Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12.
Put the data in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.

Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008Tˆ’2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.

Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008Tˆ’2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen
1) That deviation is *after* the fix in the standard equation. In fact,
the fit is better if C=0.
2) The "noise" 1s due to roundoff error in the presented table data and
is to be expected; if it was not there or a lot smaller, the nsomething
would definitely be wrong with the data.
3) Take that C term, -4.183e-12 and multiply it by 200C^3...and all of a
sudden get about -3.35e-5 which looks terrible on a graph WRT to my
"corrected" graph, as that gets multiplied by R0=100 ohms, for a value
of 3.3mohms.
When one starts without an expensive standard, and wants to make
reasonable accurate temperature measurements, then a RTD is the way to
go, and use the tables as the reference "standard".
So, how do you make a correction without a standard??
Do you derive the lead resistance from the tables?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:26:25 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.

Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008?T??2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen
1) That deviation is *after* the fix in the standard equation. In fact,
the fit is better if C=0.

Well, unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I see _no_ error
other than round-off, no "fix" required.

Umm... note that coefficient C is
only non-zero for the range -200°C = T = 0 :

For 0 = T = 850°C, the equation is

Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:26:25 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.
Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008?T??2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen
1) That deviation is *after* the fix in the standard equation. In fact,
the fit is better if C=0.

Well, unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I see _no_ error
other than round-off, no "fix" required.

Umm... note that coefficient C is
only non-zero for the range -200°C = T = 0 :

For 0 = T = 850°C, the equation is

Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
I Pete again (repeat): Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07,
C=-4.183e-12.
Nobody states that a C=0 is to be used in any temperature region.
I found the error at 220C which is slightly less than 850C; and for
the limited temp range from 20C to 220C the third term (as given) gives
an R value that is increasingly incorrect when compared with the given
table.
Now it might be that the error will eventually go toward zero at 850C
using all 3 terms.
It is possible that more terms would be needed, assuming the table is
precisely correct, in order to have a curve that fits better.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:10:29 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:26:25 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.
Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008?T??2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen
1) That deviation is *after* the fix in the standard equation. In fact,
the fit is better if C=0.

Well, unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I see _no_ error
other than round-off, no "fix" required.

Umm... note that coefficient C is
only non-zero for the range -200°C = T = 0 :

For 0 = T = 850°C, the equation is

Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
I Pete again (repeat): Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07,
C=-4.183e-12.

Nobody states that a C=0 is to be used in any temperature region.

Oh, on the contrary, you'll find that _every_ correct reference (and
there are many) will state that.

If you're going to insist on using the wrong equation for the
temperature range (on the basis that you've found one incorrect or
incomplete reference?), you've got to expect errors in the results.

For example, Minco says:-

-200 to 0: Rt = R0 * (1 + At + Bt^2 + Ct^3(t-100)
0 to 850 : Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)

TI, Keithey, Honeywell.. same thing, perhaps slightly re-arranged.
IEC 751 standard!



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:10:29 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:26:25 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:17:16 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Start with the tables available from the Minco.com site.
Pick and print a table for Platinum:PE TCR=3.85e-3, R0=100,temp range
20C to 220C inclusive.
Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07, C=-4.183e-12. Put the data
in a spreadsheet and do an XY error curve, tabular data
VS equation.
Note that i had to fiddle with B and C to get a reasonable fit, and
one is challenged to get two digits of significance for C.
See attached pic of error giraffe.
Interesting giraffe. Were you bragging about the goodness of fit or
complaining about it?

I see that your ±.00005 ohm deviation is well within the tolerance for
even IEC 751 Class A 100 ohm Pt RTDs, at ±(.06+.0008?T??2E-7(T^2)) ohms -
less than 0.1% of the allowable tolerance.

It looks like you either have measurement data in your tables, with
measurement noise (rather than tables reconstructed from equations LMS
fitted to measurement data), or perhaps just round-off error.

I have used the equations (or as many terms of it as were useful for my
range), and then done a two point calibration against two temperature
standards near the ends of my measurement range with the actual RTDs to
be used, for final equation adjustment on a per-RTD basis, when setting
up temperature monitoring for test purposes where better than 1 C
accuracy was desired. The accuracies expected without individual sensor
calibration make the bounce in your giraffe seem pretty much irrelevant.

