Fr. Tom said:
(excellent summary of design considerations skipped)
>The circuit does not produce any "reverse bias" at all
>on the photodiode. The photodiode is forced to run with
>zero volts across itself. This is a very desireable thing,
>since the photodiode will produce a more linear current output
>when run in this mode.
Also desirable from the standpoint that the device has a
fairly large capacitance; so keeping the voltage across it small
improves the frequency response.
>As a little aside, I would like to note that light emitting
>diodes very often make good photo-detectors. I often use
>one IR diode as the emitter and another (exactly the same type)
>as a detector. As usual, Your Mileage May Vary.
I've heard of this but never tried to do it. Just curious - in
your experience, does the spectral sensitivity curve as a detector
match its output as an emitter? Do you know anything about
whether tracking spectral characteristics for the two different
modes would be a general rule for LEDs?
> Also desirable from the standpoint that the device has a
> fairly large capacitance; so keeping the voltage across it small
> improves the frequency response.
Huh?? Diode junction C goes down with reverse bias voltage.
Operating it into a vitrtual short should be like a low or zero voltage.
|On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:34:40 -0500 dave vanhorn <CEDAR.NET> dvanhorn
>> Also desirable from the standpoint that the device has a
>> fairly large capacitance; so keeping the voltage across it small
>> improves the frequency response.
>Huh?? Diode junction C goes down with reverse bias voltage.
>Operating it into a vitrtual short should be like a low or zero
Dave's right, it's the AC voltage across the diode that interacts with
the capacitance. If you had an amplifier with zero input impedance it
would be ideal. But a real amplifier has some non-zero input impedance,
so it is usually an advantage to reduce the diode's capacitance by
applying a DC reverse voltage. With bias, DC and noise currents will
leak through the diode and be amplified, so measurement of low light
levels suffers. Whether to use bias or not depends on the application.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
I have not done any kind of exhaustive study on the matter,
but I can tell you that A few years ago I had a project that
involved detecting walls using modulated IR beams.
Using identical IR LEDs as detectors did almost as good a
job as the "real" IR detectors that I had initially
purchased. I tested about 40 different kinds of detectors.
The best were the relatively expensive IR detectors that
included a built-in lens and filter. Next came the
identical IR LED used as a detector. Last of all came the
visible LEDs and generic photodetectors.
And yes, I did find that for any given IR LED, the best
low cost detector was most often a matched IR LED used as a
detector. Again, not a rigorous survey, but enough
correlation within the samples to convince me that it makes
sense to at least experiment and compare results before just
blindly going out and buying the expensive units.
Perhaps others might like to perform the experiments for
themselves and report back to the list on what they find.
Fr. Tom McGahee
> From: Reginald Neale <SERVTECH.COM> neale
> To: MITVMA.MIT.EDUPICLIST
> Subject: photodiodes etc.
> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 5:20 PM
> Fr. Tom said:
thanks for your input thomas ,
i have a personal project in the near future dealing with ir.
after reading specs on a few different types & combinations & price i too
decided that a matched pair would be best.
the $ for the expensive IR detectors that
included a built-in lens and filter arn't worth it especially in the proto
thanks for varifying my decision.
Thomas McGahee wrote:
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999
, 2000 only
- New search...