Sensor Characteristics

  • Jacob Fraden


Since most of stimuli are not electrical, from an input to the output, a sensor may have several energy conversion steps before it produces and outputs an electrical signal. For example, pressure inflicted on a fiber optic pressure sensor, first results in strain in the fiber, which, in turn, causes deflection in its refractive index, which, in turn, results in an overall change in optical transmission and modulation of photon density. Finally, photon flux is detected by a photodiode and converted into electric current. In this chapter, we discuss the overall sensor characteristics, regardless of a physical nature or steps that are required to make energy conversions. Here, we consider a sensor as a “black box” where we concern only with relationships between its output electrical signal and input stimulus. Also, we will discuss the key point of sensing: computation of the input stimulus value from a measured sensor’s electric output.


Transfer Function Standard Uncertainty Input Stimulus Linear Piecewise Approximation Linear Transfer Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Kelley CT (2003) Solving nonlinear equations with Newton’s method, No. 1 Fundamentals of Algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia, PACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Süli E, Mayers D (2003) An introduction to numerical analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stoer J, Bulirsch R (2002) Introduction to numerical analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–106MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suhir E (2007) How to make a device into a product. Accelerated life testing (ALT), its role attributes, challenges, pitfalls and interaction with qualification tests. In: Suhir E, Lee YC, Wong CP (eds) Micro- and opto-electronic materials and structures: physics, mechanics, design, reliability, packaging, vol 2, chap 8. Springer, Berlin, pp 203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Better reliability via system tests. Electronic engineering times, CMP Publication, pp 40–41, Aug. 19, 1991Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CIPM (1981) BIPM Proc.-Verb. Com. Int. Poids et Mesures 49, pp 8–9, No. 26 (in French)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurements (1993) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE (1994) Guidelines for evaluation and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. NIST Technical Note 1297. US Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations