Instrument connectors
potentiostats · cyclers · XRD
Niobia reads the instruments a battery and materials lab actually runs: potentiostats, cyclers, and the materials-characterization stack (XRD, XPS, SEM-EDS, FTIR, and more). Today that is file-based ingestion of their exports; tighter live connectors are being built.
What it measures
A real lab is a fleet of instruments from different vendors, each with its own export format, and the integration job is to make all of them legible to one analysis layer:
- Electrochemical testers: cyclers (Arbin, Neware, Maccor, BioLogic, Gamry, Digatron, Novonix, Basytec, LAND) and potentiostats for EIS, CV, LSV, and the chrono techniques (PalmSense, Gamry, BioLogic, and generic exports).
- Materials characterization: XRD, XPS, FTIR, UV-Vis, fluorescence, SEM-EDS, TEM, AFM, DSC, TGA, and rheometers, each with method-aware analysis once the data is in.
- The normalization layer: column resolution, unit reconciliation, and sign conventions per instrument, so the fleet's outputs become one consistent schema rather than a drawer of incompatible CSVs.
The boundary worth stating: reading an instrument's data and actuating an instrument are different things. The integration here is read and analyze, not control.
How to read the output
The question to ask of any instrument integration is what it actually does: does it read the export and analyze it correctly to that method's conventions, or does it claim a live two-way connection it does not have. Niobia is honest about which is which. Today the breadth is in file-based ingestion and method-aware analysis across the full instrument list above, which is where most of the daily value sits; live, always-on connectors that pull data the moment it comes off the tool are being built, and the pages say so rather than implying a control plane that is not there yet.
A real use case
A materials team characterizing a new cathode runs XRD for phase, XPS for surface chemistry, SEM for morphology, and a cycler for performance, four instruments, four export formats, four manual analysis workflows. Pulled into Niobia, each export is analyzed to its own convention (Rietveld-adjacent XRD refinement, Shirley-background XPS fitting, segmented SEM particle statistics, capacity-fade fitting) and the results sit in one place keyed to the same sample. The team correlates a surface chemistry change against a performance change without exporting four files into four tools, because the instrument outputs were normalized into one analysis layer on the way in.
Common mistakes
- Assuming a connector controls the instrument. Reading and analyzing data is not the same as actuating the tool, and conflating them oversells the integration.
- Letting each instrument keep its own units and sign conventions, so cross-instrument correlation inherits silent errors.
- Treating materials data as one-off PDFs instead of analyzable datasets keyed to a sample, which is what makes cross-method correlation possible.
- Expecting a live feed where only file ingestion exists today, or the reverse. Knowing which mode an integration is in is the whole point.
Read the fleet, analyze to method, state the boundary
Niobia reads and analyzes data from the electrochemical and materials instruments a battery lab runs: the nine major cyclers and the EIS/voltammetry potentiostats, plus XRD, XPS, FTIR, UV-Vis, fluorescence, SEM-EDS, TEM, AFM, DSC, TGA, and rheometers, each through its method-aware pathway after ingestion normalizes columns, units, and sign conventions. The honest scope: this is read-and-analyze integration via the instruments' exports today, with deeper live connectors in progress, and it is deliberately read-only. As the architecture makes explicit, the reasoning layer observes instruments and never actuates them, because a probabilistic agent cannot hold the deterministic control a certified instrument requires.
Frequently asked
Which instruments does Niobia integrate with today?
On the electrochemical side: cyclers (Arbin, Neware, Maccor, BioLogic, Gamry, Digatron, Novonix, Basytec, LAND) and potentiostats (PalmSense, Gamry, BioLogic, generic). On the materials side: XRD, XPS, FTIR, UV-Vis, fluorescence, SEM-EDS, TEM, AFM, DSC, TGA, and rheometers. Each is read and analyzed to its own method conventions.
Is this a live connection or file import?
Today it is primarily file-based: the instrument's export is ingested, normalized, and analyzed. Tighter live connectors that pull data as it comes off the tool are being built. Niobia states which mode applies rather than implying always-on links it does not yet have.
Can Niobia control the instruments?
No, by design. The integration is read-only: it observes and analyzes instrument data and never actuates the tool. Control stays with the instrument's own deterministic systems, which is the safety boundary the architecture is built around.