• the Daily hi thread just say hi :)
  • Welcome to the UK's Most Active Airgun Forum

    Looking for expert advice on air rifles and shooting gear? You have found the internet's premier independent airgun forum. Our active shooting community shares daily technical insights on modular PCP air rifles, spring-powered rifles, air pistols, pellet testing, and optics setup. Whether you are troubleshooting an FX or Daystate regulator, discussing legal FAC requirements, planning a night vision hunting trip, or looking for pest control tips, our members are here to help.

Chrono Calibration

colinb

Super member
Joined
Sep 13, 2022
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
5,858
Points
193
Location
NRxx
I want to assess interest in a project and product. There have been many (partly uninformed) threads bemoaning the fact that a chrono cannot be calibrated. Now I was a calibration design engineer. That is one of the very top levels of Electronics. So trust me.
One type of chrono CAN be easily calibrated. An example is the cheap chinese chrono. Any chrono using LEDs and matched optical sensors can also be calibrated.
So that's what I'm talking about. Not radar chronos. I am suggesting the manufacture and availability of your personal chrono calibrator, simple, cheap, no processors, plug in and go with several fixed spot speeds set by one rotary switch or equivalent over a limited range, maybe 250- 1000 fps. Good enough for most of us.
Be aware of the limits. Initially, Calibration is the determination of error at one operating point. That determination is subject to an uncertainty. So a calibrated instrument does not necessarily read the correct answer. You have to know the error and compensate for that. Sometimes the equipment is adjusted to tweak out the error and so read correctly, but the uncertainty remains.

So my proposed equipment would only allow the user to find the error of his chronograph. It would be up to you to do the simple sums. eg. The calibrator is set to 700 fps. Your chrono measures 702 fps. So you know it's reading 2 fps high at that point, and you don't know the uncertainty- which will actually depend on just one thing.....
Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that....an optical chrono measures TIME for the pellet to traverse the DISTANCE between two sensors, and we want :-
SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME.
Your chrono has to do sums inside to get the SPEED. Our brains are wired to understand speed. 700fps is understandable but 325usec is complete gobbledgook to most folk.

Let's break that down...

To do our calibration, we have to know that DISTANCE. Easy.
How far apart are the sensors of your chrono? That factor alone actually pretty well determines the chrono parameters. You have to know that to do the calibration. No option but to get your ruler or calipers out and carefully measure the DISTANCE between 2 long slits in the plastic, across the path of the pellet. Not hard, but typically the distance can be between about 50mm and 300mm. The better chronos have longer distances. So you now have DISTANCE, but you also have an uncertainty. How good was the measurement? And are the sensors just underneath the same distance apart? You have to live with that unless you strip the chrono and measure the sensor spacing.

TIME is the easy bit. Errors on TIME, (unless there is a serious fault) are negligible in comparison with DISTANCE. The proposed calibrator is simply 2 light sources with a variable distance apart and a shield. All you do is to put the calibrator light sources near to your two sensor slits, hopefully directly above them. These sources are normally ON and are simply blinked OFF very fast in turn. The chrono thinks that the OFF times are a pellet passing over them. So by setting the TIME apart of the two blinks on the calibrator control we have told the chrono what to do and when to do it. It will display a SPEED(Chrono). Success!

So we now know DISTANCE, because we measured it.
And we know TIME because we set that on the calibrator control. We put those two items into our phone calculator. DISTANCE/TIME = SPEED(Cal) that was generated by the calibrator. So now we know what went in and what came out. We have calibrated our chrono. No pellets. No danger. We know it's working and giving a sensible answer. And within the uncertainty of DISTANCE, we know its error. For any chrono, you would simply do this at several speed points.

So my proposed product just consists of 2 LEDS, and an adjustable electronic timer to create two brief pulses. The Chinese, bless them, would do it for a fiver. Yes, it won't be pretty, needs a battery and you'll need to do a tiny bit of work and a sum. But how long do you spend with your chrono taking measurements that you cannot trust? How can you prove to PC Plod that your chrono is good? If interested, just show this with a LIKE.
 
I'm a bit confused here, how about a in-situ diagram.

Not sure how you use this £5 Chinese thing in practice and in relation to your own chrony, shoot through both in front of your chrony and compare?
 
I'm a bit confused here, how about a in-situ diagram.

