Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

For low EC values, correction gives increasingly negative bulk EC values #3

Closed
danielfppps opened this issue Jan 14, 2023 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@danielfppps
Copy link

The equation suggested gives negative values below around 250 uS/cm.

image

This causes my sensor to give negative readings a large percentage of the time for bulk EC and pore EC values. I would suggest calibration points to include solutions with EC of 0 (distilled water) in media that has no conductivity contribution (rockwool for example) to avoid this problem.

@kromadg
Copy link
Owner

kromadg commented Jan 14, 2023

For sure. I even had/have plans to make a calibration manual with 4 or 5 formulas with different EC (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1) to have more reliable calibration points. Since my data is limited to a few EC ranges from a pot with a real plant.

@kromadg
Copy link
Owner

kromadg commented Jan 14, 2023

I bought more THC-S sensors and I found that's not a very realiable sensor since the measured bulk EC varies between sensors in the same substrate.

Maybe create a method and a simple calc app to solve this:

  • Create calibration solutions with EC 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 measured with a Teros, Acclima or another reliable sensor.
  • A user at his house will create the calibration solutions and will know the difference between his sensor and the one measured by that realiable sensor.
  • He throws his measurements into the calculator app and see what's the cubic polynomial for example he needs to use on his arduino to correct the bulk EC.

@kromadg kromadg added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 14, 2023
@kromadg kromadg pinned this issue Jan 14, 2023
@danielfppps
Copy link
Author

danielfppps commented Jan 16, 2023

I've been doing some experimentation. The method that has worked best, which I think is simplest, is to do a linear calibration of the bulk ec with distilled water (~0 mS/cm) and a solution in the 1-1.5mS/cm range. I got this equation for the bulk_ec for both of my sensors using this method:

soil_ec = 1.93 * soil_ec - 270.8;
soil_ec = soil_ec / (1.0 + 0.019 * (soil_temp - 25));

Then the rest of the equations you used for the pore EC seem to be working fine.

@kromadg
Copy link
Owner

kromadg commented Jan 19, 2023

I've been doing some experimentation. The method that has worked best, which I think is simplest, is to do a linear calibration of the bulk ec with distilled water (~0 mS/cm) and a solution in the 1-1.5mS/cm range. I got this equation for the bulk_ec for both of my sensors using this method:

soil_ec = 1.93 * soil_ec - 270.8; soil_ec = soil_ec / (1.0 + 0.019 * (soil_temp - 25));

Then the rest of the equations you used for the pore EC seem to be working fine.

Great! Thanks for the support Daniel. I will update the code with your changes.

@kromadg kromadg closed this as completed Jan 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants