
a is 19.67
b is 1136.15
c is 7335.25
Or we simply feed
Solve[0 == 19.67*x*x1136.15*x+7335.25,x]
into Wolfram alpha.
giving 7.4058 or 50.355 degrees.
[code]
Code tags[/code] are essential for python code and Makefiles!
October 25th, 2012, 09:59 PM

Furthermore, "inverting a quadratic" won't give a cubic equation. What you (or whomever) did was to fit a cubic equation through the 4 points, which I didn't verify but know full well is almost certain to be absolutely stupid between the data points. That's why cubic splines do something else.
If, instead, we find a best fit quadratic equation that expresses temperature as a function of resistance, we come up with
Code:
T = 45.5979  0.00256762 * R + 3.29445e8 * R * R
When I evaluate this at 20000 Ohms I get 7.42 degrees C which varies from the result of my previous post by 2 hundredths of a degree.
Here's the work in executable Iverson notation
Code:
R=: 27335 22146 17941 14719 NB. resistances
T=: 0 5 10 15 NB. corresponding temperature
T%.R^/i.3 NB. best fit quadratic coefficients
45.5979 _0.00256762 3.29445e_8
f=:(T%.R^/i.3)&p. NB. verb f evaluates the polynomial
f 20000 NB. f 20000 Ohms gives 7.42331 dC
7.42331
[code]
Code tags[/code] are essential for python code and Makefiles!
October 26th, 2012, 02:51 AM

Prg calculates T from Rntc
Many thanks amigo b49P23TIvg for your time spent in giving such an in depth reply.
Maths of NTC thermistors
As you know much better than I do the maths that come with relating
thermistor resistance to the temperature are a bit horrible.
The simplest relation in wiki , and many equivalent simplifications
could be...
Steinhart Hart simplified
1/T = 1/T0 +1/B ln (R/R0)
This is where my poor grasp of C + my poor grasp of all but the most basic maths gave me cold feet.
But life goes on .
The best R vs T fit I could find with the freeware prg graph, was exponential , and not good.
Yet, you can tame the curve by chopping it into small bits, say every 5 degrees.
Let me digress before returning to the bit wise approach.
The project could be to measure temperature in the range 0 to 100 degree C, with a resolution of 0.1 บC
Here we need something that depends on some invariable law of he universe, a pyrometer
based on the defunct Mr Planks Law: ( sic transit gloria)
Sadly Vishay only offers as its best NTC line and pricey 1%,
and even worse tables of T vs R only every 5degrees.
The data come with their 10k product NTCLE413428 10K 1 % B3435 K.
Bit wise approach to following a curve.
Now we come to the crunch.
To interpolate with a certain amount of accuracy between 5 degree steps
a linear division might not even be accurate to one degree.
My approach to improve resolving the data points curve into something edible
was based on the pleasant surprise discovery .
That for small 15 degree parts of the curve, it was possible to fit a quadratic
equation.
Not the same equation, but I found that four ***equations 0 to 60 degrees
adjusted very well to the data supplied by Vishay.
Objective one was covered,
I could now relate R vs T with reasonable accuracy.
Accuracy? Well for me, 0.25 degree steps was / is just fine.
***
Well using a PIC I have a 10 bit ADC, which will let me resolve 1024 steps.
Sounds great, unfortunately here we don't want to go astray and confuse
Resolution with Precision..
Resolution being here 15degrees / 1024 = steps of 14.648e3
Precision? who knows!
Getting back to the quadratic equations
As b49P23TIvg has pointed out , the formula invented by another
long forgotten gentleman in India has TWO solutions, two roots.
In the calculation for Rntc = 20k
we get 7.4058 or 50.355 degrees. ( I take your word )
I have a problem with this , not the precision, but rather how do I know
which is correct,? both fall in the 0 to 100 degree C range.
That is why I looked for a method where as T increases
the equation R = 19.67*T^21136.15*T+27335.25
stops its testing when it just passes 20000
Logically it will never go through the 50.355 value
as the equation is only valid, and the module dimensioned
for 0 to 15 degrees C.
In fact we can with a view to confirming, not bettering
the result, step T from 0 to 15 halting at T1,
and then step T from 15 to 0 halting at T2
We get a mean value of (T1 +T2) / 2
Another way of looking at the elimination of the 50.355 result
is that we are covering an input R range of 27335 to 14719.
So here the 50.355 value is not possible.
On the other hand, using the quadratic formula will save
a lot of processing time, so maybe some one can see a test
condition to find the right root :)
My original question was why do I get two results
differing by 0.1.
I see this on the list when the module is run.
I'm not worried about precision ( 0.25 degree is fine )just
curious as to why the C routine shows these two results?
As I said in the beginning, C is not my strong point,
I normally program embedded micro controllers in Assembly
Bye and thanks
Fred
Madrid
October 26th, 2012, 09:51 AM

October 26th, 2012, 12:47 PM

บบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบบ
Please, my question is very simple.
When I run the subroutine in the thread opener, and with this snippet we are approaching the final value for T
In the console I see
R is 17078
T is 11 .2
c is 153
R is 17008
T is 11 .3
c is 154
R is 16939
T is 11 .4
c is 155
ADC o/p is Rntc > 16939 ohms
Giving T as 11.5 degrees C
c is 155
The R is the same, the C is the same
but T is both 11.4 and 11.5.
Q1 Can I ask as a newbie, what is happening in this
particular loop ?
Q2 which of the two values for T is correct?
Bye and thanks
October 26th, 2012, 01:23 PM

See comments.
Code:
print:
Rntc = 19.67*T*T1136.15*T+27335.25 ; /* Here you compute Rntc */
printf("R is %.0f\n",Rntc);
printf("T is %.1f\n",T);
printf(" c is %d\n",c);
//Rntc==R
T=T+0.1; /* Here you change the value used to compute Rntc (violating the correspondence between T and Rntc) */
if (Rntc < ADC) /* Here you decide if Rntc is close enough */
goto foundT;
[code]
Code tags[/code] are essential for python code and Makefiles!