Sample Student Project Report Unit 1: Let There Be Light Problem Definition: The purpose of this unit is to explore

the effects Ohms Law. This law is qualitatively verified by observing the brightness of an LED used in the test circuit. Methods: To verify that Ohms Law holds, we connected the circuit from the lab assignment, varying the resistance from 100-500 in 100 steps. We used two AA cells and a red LED (Lite-On LTL-2R3VRKNT; Digikey 160-1498-ND): 631nm, clear lens, 30 degree viewing angle, 1.9V forward voltage drop, 990 mcd of light, and 50 mA max current. Results: The following table outlines the data gathered. Rnom is the expected value of the resistance and Ractual is the actual resistance measured using a DMM. Vresistor is the voltage across the resistor, Vled is the voltage across the LED, VR+L is the sum of the resistor and LED voltages, and Vbat is the voltage across the battery. I is the calculated current through the circuit and is determined using Ohms law: I = Vresistor/Ractual. Rnom Ractual Vresistor Vled VR+L Vbat (V) I Brightness () () (V) (V) (V) (mA) 100 98.4 1.30 1.81 3.11 3.13 13.2 Brightest 200 196.7 1.36 1.78 3.14 3.15 6.91 Quite Bright 300 294.9 1.39 1.76 3.15 3.15 4.71 Medium 400 392 1.40 1.75 3.15 3.16 3.57 Quite Dim 500 491 1.42 1.74 3.16 3.16 2.89 Dimmest Conclusions: An interesting thing to note here is that the labelled values on components (batteries and resistors) are not exact. The nominal 100 resistor, for instance, measures 98.4. There may be some situations where deviation from nominal values will affect performance. Vled is mostly constant for all circuit currents. However, as the current increases, the voltage increases. This is evidence that the corner model of operation, although useful for quick calculations, is not as accurate as the squares model where the LED does not turn on sharply. The Vled value is relatively close to the manufacturers specification of Vfwd. The sum of the voltage across the LED and the resistor is approximately the battery voltage. This indicates that the sum of the voltage drops in this circuit equals the battery voltage. A decrease in the current in the circuit results in a dimmer LED. This observed dimming supports the calculation that the circuit current decreases as the resistance increases. To remain below the maximum rated current of 50mA specified for this LED device, a minimum circuit resistance of V V fwd 3.0 1.9 = = 22 Rmin = bat 0.050 I max is required when the battery voltage is 3.0V. For a battery voltage of 6.0V, the minimum resistance is 82. Note that these minimum values are derived from ideal (nominal) values, including the battery voltage, and the LED forward voltage drop using the corner model. As such, these minimum resistance values are to be used only as a guideline: actual circuits should exceed these values in order to accommodate more accurate models and measures.

Unit 2: How Bright Problem Definition: The purpose of this unit is to explore how we can use a photo-sensitive resistor (photoresistor) to measure the amount of light that an LED emits. This allows us to numerically compare different LEDs. We also confirm the Inverse Squares Law which states that the intensity of light drops to when the distance of measurement (perception) is doubled. Methods: To make the measurements in this experiment, we mount a CdS photocell on the end of a cardboard tube, minimizing ambient light. A circuit identical to that outlined in Unit 1 is constructed. We sweep an LEDs current using different resistor values, as in Unit 1. At each step we determine the current flowing to the LED, and measure the photoresistors resistance. Using the manufacturers information about the response of the CdS cell (mounted at 10cm from the base of the tube), we can convert this resistance into illuminance (Lux). To verify the Inverse Square Law the trials are repeated for two LEDs (white and red) and a 28 cm tube. Results: Data is collected for all 18 LEDs with the sensor mounted in the 10cm tube. A summary plot shows how Lux varies with LED current1. The legend names the Digikey part numbers.
Experimentally-Determined Illuminance vs. LED Current (Using sensitivity = -0.7 Ohm/Lux, Rcds@10Lux=15K, 10 cm sensor distance)
600 Color [R=red,G=green,B=blue,A=amber],power [mcd], lense angle [degrees], lense opacity [C=clear,D=diffused]
R,990,30,C

160-1772-ND 67-1696-ND 160-1728-5ND 160-1498-ND

500

400

160-1713-ND 160-1087-ND
R,1700,15,C

Illuminance [Lux]

160-1669-ND 160-1130-ND

300
W,4200,35,C A,1300,30,C

160-1089-ND 160-1702-ND
A,7800,8,C

200

160-1677-ND
W,13000,15,C W,680,34,D

67-1097-ND 160-1503-ND 160-1496-ND

100
B,520,30,C B,1900,8,D B,300,60,D

P600-ND

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 LED Current [mA]

Data was then collected for two of the same LEDs, but with the photoresistor mounted in the 28cm tube. The following plot summarizes the Illuminance vs. Current data gathered and shows trials at both 10cm and 28cm sensing distances. It should be noted that it was necessary to increase the circuits battery voltage for, in particular, the blue and white LEDs due to their higher forward voltage drop. This was achieved by placing two AA battery packs in series.
Information used to create these plots is at a much higher resolution than the students could be expected to achieve in the amount of time allocated for this Unit.
1

Experimentally-Determined Illuminance vs. LED Current for d = 10 and 28 cm (Using sensitivity = -0.7 Ohm/Lux, Rcds@10Lux=15K)
600

Red, 10cm 500

160-1728-5-ND (10cm) 400 160-1728-5-ND (28cm) 300 160-1498-ND (10cm) 160-1498-ND (28cm) 200 White, 10cm

Illuminance [Lux]

Red, 28cm 100 White, 28cm 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 LED Current [mA]

Conclusions: In all trials, an increase in a circuits current increases the Illuminance and the perceived brightness. This means that as current increases, more photons are emitted from an LED. Indeed, as the brightness increases, the photocells resistance decreases resulting in a larger Lux measurement (according the manufacturers specifications). Drawing comparison between the curves is a little difficult. On first impression, from the data we gathered it appears that the red LEDs emit more light than the others. This could, however, be related to the wavelength sensitivity of the CdS cell. For the most part, LEDs with higher millicandela ratings are higher on the plots, indicating that more light is emitted by these devices at a given current. However, there are some discrepancies. Viewing angle has some effect on the measurements. For narrow angles, the light might not be focused on the photoresistor, yielding skewed results. It is important to note, therefore, that the mounting of both the sensor and the LED is important for direct LED comparison, requiring a more advanced setup. However, with the same LED the illuminance-current relationship is clearly visible. Regarding readings for LEDs at two distances (10 and 28cm), illuminances are much lower when the sensor is mounted further away. The Inverse Square Law states: 2 L1d12 = L2 d 2 where L1 is the illuminance at distance 1, d1. Using sample data gathered in our experiment at a distance of 10cm and a current of approximately 40 mA, we expect illuminances at d2 (28 cm): Red LED White LED 2 using L1 Lux @ 10cm, 40mA 512 0.1 166 0.12 L2 = L2 = 0.282 0.282 calculated L2 Lux @ 10cm, 40mA 65.3 21.2 measured L2 Lux @ 10cm, 40mA 110 76 Error (Lux) (measured-calculated) 44.7 54.8 % Error 68% 258%

( )

( )

These errors indicate that the Inverse Square Law does not hold very well. One reason is that the Inverse Square Law requires a point source. This is not the case with the LEDs. The viewing of the Red and White LEDs is 30 and 15, respectively. Since an LED with a wider viewing angle is closer to a point source, this explains why the lower Red LED error. Secondly, the Law assumes no reflections, which is not the case with the cardboard tubes. In conclusion, we used a photoresistor to to measure the LED illuminance. These measurements are sensitive to wavelength differences and mounting method, but the yield good relative measurements. We have confirmed that increasing LED current yields more light. However, photoresistors do not indicate reading light quality. Personal observations indicate that while the white and blue LEDs seem to provide what we consider the brightest light, it seems cold and harsh. This is consistent with how humans perceive red as a warm color, and blue as cold. Unit 3: The Flame that Burns Twice as Bright Problem Definition: The purpose of this unit is to demonstrate that the expected useful life of a charged battery is directly related to the amount of current drawn from the battery. Methods: In this unit, we constructed two circuits: one that draws a relatively large amount of current, and another that draws substantially less. We recorded the battery voltage as it decays with respect to time for both circuits. Additionally, we obtained information about the amount of light being emitted by the LEDs connected in the circuit that draws less current. These tests were conducted for a two-hour period. The Loaded circuit: this circuit was constructed with 9 red Lite-On LTL-2R3VRKNT (Digikey 160-1498-ND) and 6 amber Lite-On LTL-2R3VYKNT (Digikey160-1503-ND) LEDs connected in parallel to a 3V battery source. Each LED has its own 50 current-limiting resistor. The nominal current drawn totals 312 mA, as calculated using the forward LED voltages for each of the devices. The Lightly Loaded circuit: this circuit uses one of each of the devices used in the loaded circuit. The total nominal current drawn from the battery is 42 mA, approximately 1/10th of that drawn from the loaded battery. It is from these two LEDs that the light-level is read. Results: The gathered data is plotted in the following figure.
Decay of Alkaline Battery Voltage and Emitted Light with respect to Time (120 minutes)
3.3 250

