Digid Nanosensors Add Printed Temperature and Force Sensing

By Grace Kim

Digid’s printed nanosensors support two measurement modes, temperature and force, within an ultra-small footprint. The technical account gives no accuracy class, resolution, bandwidth, sampling rate or calibration interval, leaving instrument-grade performance unverified.

Dr. Konstantin Kloppstech, Digid’s chief technology officer, discusses some supported force and temperature sensors in the accompanying video. Digid identifies an ultra-small footprint, the ability to measure “temperature or any type of force,” and adjustable electrical parameters among the technology’s three main characteristics.

What does the footprint specification establish?

The description calls the devices extremely small but supplies no length, width, thickness or scale reference. A footprint differs from measurement resolution: the first describes installation space, while the second describes the smallest change in a measured quantity that an instrument can detect. Without dimensions and an uncertainty budget, a buyer cannot assign metrological performance.

The size claim establishes miniaturization, not measurement accuracy.

How does the printing method fit an assembly?

Printing places the sensor directly onto a surface or subassembly, with ultra-thin wires connecting it to an analog front end (AFE). Digid says this construction works with wafers, metals, ceramics and polymers, four substrate families in the account. The sensor’s electrical characteristics can be adjusted to the application.

Digid also states that the nanosensors do not interfere with a device’s functionality. That is a vendor assertion without an interference threshold, test load or operating environment; the material supplies none of the conditions needed to reproduce it.

For a surface or subassembly design, the documented choices are four substrates, adjustable electrical parameters and an AFE connection. The account gives no bonding method, operating-temperature limit or surface-preparation requirement for those substrates. The materials are named, but their assembly limits remain unspecified.

Can the cost claim be checked against production data?

Digid describes the printing technology as a “cost-effective solution for mass-produced applications.” The account gives no unit price, production yield, minimum order quantity or comparison with a conventional sensor. It also names no production volume or qualification standard for the cost claim.

The buying decision should therefore treat cost as an unquantified vendor claim, not a verified saving.

What must buyers request before adopting the sensor?

Start with the operating envelope and performance data for both modes:

• Temperature range and force range
• Accuracy across each range
• Resolution, noise and repeatability
• Bandwidth, sampling rate and response time
• Drift, hysteresis and cross-sensitivity
• Calibration interval and calibration procedure

The account does not identify the physical transduction mechanism for either temperature or force. It therefore leaves the path from physical stimulus to electrical input unspecified, preventing comparison of compensation, stability and calibration requirements.

Digid’s claim of noninterference also needs a defined performance metric, test conditions and a pass criterion. Until the manufacturer supplies those figures and the applicable measurement standard, a development team should treat the sensor as an uncharacterized component. The buying decision needs published numbers, not only functional claims.

What is the technical author’s background?

William G. Wong, the technical author, is Senior Content Director for Electronic Design and Microwaves & RF. He also edits Electronic Design’s embedded, software and systems coverage. He manages editors producing newsletters, articles and videos for engineers, programmers, developers and technical managers.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in Computer Science from Rutgers University. He continues to program in C, C++, Rust and Ada/SPARK, writes PHP for Drupal websites, and has posted Drupal modules.

He continues working with software and electronic hardware, including the Kit Close-Up video series and TechXchange Talk appearances. His project interests include robotics and artificial intelligence. His engineering and software background supports the technical framing, but it does not supply missing sensor data.

For Testbench Report readers, the decision is straightforward: define the surface or subassembly, choose the substrate, and obtain a full specification before integrating the AFE. Will Digid release validated accuracy, bandwidth, sampling and calibration data, and establish compliance with the standard governing the intended measurement?