LTE DIN Rail Analog Transmitters with Ethernet Communication and Analog Outputs for Process and Ratiometric Signal Applications

LTE Process & Ratiometric Transmitter Frequently Asked Questions

Why does ratiometric mode specifically use "0.01% of reading" accuracy while absolute mode uses "0.01% of full scale" accuracy?

Documented specification lists these as two separate accuracy formulas tied to how each mode processes the signal — ratiometric mode's documented immunity to excitation voltage changes means its accuracy tracks the actual reading itself, while absolute mode's documented accuracy is instead pegged to the fixed full-scale range regardless of where the actual reading falls; this reflects a genuine difference in what each mode's accuracy figure is mathematically referenced against.

Why does potentiometer follower mode specifically use only 5V excitation, while bridge/load cell ratiometric mode can use either 5V or 10V?

The page documents 5V or 10V excitation as available for bridges and load cells, but specifically lists only 5V for potentiometers, without detailing the underlying reason for this narrower option — this is consistent with the documented excitation options simply differing by application type as specified, so a potentiometer follower application should be configured with the documented 5V excitation rather than assuming the 10V option is also available for that specific use case.

Does the documented note that "the same DC signal conditioner can be user configured for DC, process, bridge, and potentiometer signals" mean all four modes are active simultaneously?

No — documented phrasing specifically describes the single physical signal conditioner board as being configurable across these different signal types, which is consistent with one mode being selected via jumper and software settings at a time, not multiple modes operating concurrently; this reflects hardware flexibility (one board serving several distinct application types) rather than simultaneous multi-mode operation.

Why is the ±600.0V range specifically documented as "not ETL certified," while the other five voltage ranges are not flagged this way?

Documented footnote specifically marks only the ±600.0V range with this qualifier, distinct from the LTE DC Voltage/Current transmitter's separate footnote phrasing ("certified to ±300.0V") for its own ±600.0V range — this indicates the two pages document this same top voltage range's certification status somewhat differently, so the precise certification scope for the 600V range should be confirmed against whichever specific transmitter model is actually being specified.

Does selecting the SG1 custom scaling option change this transmitter's documented core measurement accuracy from the standard SG option?

No — documented SG1 option describes custom scaling (specifying min/max input and corresponding min/max reading) as a configuration choice for how raw signal maps to a displayed value, not as a change to the underlying signal conditioning accuracy; both SG and SG1 use the same documented DC/process signal conditioner hardware and share the same documented accuracy specifications.

Can custom curve linearization correct for a nonlinearity that exists in the sensor itself, or only for nonlinearity in the physical vessel being measured?

Documented examples specifically include altimeters and thermistors alongside irregular tank volume as applications for custom curve linearization — since altimeters and thermistors are sensors with their own documented nonlinear response characteristics (distinct from a tank's physical shape), this indicates the documented linearization capability is general-purpose, applicable to correcting nonlinearity from the sensor itself just as much as from the physical geometry of a measured vessel.

Does this LTE Process transmitter's documented Modbus TCP-only protocol limit compatibility compared to the RS232/RS485 LT Series process variant's documented broader protocol set?

Yes — this page documents Modbus TCP specifically as the supported Ethernet Data I/O protocol at digital address 247, while the LT Series serial variant is documented elsewhere as separately supporting Modbus RTU/ASCII and Laurel Custom ASCII; a control system needing a protocol other than Modbus TCP would need to reference the LT Series serial variant rather than this LTE Ethernet variant.

Does the transmitter's documented 1 GΩ input impedance on the two most sensitive voltage ranges serve a specific purpose in ratiometric bridge applications?

Yes, in principle — documented description specifically ties this high input impedance to minimizing load on the voltage signal being measured; in a ratiometric bridge application, drawing minimal current from the bridge output is consistent with preserving the bridge's own balance and the accuracy of the ratiometric reading, similar to how high input impedance is documented as beneficial for other sensitive DC voltage measurements across the LT/LTE family.

Does choosing the Extended main board for custom curve linearization change the transmitter's documented Ethernet or analog output specifications?

