finding electronics design and fabrication expertise for a project

There are a number of consultants with that sort of expertise who post fairly regularly. For instance:

Joerg Schulze-Clewing:

Tim Williams:

and me:

None of us works for free, so it'll depend on your budget. I've recently done something like that for a group at Notre Dame (a nanoamp laser noise canceller board).

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Are you looking for volunteer work or can you pay for it?

In the latter case, well, probably half of us here do consulting in exactly that sort of thing; you just need to find someone who's available and who either has the breadth of talent you need, or has a network of professional acquaintances to fill in the gaps.

In the former case, your life is harder. You can try to get someone to do the work pro-bono. If your university is sufficiently flexible about senior projects you can try to get the design done with a series of such

-- but you'd need to have a team of at least two kids each from the EE and ME programs, with at least one prof from each, and you'd have to keep your fingers crossed that the results would work.

-technical question.

ation of, or adaptation of existing, environmental pollutant sensor element s for a particular application. I am interested in finding people who might have expertise in circuit design, integration, fabrication, and packaging to help create deployable devices. Ultimately, I anticipate having several hundred of the devices made.

support this effort, and there is no Maker-type group in my area.

re groups of enthusiasts who might be interested in helping? Are their cons ultants who could provide assistance?

Design expertise can come from anywhere, it is the fabrication that will be critical.

I apologize if this is off topic for this group, as it is primarily a non-technical question.

I am working on a project that has an important element involving the creation of, or adaptation of existing, environmental pollutant sensor elements for a particular application. I am interested in finding people who might have expertise in circuit design, integration, fabrication, and packaging to help create deployable devices. Ultimately, I anticipate having several hundred of the devices made.

Unfortunately, my university does not have the personnel or resources to support this effort, and there is no Maker-type group in my area.

Do you know of sources for this type of expertise and assistance? Are there groups of enthusiasts who might be interested in helping? Are their consultants who could provide assistance?

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

-gyro

You might give us a hint as to what planet you reside on. That could prove important in the construction phase.

It is the Internet after all.

That's one way to put it I guess.

Yes, to the OP, THIS IS SCI.ELECTRONICS. (umm what ? )

With no details, you get no answers. Actually some may help for free here, but nobody is going to do a whole design for nothing. Helping with certain (hopefully interesting) aspects of it, well some will. Just for the hell of it.

Yes, OP would catch alot more flies with the sugar of details than the vinegar of obscurity.

Thank you and Phil Hobbs for your helpful replies.

The funding for the project (and for consultants) will depend, in part, on the success of pending external grant applications.

Because the work will likely have a significant positive impact on the heal th of many people, I am looking for options so that the project can move fo rward even if the grants are not funded. Thus, creative ideas, like having senior design students become involved, are greatly appreciated.

I know that for a variety of reasons (e.g., kindness, the opportunity for a challenge, to satisfy intellectual curiosity), some people could potential ly contribute to some extent, but I am certainly not expecting anyone to pr ovide substantial help free of charge.

Regarding the lack of details in my question, I fully appreciate that no co ncrete *technical* suggestions could be made. I have a pretty good idea of the functionality and characteristics I would like for the device and have read about some of the existing component and sensor technologies; however, I did not think it would be productive at this stage to present my uninfor med perspective about the electronics involved.

Thank you again for the constructive input.

-gyro

Thank you, Tim Wescott and Phil Hobbs, for your helpful replies.

The funding for the project (and for consultants) will depend, in part, on the success of pending external grant applications.

Because the work will likely have a significant positive impact on the heal th of many people, I am looking for options so that the project can move fo rward even if the grants are not funded. Thus, creative ideas, like having senior design students become involved, are greatly appreciated.

I know that for a variety of reasons (e.g., kindness, the opportunity for a challenge, to satisfy intellectual curiosity), some people could potential ly contribute to some extent, but I am certainly not expecting anyone to pr ovide substantial help free of charge.

Regarding the lack of details in my question, I fully appreciate that no co ncrete *technical* suggestions could be made. I have a pretty good idea of the functionality and characteristics I would like for the device and have read about some of the existing component and sensor technologies; however, I did not think it would be productive at this stage to present my uninfor med perspective about the electronics involved.

Thank you again for the constructive input.

-gyro

When I was a senior, we got a fairly reasonable grant from the IEEE to for design some hardware for the handicapped. It certainly wouldn't have paid a consultant to get out of bed but it was enough to keep a few college kids in parts. ;-)

I'll design review it for you. It's good to have an outside party check things, to avoid silly mistakes.

n the success of pending external grant applications.

alth of many people, I am looking for options so that the project can move forward even if the grants are not funded. Thus, creative ideas, like havin g senior design students become involved, are greatly appreciated.

a challenge, to satisfy intellectual curiosity), some people could potenti ally contribute to some extent, but I am certainly not expecting anyone to provide substantial help free of charge.

concrete *technical* suggestions could be made. I have a pretty good idea o f the functionality and characteristics I would like for the device and hav e read about some of the existing component and sensor technologies; howeve r, I did not think it would be productive at this stage to present my uninf ormed perspective about the electronics involved.