Not sure how you use this £5 Chinese thing in practice and in relation to your own chrony, shoot through both in front of your chrony and compare?
Oh dear, I thought I'd made things clear. There is no Chinese thing...yet...as they are good copyists. My post is a proposal. How many folk here would want one?. If enough support to make production viable, the Forum Chrono Calibrator would become available making funds from profits for the forum- I don't need money.
You do not shoot any pellets at all to calibrate the chrono; the calibrator simulates the effect of the pellet passing. The chrono does not know the difference.
I have a prototype calibrator in use on my own chrono- a more refined version for which I've posted a picture in actual use in the past. There is not a pellet in sight.
 
The chrony I have is one of these:
1785151355799.webp

It has a built in calibration function which does not involve any shooting.
I've often wondered if it actually does anything at all or just a con?
Maybe it's got a built-in version of what you propose.
 
Intereating idea but the precision seems to me to be a problem- get the measured distance wrong and you get a linear error in the output.

Then there is the linearity in the chrony your testing. Is it linear error? Need 3 or 5 point values to check that.

Temperature is also going to tinker with the results- thermal effects on the measured distance. Thermal effects on the electronics shouldn't come into play here, but we don't know the stability of the chrony under test nor if it has any internal temperature compensation.

I can see how it works in principle but i think it's a little more complicated than a simple offset.
 
The chrony I have is one of these:
View attachment 1022701

It has a built in calibration function which does not involve any shooting.
I've often wondered if it actually does anything at all or just a con?
Maybe it's got a built-in version of what you propose.
Possibly similar in function to my proposal and existing prototype. Bear in mind I have no budget, no sales. Just a box of bits and a soldering iron! The advantage of my method is that in turn it's very easy to calibrate the calibrator, if you want to go down that rabbit hole!
 
So you plug it into the LMBR somehow?
Not exactly.

In the steady state there is a row of light emitters and a row of light receivers. The receivers are getting a stream of light from the emitters.

When a pellet passes the first row there is a small interruption to the light picked up by the receivers. A fraction of a second later the pellet passes the second row causing another short interruption to the light picked up by those receivers. The calculation is the distance between the rows and the difference in time between the two signals.

So if the light emitters are replaced by Colin's gadget it will simulate them. It will momentarily turn the first row off and on and then a fraction later do the same at the second row. It will simulate a pellet passing by.

The chronograph ought to display what it thinks is the speed difference between the light flashes.
 
Intereating idea but the precision seems to me to be a problem- get the measured distance wrong and you get a linear error in the output.

Then there is the linearity in the chrony your testing. Is it linear error? Need 3 or 5 point values to check that.

Temperature is also going to tinker with the results- thermal effects on the measured distance. Thermal effects on the electronics shouldn't come into play here, but we don't know the stability of the chrony under test nor if it has any internal temperature compensation.

I can see how it works in principle but i think it's a little more complicated than a simple offset.
You obviously have a good grasp of the issues. My proposal checks the chrono on the instant. Lika an MOT. There are no guarantees after that. It does allow several points. Even top notch instruments settle for 2 points per range setting. The facts you raise partly explain why the experts sometimes get things a little wrong. I made it clear that sensor separation is the dominant possible error. But if you can't measure 50mm to within 1 percent there is little hope for anyone.
 
The chrony I have is one of these:
View attachment 1022701

It has a built in calibration function which does not involve any shooting.
I've often wondered if it actually does anything at all or just a con?
Maybe it's got a built-in version of what you propose.
Steve, how accurate has this cheap chrony proved ? Have you checked it against a better one, i'm interested in buying one for pellet testing, but some say they,re unreliable.
 
Last edited:
If you can find one I believe the Skan chronograph also self calibrates in operation.

 
yeah I chat a lot with Colin on these type of things...

What he's doing is basically an optical version of this:
(i did it electronically)

I've got a horse in this race (i.e. commercial interest) so its really hard for me to comment & somewhat inappropriate.
There's also a lot of what I would consider intellectual property around this - which is what I use to eat, so not giving that away :ROFLMAO:

One warning - if you're OCD or on the spectrum, stay well clear of this stuff ;)
 
You obviously have a good grasp of the issues. My proposal checks the chrono on the instant. Lika an MOT. There are no guarantees after that. It does allow several points. Even top notch instruments settle for 2 points per range setting. The facts you raise partly explain why the experts sometimes get things a little wrong. I made it clear that sensor separation is the dominant possible error. But if you can't measure 50mm to within 1 percent there is little hope for anyone.
This post makes me think about my amateur repair to my very cheap, £21 Ebay chrono, after accidentally shooting out the second LED, through careless alignment.

