Not logged in
Fri Jul 17 18:04:54 2009, Clara, Update, PEM, Guralp Box Fail
Sat Jul 18 19:49:48 2009, rana, Update, PEM, Guralp Box Fail
Mon Jul 20 17:06:29 2009, Jenne, Update, PEM, Guralp Box Fail
Mon Jul 20 17:06:29 2009
In reply to:
Guralp Box Fail
That's terrible: R5 & R8 should definitely be 100 Ohm and not 100kOhm. 100k would make it a noise disaster. They should also be metal film (from the expensive box, not from the standard box). This is the same for all channels so might as well stuff them.
The circuit diagram between TP3 and TP4 appears to be designed to make the whitening not work. That's why R6 & R7 should be 100k. And R2 should be metal film too.
Basically, every time we want good low frequency performance we have to use the metal film or metal foil or wirewound resistors. Everything else produces a lot of crackling noise under the influence of DC current.
I'm also attaching the voltage and current noise spectra for the AD620 from the datasheet. These should allow us to compare our measurements to a reasonable baseline.
While we're comparing things to other things, Ben Abbott just emailed me his measurement of the AD620 from back in the day. Clara's going to use this along with the specs to make sure that (a) we're not taking crazy measurements and (b) our AD620s aren't broken and in need of replacement. In this plot, we're looking at the GOLD trace, which has the AD620 set up with a gain of 10, which is how our AD620's are set up in the Guralp breakout box.
Just picking a single point to compare, it looks like at 1Hz, Ben saw ~130dBVrms/rtHz. Converting this to regular units [ 10^(#dB/20)*1Vrms = Vrms ], this is about 3*10^-7 Vrms. That means that Clara's measurements of our AD620 noise is within a factor of 2 of Ben's. Maybe the way we're connecting them up just isn't allowing us to achieve the ~50nV/rtHz that is claimed.