Hmm, Well you can get probono advice here, but you'll have to pick and choose among the answers. The best is to tell us as much as possible, What you've looked at, what you want to do, etc.

George H.

concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

Well, we consider air to be transparent. You are looking for pollutatnts ? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get down on it, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then there a re pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have to be det ectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent upon just exactle what you want to detect.

Carbon monoxide for example, there are off the shelf solutions for that. Bu t those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not totally s ure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other than CO ? )

Problem is, this is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Like an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it removes

gen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

Detect what IS there, or detect what is NOT there ? That is the question. I f you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could measure it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is against you .

Like say distortion in an audio amp. Oh, it's 0.05 % or whatever. It would be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG figure f or cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters per kilome ter. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If you got 2

Really, specifics are of the essence here. You could build such a sensor th at will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, for about ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no problem. If yo u are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But when you look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

o concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get down on i t, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then there are pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have to be d etectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent upon jus t exactle what you want to detect.

But those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not totally sure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other than CO ?)

ke an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it remove

rogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

If you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could measu re it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is against y ou.

d be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG figure for cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters per kilo meter. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If you got 20 MPG, well you got 0.05 GPM.

that will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, for abo ut ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no problem. If you are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But when yo u look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

Thank you for your thoughts on the subject; they are appreciated.

It turns out that the most relevant pollutants in the geographic region I a m considering are particulates.

Based on the kind replies here, I will start a new thread (something like ' air pollution particulate sensor package') and post some details based on w hat I know at this point.

As I mentioned, I don't expect anyone to conduct a full design study, but p erhaps just give some advice based on expertise and experience.

I will likely be putting together another grant proposal for this work, so may be in a position to include a specific budget item for an electronics c onsultant.

-gyro

o concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get down on i t, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then there are pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have to be d etectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent upon jus t exactle what you want to detect.

But those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not totally sure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other than CO ?)

ke an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it remove

rogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

If you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could measu re it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is against y ou.

d be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG figure for cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters per kilo meter. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If you got 20 MPG, well you got 0.05 GPM.

that will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, for abo ut ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no problem. If you are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But when yo u look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

Thank you for your thoughts on the subject; they are appreciated.

It turns out that the most relevant pollutants in the geographic region I a m considering are particulates.

Based on the kind replies here, I will start a new thread (something like ' air pollution particulate sensor package') and post some details based on w hat I know at this point.

As I mentioned, I don't expect anyone to conduct a full design study, but p erhaps just give some advice based on expertise and experience.

I will likely be putting together another grant proposal for this work, so may be in a position to include a specific budget item for an electronics c onsultant.

-gyro

If particulate, you should investigate the particle counters used by the Clean Room people. They have particle counters installed to monitor particles' numbers and sizes. Take a look at Class 10 Clean Room for an example.

Can you talk about 'any' of the specifications you're trying to meet. For example, you've said particulate, what range of numbers of particles? what size particles? what volume of air? cost range? physical size? Environmental, like extreme cold or heat or wet? Shock and vibration? vehicle mounted? Are these sensors laced out across a region and then linked into a monitring system including GPS to know where they are and relate that back to system, those kinds of things. Battery life? Squawk feature to find lost ones? etc etc.

I know, I know those are the 'simple' details. The main feature here is that main sensor, the pesky 'particle counter' Now that we know how to do all the easy electronic sensing to yield particle size, number of that size, time slots, etc. anybody working on the mechanical aspects to make a 'self cleaning' vacuum cleaner to suck the air into the mesaurement chamber?

Like an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it

actually a nitrogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

That is actually incorrect. It really does concentrate oxygen via phase change processes.

?-)

I expect he was referring to a zeolite adsorption pressure swing concentrator, which really does concentrate nitrogen.

Condensation of air distills LOX and LN2 directly, however this is more of an industrial process (unless you have a source of LN2 and a need for LOX).

...I feel weird writing LN2 but not also LO2. Go figure.

Tim

-- Seven Transistor Labs Electrical Engineering Consultation Website:

That is actually incorrect. It really does concentrate oxygen via phase change processes.

?-)

no concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

s ? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get down on it, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then the re are pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have to be detectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent upon j ust exactle what you want to detect.

. But those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not total ly sure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other than CO ?)