No — documented Extended board capability (custom curve linearization with up to 180 data points, plus rate derived from consecutive readings) is described as an additive processing feature layered on top of the underlying measurement and output path; the documented Ethernet Data I/O and analog output specifications (16-bit resolution, 0.02% output accuracy, Modbus TCP at address 247) apply the same way regardless of whether the Standard or Extended main board is selected.

Can the P1 and SG1 custom scaling options both be used to scale a 4-20 mA input, or is P1 specifically required for that signal type?

Documented default scaling for the P option is specifically "4-20 mA in = 4-20 mA out," while the SG option's documented default is "0-200 mV = 0-100.00" — this indicates P (and its custom-scaling counterpart P1) is the documented option specifically intended for a 4-20 mA process signal, while SG/SG1 is documented as oriented toward millivolt-level bridge/strain gauge signals, so P1 is the more directly applicable documented choice for scaling a 4-20 mA input specifically.

Tank Strapping Table & Nonlinear Level Calibration Questions From the Field

What specifically is a tank strapping table, and why do non-linear tanks require one?

Documented definition specifically describes a strapping table (also called a tank calibration chart, tank gauge chart, or dip chart) as a lookup converting a measured level into a corresponding volume — documented explanation specifically notes non-linear tanks can't have their volume calculated from level using simple mathematical equations, since volume doesn't change proportionally with level in a non-cylindrical or irregularly shaped vessel, which is specifically why a table-based conversion is documented as necessary.

Does simple linear interpolation between adjacent strapping table points provide the same accuracy as more sophisticated interpolation methods?

Not necessarily — documented patent-level description specifically contrasts basic linear interpolation between two adjacent table entries with higher-order polynomial interpolation methods (citing third, fourth, and fifth order polynomial interpolations, specifically referencing Neville's algorithm), noting that documented testing shows these higher-order methods can provide a more accurate strap volume than simple linear interpolation between just two points.

Does the accuracy of a tank's volume readout improve simply by adding more data points to the strapping table?

Yes, generally — documented explanation specifically states that within each "strap" (interval between table points), volume is linearly interpolated with level, so a greater number of straps in the table is documented as directly producing more accurate volume indication; more closely spaced data points reduce the error introduced by interpolating across each individual gap.

Is there a documented best practice for how strapping table data points should be distributed along a tank's height, rather than spacing them evenly?

Yes — documented field experience specifically describes most real-world dip tables as having more data points clustered specifically in regions of greatest non-linearity (such as a tank's rounded ends or dished heads), with relatively few data points needed for the straight cylindrical bulk of the vessel where volume changes linearly with level; this uneven, non-linearity-driven spacing is documented as standard practice rather than using uniform spacing throughout.

Can a strapping table generated for one specific physical tank be reused for a different tank of the same nominal size and shape?

Not reliably, according to documented guidance — documented explanation specifically notes that variations in tank manufacturing make a custom strap chart developed for one particular tank necessary, since manufacturing variation between individually built tanks means even nominally identical tanks can have real dimensional differences that a shared generic strapping table wouldn't capture.

Does the chemical composition or type of liquid stored in a tank affect the validity of its strapping table?

No — documented explanation specifically states that tank calibration via a strap chart is performed independent of the type of liquid in the tank, since the strapping table maps physical level to physical volume based on the tank's geometry alone; the same strap chart is documented as reusable across different liquids, since chemical composition doesn't affect the level-to-volume geometric relationship the table describes.

How were strapping tables traditionally generated before modern electronic level sensors and linearization capability existed?

Documented history specifically traces the term "strapping" itself to the traditional method of wrapping a steel measuring tape (a "strap") around the outside of a storage tank at different heights to physically measure and calibrate the vessel; documented modern practice has largely replaced this manual method with laser levels and ultrasonic thickness gauges for generating the same underlying table.

Once a strapping table has been generated for a tank, is there a documented method to load it directly into a transmitter or level sensor rather than maintaining it as a separate paper or PLC reference?

Yes — documented product examples specifically describe modern level sensors accepting a strapping chart programmed directly into the sensor itself, commonly via a communication protocol such as Modbus; documented setup for this approach involves assigning a volume value to a series of known level measurements, after which the sensor uses those stored points to linearize its own continuous volume output going forward.