Regards,
Glen
1) That deviation is *after* the fix in the standard equation. In fact,
the fit is better if C=0.
Well, unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I see _no_ error
other than round-off, no "fix" required.

Umm... note that coefficient C is
only non-zero for the range -200°C = T = 0 :

For 0 = T = 850°C, the equation is

Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
I Pete again (repeat): Minco indicates A=0.0039083, B=-5.775e-07,
C=-4.183e-12.

Nobody states that a C=0 is to be used in any temperature region.

Oh, on the contrary, you'll find that _every_ correct reference (and
there are many) will state that.

If you're going to insist on using the wrong equation for the
temperature range (on the basis that you've found one incorrect or
incomplete reference?), you've got to expect errors in the results.

For example, Minco says:-

-200 to 0: Rt = R0 * (1 + At + Bt^2 + Ct^3(t-100)
0 to 850 : Rt = R0* (1 + A*T + B*T^2)

TI, Keithey, Honeywell.. same thing, perhaps slightly re-arranged.
IEC 751 standard!



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
With regard to Minco, nope!
GOTO http://www.minco.com/tools/sensorcalc/rtd/default.aspx
Selecting element code PE Platinum 100 ohms at 0°C 0.00385 Nominal
IEC curve but looser tolerance (5-100):
Equation Type: Callendar Van-Dusen
Standard Values
A 0.0039083
B -5.775E-07
C -4.183E-12 ----*

And, at the top of the table, no matter what valid range you give, is:
Temperature Vs. Resistance
PLATINUM : PE TCR = 3.85e-3

R0 = 100

A = 0.0039083 B = -5.775E-07 C = -4.183E-12

This info was transfered via cut and paste.
I did not bother to look at your other "references", as Minco clearly
makes no indication like what you stated.
**
Honeywell: NOPE! See page three of their PDF at
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing...log/c15_89.pdf
No indication of the buggered equation you gave; just the same
equation that Minco gives.
**
Keithey: Found only info with regard to their equipment measuring
RTDs or have/use RTDs but NO INFO on RTD curves; I give that reference a
SORRY, no tuna tonight!
**
TI: Similar lack of direct RTD data info, only instrumentation; I
also give that reference a SORRY, no tuna tonight!
**
Sorry! Give direct references that all can see!

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:06:39 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

With regard to Minco, nope!
GOTO http://www.minco.com/tools/sensorcalc/rtd/default.aspx

Yes, that refers to the Callendar-Van Dusen equation. Did you look up
what the Callendar-Van Dusen equation actually *is*?

Sign up and get their white paper as their catalog suggests. It's all
in the

"Resistance Thermometry: Principles and Applications of Resistance
Thermometers and Thermistors"

In that white paper, PDF page 4, the table shows the two equations for
the two temperature ranges.

Selecting element code PE Platinum 100 ohms at 0°C 0.00385 Nominal
IEC curve but looser tolerance (5-100):
Equation Type: Callendar Van-Dusen
Standard Values
A 0.0039083
B -5.775E-07
C -4.183E-12 ----*

And, at the top of the table, no matter what valid range you give, is:
Temperature Vs. Resistance
PLATINUM : PE TCR = 3.85e-3

R0 = 100

A = 0.0039083 B = -5.775E-07 C = -4.183E-12

This info was transfered via cut and paste.
I did not bother to look at your other "references", as Minco clearly
makes no indication like what you stated.



Honeywell: NOPE! See page three of their PDF at
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing...log/c15_89.pdf
No indication of the buggered equation you gave; just the same
equation that Minco gives.

Don't know how you missed this: "Both beta = 0 and C = 0 for T0°C"
right under the chart.

