|
|
| Author |
Message |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 08 August 2010, 16:09 PM Post subject: Expanded scale voltmeter |
|
|
Let me pick your brains, once again, please. Here's the simplest no-calibration expanded scale voltmeter I can think of. Is this likely to work?
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
3.88 KB |
| Viewed: |
4797 Time(s) |

|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 08 August 2010, 19:09 PM Post subject: Expanded scale VM |
|
|
It can be done a little simpler. All in series, 10V zener, resistor, meter. Three parts. Make the resistor a pot to calibrate.
Not as accurate as what you had, but for battery levels it should be good enough...
Tom W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 08 August 2010, 19:32 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't want to calibrate. Isn't the Zener temperature sensitive and, running at 1mA, out-of-spec? A JFET could be used as a constant current load, but it still would need a pot for calibration, no?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 08 August 2010, 21:08 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| GTBecker wrote: | | I don't want to calibrate. Isn't the Zener temperature sensitive and, running at 1mA, out-of-spec? A JFET could be used as a constant current load, but it still would need a pot for calibration, no? |
I thought you were looking for simple...
Yes, all diodes are temperature sensitive, as is the voltage regulator. A 78L05 is spec'ed to be from 4.8-5.2V to start with, and is about +/- 5% over the temp range. You first circuit had two regulators, so double those values. Of course that is worst case and they are usually better than that.
How accurate does it have to be? What are you going to measure? I was assuming a 12V battery in your boat.
In your first circuit in order to be more accurate, you would have had to subtract the internal resistance of the meter movement from the 5K resistor too.
By adding a few more components you could increase the accuracy a little in my suggested circuit. You could put a (e.g. 5K) resistor across the meter to increase the minimum current through the zener, and if memory serves me correctly one or two regular diodes in series with the zener will make the temp coefficient better. The Zener (Above 5.6V) is positive, and a forward biased silicon diode is negative.
So I guess I am saying you could add a few passive components to the circuit and make it better. You can order precision zeners and use 1% resistors too.
So it depends on how good you want the circuit to be, and what you are going to do with it.
Tom W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 08 August 2010, 23:56 PM Post subject: |
|
|
You're right about tolerances, of course. Every time I've looked at one, the 7805-regulated rail of a project has been something like 4.98v or 5.03, within a percent or so - warm or cool. They seem to be generally well within the +/- 5% error quoted in specs, and they have internal temperature compensation. Still, you're right that the theoretical worst-case error in my circuit would be 10% if the meter resistance (200 ohms, as it happens) is considered in its 5k series resistance.
A single calibration pot in the meter resistance wouldn't be sufficient, I think, since that will only correct full-scale - and not the offset. A proper solution would also need to set the total subtracted voltage to 10v.
Yes, this is for the boat so it isn't terribly critical. I've installed four shunts to allow monitoring charge currents and voltages from the primary shorepower charger and the alternator, and load currents and voltages from two independent battery banks.
I was looking for a simple but still reasonably accurate method with parts on hand. Most accurate ones use two opamps and two pots to set offset and gain, more than I care to build.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 09 August 2010, 3:33 AM Post subject: |
|
|
How's this? It should satisfy us both, I think. I don't have a 317L, but I've got 317s. Still, I'll build the 78L05 version first to see how it does without calibration.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
4.59 KB |
| Viewed: |
4776 Time(s) |

|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 09 August 2010, 11:17 AM Post subject: Expanded scale meter |
|
|
| GTBecker wrote: | | How's this? It should satisfy us both, I think. I don't have a 317L, but I've got 317s. Still, I'll build the 78L05 version first to see how it does without calibration. |
To simplify it, I don't see the need for the negative regulator. Leave it out and adjust the LM317 for 10V. Your original post indicated that you didn't want to make it so complicated...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 09 August 2010, 12:07 PM Post subject: |
|
|
No, then the dropout voltage becomes a problem; below Vin=11.5v or so it wouldn't work. Using two regulators eliminates that.
Yup, uncalibrated, simple and accurate were the goals.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 12 August 2010, 19:27 PM Post subject: |
|
|
First feedback:
The simple version, using a 78L05 and a 79L05, with two stock resistors, 2k2 and 2k7 (4k9 sum) and the measured meter resistance of 130 ohms, yields very good accuracy, maybe 2% error, between 10.0v and 14.2v.
Something happens at 14.2v, though; above 14.2v the meter response flattens out some, so 15.0v reads as 14.5, and 16.1v reads as 15.0. I haven't yet determined if this is an electronic error or mechanical.
Tom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 12 August 2010, 20:01 PM Post subject: Expanded scale voltmeter |
|
|
If you have time, I'd like to see how the simplest circuit works in comparison. The one with a 10v zener, resistor and meter in series. Don't mean extra work, just curious...
On 8/12/2010 3:27 PM, General wrote: | Quote: | First feedback:
The simple version, using a 78L05 and a 79L05, with two stock resistors, 2k2 and 2k7 (4k9 sum) and the measured meter resistance of 130 ohms, yields very good accuracy, maybe 2% error, between 10.0v and 14.2v.
Something happens at 14.2v, though; above 14.2v the meter response flattens out some, so 15.0v reads as 14.5, and 16.1v reads as 15.0. I haven't yet determined if this is an electronic error or mechanical.
Tom
Tom
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bowcam
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 12 August 2010, 20:31 PM Post subject: |
|
|
If I can find a 10v Zener here, sure; otherwise it'll need to wait for my next parts order. I think I have a pair of 5.1v Zeners, and I think that's a stocked part in the Radio Shack "force-feed" drawers.
Tom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 13 August 2010, 2:36 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Most odd.
The two regulators behave as expected with the meter disconnected. When the meter movement or a 120-ohm dummy load is connected, though, the inverted negative regulator fails to subtract 5v from its input voltage when the input exceeds ~-14.2v. I see no oscillation and no bypass cap placement helps.
Maybe it needs more than a 1mA load? If that's so, why does it appear to track with no load?
[edit] Indeed, adding 1k5 to the 79L05, Com to Out, solves that problem. That adds a ~5mA load.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
4.25 KB |
| Viewed: |
4722 Time(s) |