I quickly sourced a supply of new leds and bought ten for a few pennies, and I desoldered the broken LED.

When I soldered in the replacement, I just tagged it onto the stumps of the old LED leads which were sitting a touch proud of the board... herein lies a significant potential error. The new LED is not only perhaps 2mm higher than the original, but it is also possibly not exactly the same distance from the other LED as was the original. This if true, will have an impact on the timings, and the calculated velocity.

To be fair though, a short base-line chrono like mine, with maybe a 60 mm baseline between the light sources, would have been inherently less accurate from new than the other type. Also, perhaps it is true that the more significant part for spacing is the sensor rather than the light source LED. I need to think more about that - it may be a mistake.

Also, I am certain that neither of my unlicensed air rifles is anywhere close to the maximum power allowed on an uncertifcated rifle. The WH99s is reading 748 fps or thereabouts which is under 11 ft pounds in .177, and the little Baikal IZH38 is sitting at around 4.5 ft pounds, so I need fear no handcuffs.

My Webley Axsor which is on my firearms certificate comes out at somewhere about 25 ft pounds. All I need a chronograph for is to check the rifles are behaving normally and don't need new seals or lubrication.

I might try to calibrate mine by firing a .22LR over the thing. CCI claim the velocity of the sub sonic ammo as 1050fps. Id the chono comes out near that, I might just accept it and go with that.
 
Last edited:
I am OCD so qualify easily! Bear in mind that if a chrono has what it calls a self calibration, it has probably taken a short cut, and self check would be a better word.
We've already said that sensor separation is the biggest fundamental and irreversible error. It can be minimised at manufacture by careful measurement and placement. But after that, you'd need to invent a repeatable, steady pellet or equivalent, and I've posted before on how this could be done. But once that has been done as best, any temperature variations etc have to be lived with as an error. No cheap internal calibration will spot a physical movement of the sensors.
OK- a self calibrating chrono. All this can do is check the timing. The method will probably be incestuous. As I've said, timed pulses can "tickle" the LEDs, fooling the chrono into thinking a pellet has passed at a certain speed. But what is the source of the tickle timing? Probably a master clock internally, that also provides the timing for the time detection from the sensors. It's doing two jobs.
If that master clock is wrong, then the calibration cannot detect it. Imagine that from being correct, that internal clock speeds up. Your chrono will then read slow for a pellet. (More clock pulses) But when the LEDs are "tickled" in self calibration, the time between tickles will reduce. The two effects cancel each other out perfectly. Get it? A "correct" cal answer is unchanged by a faulty clock. Rare, but I have seen this fault happen.
To check a clock requires another, separate clock. And my external tickler provides that.
Anyone claiming an internal cal has to promise to provide 2 completely independent clock sources, preferably of different designs as 2 the same could mirror each others faults or degradations.
 
ON teh problem of accurate clock timing:

I am into amateur radio building and accurate clock timing is a long standing issue there, since oscillators are the core feature of RF generation. I go back far enough in that game to the days of oscillators governed by inductance and capacitance networks (extremely vague and inaccurate and wandering with temperatures) to more modern crystal control, but they are far from great too. Then we had crystal ovens to hold the quartz oscillators at a fixed temperature, thus getting rid of some variability, and now even more controlled systems with TCXO systems. In the end, the best frequency control we can get is often derived from GPS receivers which can provide incredibly precise, timed pulses to allow frequency calculation and timing.
 
Hi colinb this all sounds very interesting!
I have my DIY chrono and one of my cheap HT_X3006 Chronos along with a couple of Nate devices to test with.
Let me know if I can make up any circuits and test/draw out any diagrams for you. I don't make PCBs but can do complex Veroboards. Knowing your designs they will be bare essentials anyway.

I have a great interest in calibration having gone through the pains of designing my own chrono.
 
Steve, how accurate has this cheap chrony proved ? Have you checked it against a better one, i'm interested in buying one for pellet testing, but some say they,re unreliable.
First off it's very reliable in that it always registers and it was about 3fpe more than my friend's Chrony chrony but we didn't go to great lengths as that's more than good enough for me.
 
Back
Top