Please excuse the awkward phrasing of the question; it seems that LEDs have pulse latencies of nanosecond and sub-nanosecond durations. The question is, how was it possible to measure such precise increments of time? Is there ultra-high frame rate footage of this?
Answer
An inexpensive method of measuring rise and fall time limitations of an arbitrary waveform, is to start with a square wave of a moderate frequency, and then systematically increase the frequency while keeping duty cycle constant at 50%.
The average intensity of emitted light is easily measured, even by using something as basic as a CdS light-dependent resistor (LDR) cell.
As the switching frequency increases, rise and fall slopes become dominant factors in intensity of resultant signal, as illustrated in the graph below:
Note that the rising slope, and separately the falling slope, are nearly identical for signals of 50 through 200 MHz. What changes is the amount of time per cycle the signal stays high, or low. At 200 MHz, the LED intensity never reaches the plateau at all.
- For very low frequencies, the average intensity is reasonably close to 50%, dominated by the "on" plateau and the "off" plateau.
- As frequency rises, the sloped edges take up a significant part of each time cycle, so average sensed intensity begins to drop.
- Once the frequency hits a level where the LED cannot fully turn on at all, the sensed average intensity drops much faster.
In the experiment from which the graph was taken (the paper is not publicly accessible), the average measured intensities were reported as:
- 49.125% at 50 MHz
- 43% at 100 MHz
- 31.6% at 200 MHz (note the drastic intensity drop)
Thus, with fairly low tech, non-exotic means, the sum of LED rise and fall times can be determined.
To distinguish between the rise and the fall time values, the same exercise is repeated with different duty cycles, alternately minimizing the "on" plateau, and the "off" plateau to insignificance. Thus, the contribution and thereby the duration of each of the edges can be determined. I don't really understand the math of this last bit, so I'd leave it to someone else to explain it.
No comments:
Post a Comment