John Larkin's LC oscillator
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Twin T circuit wanted
Next: And blocking oscillators
From: John Larkin on 18 Jun 2010 11:17 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:00:30 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >Yes. That measures the slope rather than the actual curve, which is >what I'd really prefer in this instance. How about using N led's, minimum two. Turn them on and off in all possible states, measure PD current with a very good meter, and analyze the results. See how well things sum that ought to sum. You could also trim the individual LED currents. It would be reasonable to do a series of experiments that would precisely adjust the LED light outputs to be equal, or to be precise 2:1 (optical binary DAC) steps. Then you can play with combinations. LED self-heating would be the biggest error, so something clever would need to be done about that. That's the sort of thing that would be fun to do as a product, if you thought that anybody would buy it. >> >> LEDs are pretty limear at higher currents, but I don't know about 70 >> dB. Actually, it wouldn't be all that hard to find out. >> >>> Interim conclusion: InGaAs is a lot less linear than Si. The quantum >>> efficiency improves by something like 5% for bias levels between 0 and 5 V. Knowing nothing about semiconductors doesn't keep me from speculating. Maybe the high defect density causes recombinations at low drift velocities. At any rate, I should keep my PD power supplies stiff. John
From: Phil Hobbs on 18 Jun 2010 14:27
John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:00:30 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > > >> Yes. That measures the slope rather than the actual curve, which is >> what I'd really prefer in this instance. > > > How about using N led's, minimum two. > > Turn them on and off in all possible states, measure PD current with a > very good meter, and analyze the results. See how well things sum that > ought to sum. The problem is that the photodiode is only 300 um in diameter, so there's a limit to how many LEDs you can crowd in there. I only had an afternoon to design and wire up a tester, so I used what I had lying around. My ABQ customer is a great outfit, but they have zilch prototyping supplies, so I built it at home. It's so SMT here, I was pathetically grateful to find a Radio Shack a mile away. I can do dead-bug with 0805s, but anything smaller is hard. Next time I'll bring a box of parts as well as a bag of tools. (I brought my own micromanipulators.) > You could also trim the individual LED currents. It would be > reasonable to do a series of experiments that would precisely adjust > the LED light outputs to be equal, or to be precise 2:1 (optical > binary DAC) steps. Then you can play with combinations. LED > self-heating would be the biggest error, so something clever would > need to be done about that. Back in the palmy days, I built a little tester for transistor log conformity that worked like that--it had a 10-turn pot controlling the collector current, with a switching x1-x2 amp. It used an LTC1043 low charge injection analog switch, which stored Vbe at the x1 setting and subtracted it from Vbe at the x2 setting. Looking at how the difference varied with collector current for different devices was very illuminating. > That's the sort of thing that would be fun to do as a product, if you > thought that anybody would buy it. If people knew that it was a problem, they would--but they generally have no idea, and radiometric calibration is hard to do to much better than 1%. It's mind-boggling, the number of people who wire up a photodiode and expect it to be linear to all 98 bits of their shiny new delta-sigma. So it's the sort of tester that (ideally) allows you to ship other magic products, if you're sufficiently clueful. Despite my best efforts to educate folks, a great many just wave a dead chicken over their PD and TIA, and hope that it works. Then they either sweep it under the rug or redefine what they mean by 'working'. :( >>> LEDs are pretty limear at higher currents, but I don't know about 70 >>> dB. Actually, it wouldn't be all that hard to find out. >>> >>>> Interim conclusion: InGaAs is a lot less linear than Si. The quantum >>>> efficiency improves by something like 5% for bias levels between 0 and 5 V. > > Knowing nothing about semiconductors doesn't keep me from speculating. > Maybe the high defect density causes recombinations at low drift > velocities. > > At any rate, I should keep my PD power supplies stiff. Yep. But it's primarily quantum efficiency that changes with bias, not the linearity--anywhere above half a volt or so, bias doesn't make much difference to the linearity vs photocurrent, at least not down in the sub-100uA range where I'm working. The output vs bias curves are mostly parallel straight lines, with some droop at zero bias and higher photocurrent. It's apparently important to illuminate the photodiode from the P-side. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |