Application

Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) are rapidly progressing to become the dominant technology for both HDTV displays and personal computer displays, amounting to a market of $27.4 Billion . As display technology has evolved over the years, from Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), to filter utilizing LCD displays, and eventually LED utilizing LCDs, the general population has grown accustomed to certain colors looking Blue or Red or Green, that is, having a certain spectral wavelength and range, as well as intensity. This has presented a problem for engineers who must utilize the newest technologies while keeping consistencies between spectral emissions from previous generations of displays. In order to verify the Blue seen is actually the correct wavelength and intensity; engineers have been forced to develop Light Measurement Systems, to quickly and easily display usable color values, for the various types of LCD display methods. LCDs can employ several different methods for producing the different colors seen out of a display, including; Dichroic, Absorption, and Narrow-Band filtering, or Light Emitting Diode (LEDs) technology . The Dichroic, Absorption, and Narrow-Band filters all utilize backlighting, with a filter, to narrow the bandwidth of the backlight in some way to a visible color value, whereas Light Emitting Diodes produce their own narrow spectrum of colored light in a limited range of the visible spectrum.
[1] [1]

The Light Measuring System (LMS) we developed is intended to be used to characterize color values for various LEDs used in LCDs. This system is able to measure a specific pixel illumination scheme that meets or exceeds the Client and Users needs as expressed in the following sections. This report also analyzes and outlines the results obtained from primary testing of our prototype LMS, as well as an indepth cost analysis and recommendations for future prototypes.

Users Need
Our client has expressed several needs including both technical specifications, as well as social, and financial requirements. Table 1. (Page 2 Top) shows a detailed list of the technical specifications and their corresponding normalized weighting factors established during our preliminary research and experiences with the client.

Table 1. QFD Matrix Note: * Represent attributes or objectives that did not qualify for a weighting factor

Attribute Operation Time

Stability Sample Cycle Maintenance Size Cost *Operation Power *Recyclability *Base Schedule Safety Usability Total

Measurable Objective 1-5 hrs Continuous Repeatability +0.04 -0.04, Reproducibility +0.1 - 0.1, 95% confidence interval 5 Second ea. <1.00 minute tot. Calibrate once per day or less 5x5x5 in Base 4x4x4 ABS <500$ 110v 60 Hz standard AC desirable but not necessary Al A356 10 Weeks or <10 Weeks < 1 Injury > HS Graduate

Weighting Factor 1.12

1.83 0.73 1.28 1.38 0.73 0 0 0 1.83 0.37 0.73 10

Column 1 titled Attribute represents a qualitative measurement or goal of our client. Column 2 describes a quantitative variable used during the design process as a measurable physical guideline during the detailed design step of our engineering solution. Column 3 is a measurable proportion of importance of column A and B in comparison with each attribute listed in the corresponding rows. The weighting factors were first determined on a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being the most important 1 being least, and then normalized against each other. Through this method we established Stability, or accuracy and precision requirements, as well as Schedule, or completion time, as being the two most prominent and important values. As a group it was determined having a prototyped device that could produce correct readings within the project timeframe was the most vital characteristic in our project process. These two attributes were then followed by the lesser important but still necessary goals of Operation Time, Maintenance, Size, and Cost.

Following completion of the QFD Matrix a system level block diagram was created in order to clearly distinguish parts of the system. The QFD Matrix along with System Level Block Diagram helped identify which attributes can be isolated to which parts of the system.

System Block Diagram

A System Block Diagram was created upon completion of the QFD Matrix. The fundamental constituents of the LMS are Power Source, LED Filter Holder, Fiber Optic Cable, Spectrometer, and Computer (Figure 1 Page 3).

Power Source

LED Filter Holder

Fiber Optic Cable

Computer

Spectrometer

Figure 1. System Block Diagram. Displays The breakdown of individual components And their relation to the whole system.

