How Can I Determine Elevation Based on Changes in Air Pressure?

AI Thread Summary
To determine elevation based on changes in air pressure, a pressure sensor can be used alongside a static reference pressure. The user is seeking a method to calculate height from pressure differences, specifically moving from a pressure of 102 kPa to 101 kPa. Existing formulas typically calculate pressure from altitude but not the reverse, leading to the need for a simplified iterative approach that checks pressure against sensor output. This method, while functional, is inefficient and slow, prompting a desire for a more accurate calculation method. The discussion highlights the challenge of deriving elevation from pressure changes without complex adjustments for gravity or climate variations.
TechSpec
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Air pressure and height...

Ok, i have a hard time with the air pressure. I should do a calculation with the pressure and determine the height.

I have a pressure sensor which i use for pitot-tube sensing and i have a static sensor of the same kind to measure static reference pressure. I can determine speed with the given values of temperature and pressure differency. But i should also calculate a height where that pitot-tube sensor is. I have a pressure value from the ground level and i use that as a reference value for the height calculation. However, i did find some formulas to calculate the pressure from the given height, but not vice versa.
The basic principle would be like this:

Lets assume that I am in a certain level from a sealevel, that height is unknown but let's say its within few hundred meters.
I have the air pressure of 102kPa and i move upwards into a point where the air pressure is 101kPa, now the big question is, how much is the elevation in meters? The height from a sealevel is not important and not even known, only thing matters is how much i elevated from point A to B. Is that possible to determine with only temperature and a reference pressure and a current pressure which is altered by height? The accuracy also is not critical, let's say we don't take count the gravity changes or climate pressure changes during the measurements. Only temperature and pressure.

TechSpec
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's a two stage formula for pressure versus altitude (I can't remember what the default temperature at sea level was, maybe 70 degrees farenheight). There's a third stage for very high altitudes ( spacecraft and weather balloons would need this), but I didn't have this in my archive of various junk.

dAlt = altitude in feet.
dPressure is pressure in psi.

Code:
    if(dAlt < 36089.24)
        dPressure = 14.7*pow(1-6.8755856E-6*dAlt, 5.2558797);
    else
        dPressure = 14.7*.2233609*exp(-4.806346E-5*(dAlt-36089.24));
 
True, but...

That is the formula i found too, but it solves the pressure, not the height. And i have no method of opening that formula to solve the height with a given pressure..
so i made this really really really stupid method of doing it and it is highly simplified, but you can see the principle.for(i=0;i<counts;i++)
{
altitude=1; .......// start from the lowest alt
pressure=calculate_pressure(altitude);...// count the pressure
if(pressure == sensor_output)...// must have tolerance !
{
return altitude;
}
else
altitude++;

if (counts > 10000).......// too high altitude
return error;
}
It might work but its very slow method and i HATE to do it like that..
So if i could calculate it the correct way i would save a lot of time, and get the accuracy.

TechSpec
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top