Thanks for all these measurements. The output loss due to the bezel is significant, I did find it weird that the LEDs were packed to the edge of the MCPCB , I think they should be centered with the wires and screws on the edge instead.
The color measurements are not integrated but at the center of the beam right ? E21As do have quite a bit of tint and CCT shift so that explains the low duv and higher CCT.
You’re not wrong. That is one way to do it… and it’s basically how the aux LEDs work. But as noted, the output is not constant; it varies with battery voltage. That’s not really an issue for aux LEDs, but it’s kind of a problem for the main LEDs.
I hope this image explains the idea, and why I want the 20mA channel to be regulated instead of just a resistor. It’s meant to smooth out the ramp between steps, but the ramp will only be smooth if the extra channel has a consistent slope.
Basically, the point is to make it look like the “4.0V” bottom center image… no matter what voltage the battery is.
It’s a different method than how FET+7135 or FET+5A works. With those, the lower power channel ramps up to full power and then stays on while the higher power channel ramps on top. But I’m thinking of doing a totally different method where the lowest power channel does miniature ramps between each step of the higher power channel.
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea, because it’s more difficult to do correctly… but it sure would be nice to have a truly smooth and stable ramp all the way down to firefly levels.
Also not sure if I should suggest it, because it means I’d have to rewrite a bunch of code. Would be nice once it’s done though.
Ok, I think I understand what you’re suggesting - the low channel tops out around the lowest stable level of the 5A channel.
I was thinking of using a 1x7135 channel full range, then either switching on the 5A channel in parallel as is done in 1+N x 7135 drivers. Alternately, if the different driver types don’t play well in parallel, then once the first channel reaches 350mA, the next step turns off the 7135 and turns on the 5A driver at the next logical step above 350mA.
But I hadn’t thought through what that would imply for the ramp resolution or scaling.
SKV89, thank you for sharing all those measurements.
I was under the assumption that 16x E21A mules would be limited to 7.5A CC only, and there would be no direct drive, because it isn’t safe. I am surprised that direct drive is enabled. Are you sure it is safe to use Molicel P26A for this?
I cleaned the contacts, and actually very lightly sanded them to make sure there’s nothing blocking the connection surface, but the flicker is still there. Now, when I say flicker, it’s very subtle. It’s only really noticeable when you’re not moving the beam.
I tried varying the floor from 1/150 to 3/150, and the flicker is evident on 1/150 and 2/150, as expected.
When moving it to 3/150, though, it’s as if the very low level flicker from 1/150 and 2/150 is still there, but is masked by the higher brightness of 3/150. I hope that makes sense.
It’s tolerable, I guess, but it’s also annoying when I notice it, and just knowing that one of my favorite lights isn’t stable at moonlight drives me mildly nuts since I use it every night.
Do you think there’s anything on the code side that could be done to eliminate this? I’m not familiar with the coding at a hardware level.
Thanks, again.
Edit: Would increasing the clock speed at level 3/150 make a difference? Or, maybe just disabling dynamic underclocking would be a reasonable test.
Yes, it makes sense… and is quite possibly what’s happening. There’s going to be a little bit of ripple. Let’s say there’s 1 unit of ripple. At a brightness of 2, it’ll be pretty noticeable as it ripples from 1 to 3. But at a brightness of 100, it’s not noticeable since it only goes from 99 to 101.
Lowering the clock speed threshold level might help a little, or it might not… it’s hard to tell without trying it on affected hardware, and I don’t have affected hardware.
Regardless, I sent Hank an idea for how to improve the low levels. I also posted it here a few comments ago. I don’t know if it’ll happen, but it’s at least being discussed.
I’ll most likely test switching off dynamic underclocking or lowering the threshold, but it will probably be a week or two. I’ll be sure to report back.