The Power Source must be able to produce a minimum of 2.0 V at 20 mA, to power the red LED, and produce no more than 2.5 V at 20 mA, in order to not burn out the red led . The Power source must produce 3.2 V at 20 mA, to power the blue LED, and no more than 4.0 V to avoid burning out the blue LED . The LED Filter Holder and base must be no larger than 5x5x5 and have a 2 inch spread from input LED light to the fiber optic cable. Additionally the Holder itself must be able to hold a round LED D= 0.23 and length 0.35 inches with 2 holes drilled for the power supply leads of .03 spaced .98 apart centered on the LED . The holder should be stable, and not tip over, while maintaining structural integrity and stiffness for the best possible values obtained. Tolerances should be as close as possible preferably <0 .1 The Fiber Optic Cable must be fixable to the 2 distance offset from the LED, and should also be removable. The cable should transmit as much light as possible preferably >80% of received light from the LED but some variability is allowable.
[2] [2] [2]

The Spectrometer should measure accurately within 10nm as Thorlab Specifies the LEDs are only tolerable of 10nm individually . The spectrometer also must have a resolution approaching 5nm where more resolution is better for more accurate chromaticity values. The spectrometer should be able to send a digital readout of the collected data Via USB Cable to a computer with Ocean Optic SpectraSuite installed. Ocean Optics Spectrometer was determined to have a resolution of ~1nm which is ideal for our system.
[3]

The Computer used should meet the following basic system requirements : Microsoft Windows Windows 2000, XP Apple Macintosh OS X version 10.0 or later Linux Red Hat 9 or later, Fedora (any version), Debian 3.1 (Sarge), and SUSE (9.0 or later)

[4]

30+ MB of free hard disk space.

1 USB Ports

The first step in accurately measuring the LEDs is to power them. The power source selected should provide ample power to the specifications set above. The next step involves the placement of the LEDs for optimal measuring and viewing output as they would be in an LCD Display. The Holders purpose is to provide a stable environment, where the light emitted from the LEDs can be accurately collected from the fiber optic cable. The fiber optic cable is utilized so a diagnosis of each LED, can be done a distance away from the power source and loaded LED in the holder. This is useful in busy factory settings, in which analysis should be independent of the factory work environment, on the factory floor. The spectrometer uses a grating to break the colored light into much smaller individual wavelengths and converts them into a digital signal. The computer subsequently takes that digital signal and using the SpectraSuite software converts it into a usable format for us to analyze (Intensity vs. Wavelength), which can subsequently be converted into chromaticity values, or compared to the manufacturers specifications.

By using our QFD Matrix and System Block Diagram our conceptual designs for the Holder portion of solution were created, to optimize for the entire system and our attributes in the QFD Matrix.

Conceptual Design Solutions

Two conceptual designs were created in order to select the design that met the most performance goals for our LMS. Figure 2. below shows each concept with basic dimensions.

Figure 2. Conceptual Designs 1 and 2. The top middle part represents the LED holder Lego Piece that can be adjusted for each of the 3 LEDS in either design case. The Lego piece fits into the three holes in each design. Both concepts work on similar principles; however, Concept 2 (Turn-Dial) had more moving parts (Gear shown above) and flexibility in modulating the distance between the LED and the fiber optic cable, to optimize light entering the cable. Each design utilizes a Lego Piece, containing three pegs than fit into three holes drilled into the base, to adjust for each of the three LEDs (R,G,and B). The Lego Piece serves as the primary LED holding device, which should press flush with the inner tube that connects to the fiber optic cable. This should minimize light lost from the LEDs and interference from outside light. The two concepts were then ranked against each other in a Decision Matrix (Table 2).