3.2 200

3.1

Battery Voltage (V)

150 2.9

Illuminosity (Lux)

Loaded Vbat (I = 312mA) Lightly Loaded Vbat (I = 42mA) Illuminosity (Lightly Loaded)

2.8 100 2.7

2.6

50

2.5

2.4 0 20 40 60 Time (minutes) 80 100 120

Conclusions: It can be seen that the all the waveforms are decaying exponentially with respect to time. The illuminosity decreases as the voltage drops since the current flowing through the LEDs is decreased. This is as expected. The time constant for each of the two circuits (Loaded and Lightly Loaded) is determined from the data gathered, recalling that V (t ) = ( V0 Vdc )e t + Vdc and solving for : V0 Vdc = t ln V (t ) V . dc Parameter V0 Vdc (highest of LED voltages) V @ t = 120 minutes Loaded Battery 2.953 V 2.0 V 2.493 V 182 minutes Lightly Loaded Battery 3.065 V 2.0 V 2.881 V 633 minutes

The battery voltages at 120 minutes, as shown in the table, are used in the calculation of the time constant. Since the battery voltage decay is exponential, it will theoretically never reach a low enough value that an LED will not be turned on, at least to a degree. The duration of light useful for reading, however can be determined by observing the minimum amount of current required for adequate reading light, calculating the voltage required for this current to flow, and using the time constant of the lightly loaded battery circuit (assumed to be similar to the final design) to determine the time at which this voltage occurs. This approach is not outlined here. A discussion about the calculated time constants as they relate to the current drawn from the circuit could be carried out. One would expect to see the time constant of the lightly-loaded battery higher than shown: with approximately 1/10th of current flow, the time constant is expected to be roughly 10 times that of the loaded battery voltage waveform. It is expected that the ratio of approximately 3.5 experienced here arises from using slightly discharged batteries from a different manufacturer in the lightly loaded circuit. It is truly startling how much light can be generated by the LEDs when connected to a small battery pack. This qualitative observation, coupled with the time constant calculations, confirm that the batteries used in this experiment are more than sufficient for two hours of light generation for a reading task. However, there are other practical limits to the amount of light that can be generated: cost, the nature of how batteries are recharged (although these tests used non-rechargeable alkaline batteries), etc. Unit 4: Final Project: It Keeps Going, and Going, and Going This section describes the design of the system that we have selected as the final product. We chose a two-LED system: one diffused red LED (Lite-On LTL-10223W, Digikey 160-187-ND) and one clear blue LED (Lite-On LTL-353TBK, Digikey 160-1716-ND). Our rationale for this selection is that the closely-focused (8 degree) harsher light of the blue led is important for typical reading work, but the red led provides a wider (60 degree) focus that provides some

warmth to the color. This wider focus also allows the user to better see objects outside the area of higher-intensity light, allowing them to move the unit to refocus the higher-intensity light as necessary. For packaging, we used the battery casing removed from a dollar-store toy. This is an inexpensive solution that allows the batteries to be easily removed for recharging. Removing the batteries is also how we propose the user turns the device off. The LEDs and resistors were soldered directly to the battery holder terminals and then taped down to hold them in place. A clear plastic cover, also found from an inexpensive toy, was placed over top of the LEDs, allowing them to shine through. The cover is held in place with electrical tape, but silicon sealing could be used to improve water resistance. Photographs of our packaging solution and the resulting light are shown here.

To test the product, we should issue it to an actual user for them to put it through the paces. This feedback could then be used to improve our design. However, we instead used the product ourselves. Our approach is non-destructive, so we did not drop the device or put it through destructive tests. We expect, however, that in mild climates the plastic case and circuitry will perform well the plastic remains somewhat pliable preventing cracking from moderate drops. Recharging should be as simple as removing the batteries from the housing and inserting into the charger. Repairs in the event of breakage can be achieved by the use of tape, a soldering iron, and solder, assuming the problem is not the failure of a component itself. There are some weaknesses with the product, however. One weakness we noted is that the plastic door on the battery housing uses a plastic hinge. We expect that after a relatively low number of uses, the hinge will need to be repaired. This warrants further analysis, particularly in light of the fact that removal of the batteries is how we propose the user turns the device off. In the end, we feel that we have designed a reasonable prototype for a system to help with the problems of night-time reading in underdeveloped countries. The light, although not as nice as reading with other light sources, is sufficient. We are pleased that the lifetime of the unit between charging dramatically exceeds the stated objective of 2 hours.