quijibo gets interest list numbers 965, 966, and 967.
wigglybroom gets interest list number 968, and a hearty welcome to BLF
This may be my last post regarding additions to the interest list, as huey18 is writing some code to automate this, so I may be totally out of a job on this project. :cry:
As we only have this options I also vote for the FET driver, but I would go with a more efficient (boost) driver all day even if it would cost a little more. Maybe Lexel could design one and sell it separately to modders.
I already have most of the code written. I just havenât been able to actually try it since the hardware doesnât exist yet.
The light operates the same as any other Anduril light, but with one key difference: While the light is on, in almost any mode, the user can âclick, click, holdâ to make it change tint. This happens smoothly without significantly affecting total lumen output. If the color changes in the wrong direction, let go of the button and do it again.
+1
Iâve been testing some LH351D emitters and I ended up with green ones. For the lantern, itâd be good to make sure we get something at or below the blackbody line if possible.
I linked the tint and UI to this discussion just to give perspective how unimportant I think it is which actual driver is inside if in reality you do not notice it anyway, unlike tint or UI which are obvious in practice. You will not easily notice a 10% longer runtime.
But a 30% efficiency gain is something that I agree is worth trying to get, that is something that you do notice on the outside.
Better tint. LEDs get less white at low power, and these are expected to run at fairly low current. PWM runs at a consistent power level and produces a consistent tint regardless of how many lumens are coming out, but a constant current driver has more visible tint shift when not running at full power.
Can keep the button LED. PWM doesnât require as many MCU pins, so we could still have a lighted button with multiple modes. The linear FET option may also have higher parasitic drain in standby mode, due to needing a voltage divider to measure battery status. This effect could be very small though, if done right.
Manages heat better. The 7135 chips spread heat across a wider area and have thermal regulation built in, so they donât overheat. However, a linear FET concentrates heat into a smaller space on the driver, which means the driver itself may need heat sinking.
Better low modes, usually. The âraptor clawâ 7135 chips have good performance in low modes, so the bottom of the ramp should be pretty low and pretty stable. However, a linear FET tends to have difficulty in really low modes, so the bottom of the ramp might not be very low or very stable.
Simpler driver design, easy and pretty much risk-free.
Advantages of a linear FET:
Higher efficiency in most modes. More lumens or more runtime. At the lanternâs power level though, this effect may be small, like only a 5% or 10% difference.
The parts might cost less.
Can potentially be modded for higher current by changing a sense resistor, but this also increases the risk of driver damage due to heat.
Iâll get things working on whichever one is used, but personally I lean a bit toward the simpler option even if itâs a bit less efficient.
Tint changes with current, and is usually best (whitest) when the current is in the medium-high range of an emitterâs power capacity. Tint is generally worst at very low power levels, or when the emitter is heavily overdriven, but fine anywhere in-between.
Hereâs a video of a single emitter changing color due to different power levels being used. The light on the right is alternating between 350mA constant current and 350mA via a pulsed FET. The light on the left is only there for reference. http://toykeeper.net/torches/blf-a6/tintshift.avi (sorry for the bad video, I should re-do this demo sometime)
For the lantern, the risk is using too little power, causing unnecessary tint shift because the emitters arenât running hot enough to get to their ideal range. If itâs only 1.4A total, split across 4 to 8 emitters, thatâs 175 to 350 mA per emitter at the highest brightness. This is low enough to get some tint shift, but not a lot. However, a constant current driver will get worse tint shift as the total power goes down, while a PWM driver keeps a constant tint.
But between a linear FET or a buck/boost driver, tint shouldnât be any different. They both shift the same way at low levels. The only style which doesnât is PWM.
At least the effect doesnât seem particularly bad on the LH351D. I notice it a lot more with XP-G2.
It doesnât work that way. It wouldnât really help anything.
The linear FETâs extra pin is needed because of how that type of circuit works.
With a 7135 chip design, a pulsed (PWM) signal goes from the attiny chip to a set of 7135 chips, turning them on and off at about 16 kHz. This can be detected by measuring equipment but is invisible to the eye. It looks like a steady brightness level, and it mostly âjust worksâ without issues. The 7135 chips donât care about the pulse voltage, they only care about whether itâs on or off.
With a linear FET design, a PWM signal goes from the attiny to a circuit which averages it into a smooth analog voltage. At 4.2V and 50% PWM duty cycle, the output signal is a steady 2.1V. This tells the FET how much power to allow through. But the same 50% duty cycle on a low battery at 3.0V only averages out to 1.5V. So the brightness changes with voltage.
To avoid the problem of brightness changing with voltage, the attiny needs to receive a constant input voltage. Letâs say thatâs always 5.0V exactly, using some magic on the VCC input pin. Then a 50% duty cycle always averages out to 2.5V, and the brightness stays the same regardless of whether the batteries are full or almost empty.
However, this means the attiny has no idea whether the battery is full or empty. So we have to add a second connection to the battery, to allow the attiny chip to measure battery status. This uses up an extra pin.
I see over 4V for about 600 mAh which is 18% of capacity, not 1/3.
Voltage decreases pretty much linearly to 90% capacity, from 4.15 to 3.4V. Then it falls off the cliff.
Over that 90% capacity, with Vf of 2.82 linear driver is about 75% efficient. Over the last 10% itâs about 91% efficient.
Overall efficiency is more like 78%.
A 95% efficient driver would increase runtime by about 22% in the lowest modes, less in the higher ones.
Is there any chance of using PB0 and PB1 for 3000K and 5000K, and PB4 for USB/opamps? The chip likes having the two PWM channels on PB0 and PB1. Iâm hoping for something like this:
Otherwise, the second PWM counter gets involved, and it runs at a different speed, and things get a little weird.
Also, how slow can the PWM signal can be without causing problems? I usually underclock the MCU at low levels to make the bottom of the ramp more efficient, but Iâm not sure thatâll work with a linear FET.
If I understand correctly, the 7135 version might be something like this?
----
Reset -|1 8|- VCC
(PB3) eswitch -|2 7|- USB enable (PB2)
(PB4) aux LED -|3 6|- 5000K (PB1)
GND -|4 5|- 3000K (PB0)
----
Thanks for the clarification ToyKeeper :+1:
I actually thougt that we need one of the 7135s to drive the button led :person_facepalming: , I really shouldnât read this while doing something elseâŚ
I didnât say over. I said average. The midpoint of the voltage of the first ~1200mAh at a low discharge current (which it will be because there are 4 in parallel) is ~4.0V. My numbers were right for the scenario I outlined.
A constant current boost driver can be PWMâd. Some of them can also change the LED drive current without using PWM. As I stated, the use of a boost driver doesnât cause any tint shift issues that werenât there before.
I thought you meant to say that with GA and Vf of 2.82, average efficiency of linear driver would barely scrap 70% over entire discharge.
Now I think you meant over the first 1/3 of discharge.
Is that correct? If no, could you clarify how did you come up with the number? Itâs quite different from mine.
Fair enough. The BLF GT uses both methods â current control for 10% to 100% power, and PWM below 10%. But it needs two pins to control one power channel⌠one for current and one for on/off. Thatâs what the lantern was going to do while using DELâs design, before the tint ramping was added.
Iâm guessing that a boost design for the lantern would keep the cells in a 4P configuration, but the emitters would be two channels each configured as 2S2P? That should keep the voltages far enough apart for a boost to work. And then instead of burning off excess voltage, the driverâs heat would instead come from voltage conversion.