IMAGE:NICHOLAS EVELEIGH; PHOTO
MANIPULATION: LAURA HOFFMAN
|
Chances are, your health and happiness rely on
sensors, those ubiquitous little devices that tell us if
a fridge is too cold, a nuclear reactor's safety systems
are operating, or a factory production line is
processing components correctly. But sensors have a
dirty little secret: it's all too easy for them be in
perfect working order, reporting all is well when, in
fact, your milk is turning into a frozen block, the
reactor's safety system is impotent, and that factory
has filled a warehouse with useless—and possibly
dangerous—products.
Fortunately, help is on the way with a new standard
for analog sensors, the most common kind in use today.
The dirty little secret of sensors is calibration, the
process by which data from a sensor are mapped to
real-world conditions, and the new standard should help
make miscalibration a thing of the past. Miscalibrated
sensors can cause problems ranging in severity from a
wasted morning's research to what happened at the Bruce
B nuclear generating station near Toronto in 2002. There
it was discovered that a backup reactor shutdown system
that had been operating for weeks, in what appeared to
be working order, was actually incapable of catching a
dangerous rise in radiation, owing to an incorrectly
calibrated neutron detector.
Like most standards, the new standard goes by an
unlovely name—in this case, IEEE 1451.4. But 1451.4
marks a huge advance in sensor technology and is already
being applied in research and industrial laboratories.
This new standard marries the tried-and-true robustness
and cost-effectiveness of analog sensors with the
intelligence of digital equipment. Now, what does that
mean in practice? A lot of things—in the long term, one
of the most important aspects of 1451.4 is that it
offers a standard interface and protocol by which a
sensor can describe itself over a network. With the
advent and adoption of intelligent networked and
wireless sensors, the notion of self-identifying devices
may seem fairly elementary, but this has taken more than
a decade to happen with analog sensors. Most
commercially available sensor networks today are based
on proprietary communications protocols, limiting their
usefulness and hampering their adoption. IEEE 1451.4
could change all that.
A single moment of human error can make a sensor
and all the data it gathers worse than worthless
We'll return to the long-term promise of 1451.4, but
for now let's stay with the immediate problem of
calibration. IEEE 1451.4 will eradicate one of the most
common sources of sensor errors today: incorrectly
transcribed calibration information from sensor data
sheets. To understand how these errors arise and why
they're such a big problem, look at how sensors are
traditionally used. Analog sensors typically output a
voltage that is proportional to the magnitude of
whatever it is they've been designed to measure—be it
temperature, pressure, or something more exotic.
Analog sensors persist in a digital world because
they are cheap, extremely reliable, and rugged. Simply
put, they can take a beating that would damage or
destroy a digital sensor that can output a number
describing the measured quantity directly. And punishing
environments—such as the inside of a car engine or the
depths of an oil well—are often exactly the places
where we most want to put sensors.
Although analog sensors are easy to hook up to a data
acquisition system that monitors output voltage,
converting that voltage back into degrees Celsius,
pascals, or whatever else, is trickier. In other words,
when a temperature sensor registers 2.5 volts, we need
to know how to translate that voltage into the actual
temperature, be it 100 °C, 50 °C, or 2500 °C [see
illustration, "Curve
Confusion"].
Until now, the only way to know was by looking up the
sensor's data sheet, a manufacturer-supplied document
that details how to calibrate the sensor correctly.
Someone has to enter information from this sheet into
the data acquisition system, which is usually based on a
personal computer. A single moment of human error here
can make a sensor—and all the data it gathers—worse
than worthless.