|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 13 August 2010, 21:09 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| Have you tried larger values for the 1.5K resistor? How about adding a resistor to the 7805 as well. Maybe 10K on each of them perhaps?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
twesthoff
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
|
|
Posted: 13 August 2010, 21:34 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at the 78L05 data sheet closer it says:
"Note 4: Recommended minimum load capacitance of 0.01μF to limit high frequency noise."
Also both regulators are not working as they were intended and that is to source current. These are both being asked to "sink" a little less than 1 ma.
So in "theory" (as far as I can tell) for this circuit to work correctly you should have a 5K resistor from output to gnd on both regulators, and at least a .01uf cap too.
It also says in the data sheet that if the input leads are greater than 3 inches long there should be a minimum of 0.33uf from input to gnd as well. In your application, my guess is that the wires are a lot longer than 3" from a filter capacitor. You did say you didn't see any oscillations, but it is better to be safe...
Tom W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GTBecker
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 457
Location: Cape Coral
|
|
Posted: 13 August 2010, 22:05 PM Post subject: |
|
|
OK, here are Zener results.
| Code: | Indicated Actual w/no load Actual w/51ohm load Actual w/MPF102 load
10.0v 5.73v 9.19v 8.39v
11.0 9.35 11.33 11.12
12.0 10.84 12.44 12.19
13.0 12.10 13.53 13.21
14.0 13.24 14.62 14.20
15.0 14.41 15.71 15.24
|
The 51-ohm resistor load draws ~50mA at 2.5v (12.5v indicated), the specified Iz of the 1N4733A. The MPF102, configured as a constant-current load, drew essentially no current at 10.4v indicated, ~5mA at 11.4v indicated, ~8mA at 12.4v indicated, and ~9mA above that; this suggests that the Zener is operating at the knee at the low end, where regulation is poor, and perhaps that a different FET would work better. Without an FET load on the Zener the results are very poor.
Loaded with an MPF102 with its gate tied to its source, however, the results are pretty good - except, again, at the low end. I thought that might be due to using the equivalent of a 10.4v Zener instead of a 10.0v Zener. To see what difference that might make, I tested again using 10.4v, 11.4v... points.
| Code: | Indicated Actual w/MPF102 load
10.4v 10.35v
11.4 11.62
12.4 12.64
13.4 13.66
14.4 14.67
15.4 15.63
|
Again, there is a problem at the low end, but above 11 volts the error is consistent and small enough to be corrected with mechanical zeroing of the meter, I think, but that will worsen the 10v error. Loading the Zener harder might also reduce the indicated voltage and, perhaps, raise the knee so the low-end error is less, but I think the simple Zener solution will be problematic below 11 volt or so. I both heated the Zeners and FET with a heat gun well above any reasonable temperature, and cooled them with ice, and saw only ~0.1v change so there is no practical concern with temperature.
The dual-regulator solution is, by comparison, much better; there is essentially no visible error, once the 14.2v deal was corrected with a small load. Since there is nothing apparent to improve, adding a load to the 78L05 can't help. Adding a resistance from the 79L05 output to ground is effectively loading to its input since it operates upside-down, and that does not work, I found; it pins the needle low throughout the range. I did add a 0.1uF cap to the input out of caution but, except at very low input voltages (< ~6 volts), with long input lines even without that cap, there is no hint of instability.
The two regulators can be placed face-to-face, as it happens, so wiring them lead-to-lead is exceedingly simple and, packaged in shrink tubing, the circuit mounts to the meter terminals easily.
So, I'll stick with the dual regulators and I see no need for calibration, at least with the components I used.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
3.05 KB |
| Viewed: |
4708 Time(s) |

|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|