Like an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it remo

itrogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

n. If you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could mea sure it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is against you.

uld be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG figu re for cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters per ki lometer. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If you g ot 20 MPG, well you got 0.05 GPM.

r that will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, for a bout ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no problem. I f you are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But when you look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

am considering are particulates.

'air pollution particulate sensor package') and post some details based on what I know at this point.

perhaps just give some advice based on expertise and experience.

o may be in a position to include a specific budget item for an electronics consultant.

Gyro, Here's another cut on your task. AFAICT, you are in the process of "selling " your approach to a funding agency. I have done that on a small scale - mayb e 10 million $ total. So as I understand it, you are trying to "get on the beach " technically. As you write the proposal, a time-tested approach is to show t hat your approach (technically) is better than other ones or solves an open problem. Avoid qualifications.

In order to do that, you have to understand the limitations of technology, the detailed issues of how to push the envelope in certain areas, like detectio n and pattern recognition. And there is definitely an issue of "Gee Whiz" the re.

You have to think several levels deep, to anticipate objections and counter them in advance. True, the reviewers may not think of these objections, but you are subtly doing their job for them, doing their thinking for them.

Of course, another issue is to know the pet ideas and thinking of the fundi ng person. We often were in DC for "other business" and just happened to "drop in" to the person's office. (Actually we were there to see him/her.)

Apologies in advance if I have not clearly seen your situation. But if so, I'd be glad to review your proposal under strict NDA.

at no concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

nts ? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get down on it, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then t here are pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have to be detectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent upon just exactle what you want to detect.

at. But those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not tot ally sure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other tha n CO ?)

. Like an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it re

nitrogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

ion. If you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could m easure it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is again st you.

would be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG fi gure for cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters per kilometer. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If you got 20 MPG, well you got 0.05 GPM.

sor that will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, for about ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no problem. If you are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But whe n you look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

I am considering are particulates.

ke 'air pollution particulate sensor package') and post some details based on what I know at this point.

ut perhaps just give some advice based on expertise and experience.

so may be in a position to include a specific budget item for an electroni cs consultant.

ng"

ybe 10

ch"

that

, the

ion

here.

er

ut you

ding

op in"

, I'd

You raise some excellent points and I thank you for your insights. Your poi nt about 'pushing the envelope' is very well taken.

In this case, however, the main proposal under consideration is not so much focused on new sensor development (except insofar as it enables the main o bjective), but in the deployment and monitoring of low-cost 'personal' air pollution monitors. If current, commodity components could be used, that wo uld be fine. I suspect, however, that some innovation (e.g., component inte gration) will be required to meet the objectives.

I have several other projects in which new, novel technologies will definit ely be required. In these cases, I may take you up on your kind offer of a proposal review.

-gyro

that no concrete *technical* suggestions could be made."

atnts ? I would say optical would be the way. If you really want to get dow n on it, split the optical spectrum up a bit. ike UV and IR maybe. and then there are pollutants that are just as tansparent as air. They would have t o be detectd by other means. At that point, the method is VERY dependent up on just exactle what you want to detect.

that. But those solutions only work for one substance. (actually I am not t otally sure of that, are there things that'll set off a CO detector other t han CO ?)

pe. Like an oxygen concentrator, it does not concentrat oxygen. Instead it

a nitrogen concentrator but it discards the nitrogen.

stion. If you could find out how to quantify clean air let's say, you could measure it against it's contaninents. That's a tall order. The math is aga inst you.

t would be unwieldy to express it as 99.95 % pure. In the US we have a MPG figure for cars. In some countries they do it different, how many liters pe r kilometer. Screw the different units, we could use gallons per mile. If y ou got 20 MPG, well you got 0.05 GPM.

ensor that will detect everything but oxygen, nitrogen and whatever else, f or about ten million bucks. If you are looking for smoke, that is no proble m. If you are looking for anyhting specific, it is not all that hard. But w hen you look for EVERYTHING, that is not so easy.

on I am considering are particulates.

like 'air pollution particulate sensor package') and post some details base d on what I know at this point.

but perhaps just give some advice based on expertise and experience.

k, so may be in a position to include a specific budget item for an electro nics consultant.

ling"

maybe 10

each"

ow that

gy, the

ction

there.

nter

but you

unding

drop in"

so, I'd

oint about 'pushing the envelope' is very well taken.

ch focused on new sensor development (except insofar as it enables the main objective), but in the deployment and monitoring of low-cost 'personal' ai r pollution monitors. If current, commodity components could be used, that would be fine. I suspect, however, that some innovation (e.g., component in tegration) will be required to meet the objectives.

itely be required. In these cases, I may take you up on your kind offer of a proposal review.

OK - Are you approaching any agencies for funding? SBIR to EPA/NIH worth a look.