**
Keithey: Found only info with regard to their equipment measuring
RTDs or have/use RTDs but NO INFO on RTD curves; I give that reference a
SORRY, no tuna tonight!

http://www.keithley.com/data?asset=4440

PDF page 5.
For T0°C, the b term can be ignored and the equation becomes
quadratic


**
TI: Similar lack of direct RTD data info, only instrumentation; I
also give that reference a SORRY, no tuna tonight!

"
http://www.analogzone.com/acqt_052807.pdf
Top of the second page (PDF doesn't allow copying)


**
Sorry! Give direct references that all can see!

Above are four, but also:
http://forums.labjack.com/index.php?showtopic=1273
"C = -4.183 E -12 (below 0 C), or
C = 0 (above 0 C)"

and this one, which someone else already gave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_thermometers

(the two equations are given under "Standard resistance thermometer
data"

And this
http://www.uniteksys.com/Graphics/CalVan.pdf

And this (NI)
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/Sensors/an046.pdf
" For temperatures below 0° C only; C = 0.0 for temperatures above 0°
C."


Crikey. Are EIGHT correct references insufficient to convince you?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:06:39 -0800, the renowned Robert Baer
wrote:

With regard to Minco, nope!
GOTO http://www.minco.com/tools/sensorcalc/rtd/default.aspx

Yes, that refers to the Callendar-Van Dusen equation. Did you look up
what the Callendar-Van Dusen equation actually *is*?

Sign up and get their white paper as their catalog suggests. It's all
in the

"Resistance Thermometry: Principles and Applications of Resistance
Thermometers and Thermistors"

In that white paper, PDF page 4, the table shows the two equations for
the two temperature ranges.

Selecting element code PE Platinum 100 ohms at 0°C 0.00385 Nominal
IEC curve but looser tolerance (5-100):
Equation Type: Callendar Van-Dusen
Standard Values
A 0.0039083
B -5.775E-07
C -4.183E-12 ----*

And, at the top of the table, no matter what valid range you give, is:
Temperature Vs. Resistance
PLATINUM : PE TCR = 3.85e-3

R0 = 100

A = 0.0039083 B = -5.775E-07 C = -4.183E-12

This info was transfered via cut and paste.
I did not bother to look at your other "references", as Minco clearly
makes no indication like what you stated.



Honeywell: NOPE! See page three of their PDF at
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing...log/c15_89.pdf
No indication of the buggered equation you gave; just the same
equation that Minco gives.

Don't know how you missed this: "Both beta = 0 and C = 0 for T0°C"
right under the chart.

**
Keithey: Found only info with regard to their equipment measuring
RTDs or have/use RTDs but NO INFO on RTD curves; I give that reference a
SORRY, no tuna tonight!

http://www.keithley.com/data?asset=4440

PDF page 5.
For T0°C, the b term can be ignored and the equation becomes
quadratic


**
TI: Similar lack of direct RTD data info, only instrumentation; I
also give that reference a SORRY, no tuna tonight!

"
http://www.analogzone.com/acqt_052807.pdf
Top of the second page (PDF doesn't allow copying)


**
Sorry! Give direct references that all can see!

Above are four, but also:
http://forums.labjack.com/index.php?showtopic=1273
"C = -4.183 E -12 (below 0 C), or
C = 0 (above 0 C)"

and this one, which someone else already gave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_thermometers

(the two equations are given under "Standard resistance thermometer
data"

And this
http://www.uniteksys.com/Graphics/CalVan.pdf

And this (NI)
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/Sensors/an046.pdf
" For temperatures below 0° C only; C = 0.0 for temperatures above 0°
C."


Crikey. Are EIGHT correct references insufficient to convince you?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Lemme add: http://rdfcorp.com/anotes/pa-rtd/pa-rtd_02.shtml
How some ever, that Keithly reference, page 5 near the bottom first
gives the FULL equation, all 3 terms, then states: "For T0°C, the b
term can be ignored and the equation becomes quadratic."
Note the word "CAN", which implies that it could be left in, nicht var?
The difference at 200C is not much..

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:53:51 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:


Lemme add: http://rdfcorp.com/anotes/pa-rtd/pa-rtd_02.shtml
How some ever, that Keithly reference, page 5 near the bottom first
gives the FULL equation, all 3 terms, then states: "For T0°C, the b
term can be ignored and the equation becomes quadratic."
Note the word "CAN", which implies that it could be left in, nicht var?
The difference at 200C is not much..

Indeed. "SHOULD" not "CAN".