Re: tektronix 7S14 batteries and time base question

Bruce Griffiths

That's not efficiency, as its not the ratio of power out to power in.
The efficiency is actually significantly less than your calculation indicates.
Your "efficiency" is irrelevant if you are attempting to replace a 1.35V Mercury cell with a LED operating in the photovoltaic mode. Output noise, impedance and tempco etc are more important in such an application.


On 25 December 2019 at 05:48 Miguel Work <harrimansat@...> wrote:

IR wins! :)

IR 1,16 0,85 73,28%

RED 1,9 1,3 68,42%

YELLOW 2 1,2 60,00%

BLUE 3,2 2,3 71,88%

-----Mensaje original-----
De: [] En nombre de Carl Hallberg via Groups.Io
Enviado el: martes, 24 de diciembre de 2019 3:39
Asunto: Re: [TekScopes] tektronix 7S14 batteries and time base question

Hi Dennis,
I don't have a problem gluing ground down LEDs together.  Don't know if the glue will turn translucent with age.  As far as what color to use, I'll give some examples:
Input voltage across LED at 20mA       to        Output voltage using 10Megohm input voltmeter

INFRARED   1.16V                                                 INFRARED  0.85V

RED   1.9V                                                            RED   1.3V

YELLOW  2.0V                                                      YELLOW  1.2V

BLUE    3.2V                                                          BLUE    2.3V

When I used wide angle LEDs, (manufactured with flat tops) the close proximity provides enough coupling to give good results.

Changing the drive current on the input side doesn't change the output side very much.  Voltages given are not exact.  Do we care about efficiency?  When I use to design digital circuit using transistors, Beta was selected for worse case of 10.  Very inefficient, but wouldn't fail over Military temperature range.  I don't know where we can get die upon die selected color LEDs.

Carl Hallberg

On Monday, December 23, 2019, 5:34:55 PM CST, Dennis Tillman W7PF <@Dennis_Tillman_W7pF> wrote:

Hi Chuck and John
I was surprised that several people ground the LED ends flat and glued them together. This seems counter intuitive to me for several reasons.

These are the reasons I think that grinding down the LED ends is not a good idea. I would appreciate it if you could explain the flaws in my thinking.
1) The polished surface of the LED lets the most light out. Wouldn’t a ground down (rough) surface scatter and block a portion of the emitted light.
2) The LED's dome shape focuses the light into a fairly narrow angle which increases the likelihood that the majority of the emitted light can be aimed right at the die of the LED that will convert the light to electricity.
3) Crazy Glue may appear clear to humans but what are its optical absorption characteristics? Does it absorb any of the wavelengths generated by the LED emitter?

On the other hand I think there are advantages to grinding the ends flat:
1) The ground end combination takes up a fraction of the volume of two unground LEDs.
2) Mating the two LEDs flat against each makes it easier to align them to each other.

It seems to me that the greatest conversion efficiency will come when you can place a bare emitting LED die on top of the die of the receiving LED. At that point every emitted photon can kick out an electron in the receiving PN junction.

IR light is another issue I'm confused about. I think I must have misunderstood but it sounded like some people think IR LEDs would make a good choice for emitters. Wouldn't just the opposite be true since a photon's energy, E, is proportional to its frequency, v, as in E = hv.  Do IR LEDs emit more photons (greater brightness) and that is why they are a good choice? If so does the same thing apply for the receiving LED - which would have a high conversion efficiency resulting in the largest number of electrons being produced?

Dennis Tillman W7PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Harris
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] tektronix 7S14 batteries and time base question

Hi John,
That has been my experience as well.  I did a long stint in a lab where we were doing IR spectroscopy, using lasers.
When I tried to make such a bias device, I ground both LED's ends flat, and welded them together with crazy glue.  I figured that it would reduce reflections at the red I was using.
I couldn't get spit out of them... measured with a 200M input impedance meter...  I guessed the older LED's just weren't bright enough.
Or, maybe the mechanism is not reciprocal?

John Griessen wrote:
On 12/22/19 11:30 PM, Chuck Harris wrote:
If I have been following correctly (always suspect), aren't we using
an LED illuminated by another LED to behave as a photo diode, and
produce the bias voltage for the switch?
One thing for sure from back when I worked with near IR LEDs and laser
diodes in a narrow beam system is that what absorbs IR or reflects or
not is not obvious from our visible light experience...  So, the
efficiency could be because the incoming IR light "gets in" instead of
reflecting.  They are both designed only to output, yet one is being used to receive...

Longer IR tends to go through more things that look black to us, and
probably go right through the plastic of LED lamps without much
refraction so angle and placement can be whatever.

Dennis Tillman W7PF
TekScopes Moderator

Join to automatically receive all group messages.