Table 2. Decision Matrix. Concept #1 (Stationary) Concept #2 (Turn-Dial)

Concept #1 Attribute/Criteria Operation Time Stability Sample Cycle Maintenance Size Cost Usability Scheduling Safety Score 9.83 8.83 9.17 8.83 10 8.5 9.7 9.17 9.83 Weight 1.12 1.83 0.73 1.28 1.38 0.73 0.73 1.83 0.37 TOTAL Value 11.0096 16.1589 6.6941 11.3024 13.8 6.205 7.081 16.7811 3.6371 92.6692 Score 9.5 8.5 8.3 6.83 10 6.33 8.83 7.67 9.33

Concept #2 Weight 1.12 1.83 0.73 1.28 1.38 0.73 0.73 1.83 0.37 Value 10.64 15.555 6.059 8.7424 13.8 4.6209 6.4459 14.0361 3.4521 83.3514

In order to determine the Score value for each design, each design was ranked on a 1 to 10 scale to whether or not it would meet the quantitative and qualitative parameter set in the QFD on page 2. A design that scored a 10 meant it fully met the parameter, 1 meaning it had 0% probability of meeting the parameter, and 5 meaning it had a 50% probability of meeting the parameter.

Concept #1 (Stationary), won in every category but safety, where it tied Concept #2 (Turn-Dial). This was not surprising as Concept #1 remained the simplest making it the least high maintenance, and best at maintaining optimal calibration. The only advantage offered by concept two was, increased flexibility in calibrating, at the cost of a much more complex design, more maintenance, and calibration needed before use.

Our final design was based almost explicitly on Concept #1; however, as a team we decided to opt for an adjustable inner tube, in order to give us some minor flexibility within our design, without becoming ultimately too complex. This allowed us all of the advantages of Concept #2 without providing the disadvantages of the many moving parts and high maintenance.

Design Specifications
The Light Sources used in our project will be LEDs. The relevant specifications for each LED are listed in Table 3 page 7.

Table 3. LED Basic Part Specifications for Optical and Electrical Properties

[2][5][6]

Forward Voltage @ 20 mA (V) Center Wavelength FWHM Optical Power @ 20 mA Half Viewing Angle

Blue LED 3.2, 4.0max 46510 nm 25nm 20.0mW 8

Green LED 3.3, 4.3 max 5255nm 35nm 7.0mW 9

RED LED 2.0, 2.5Max 63910nm 17nm -

Through the use of these specifications we determined the optimal fixed viewing distance for the LEDs to the fiber optic cable was 2 ,by testing each LED individually in order to find a range in which accurate measurements could be taken.

The filter holder or LED holder in our case must be able to hold the three different types of LEDs, and maintain a 2 gap from the LED to the Fiber Optic Cable. It must also be cast in a 5x5x5 aluminum mold, for its base and a 4x4x4 mold for its ABS part. Additionally, it must be under $500 in final cost after completion. Team Purples filter holder is shown in Figure 3.

Through-Put Tube LED Power Wires (to power source) LED Adjustable Holding Piece

Adjustable Alignment Screws

Fiber Optic Connector (To Spectrometer) Filter Holder

Figure 3. Example LED Two- Piece Holder. Properly toleranced and specified designs can be found in Appendix A

In order to sort the wavelengths, the spectrometer must be able to break the LEDs light into at minimum wavelength groups of 10nm, and at maximum 1nm in order to accurately meet the functional requirements stated above.

The spectrometer should also be able to detect and transmit digitally the subsequently divided wavelengths to a computer, which can read them and convert them into a graph of Wavelength vs. Intensity, for comparison with CIE Chromaticity Functions, in order to determine the accuracy of the color

when observed from the human eye . Additionally the peak wavelengths and FWHM values can be compared to the LED manufacturers specifications above, to see if the LEDs fall inside the tolerances stated by the manufacturer.

[7]

Metallurgical Analysis of Casting

Introduction

Our LMS base/holder was cast from A356 Aluminum alloy. A356 is Aluminum with 7% Si .3% Mg and is a very common alloy for casting. This alloy provided an ideal alloy for casting as it has a low density ~2.7g/cm and a relatively low melting temperature of around 615 C while also remaining heat treatable to improve its strength. Sand casting with binder (ZCast501) was chosen as the appropriate method for fabrication of the holder/base as it allows for intricate designs and molds to be created while maintaining relatively low cost. Additionally, casting was chosen as a convenience method as it was readily available for use. The Mg provides the ability to age harden the alloy for increased strength and hardness, while Si improves castability. After casting the holder was then heat treated to T6 condition to improve hardness and strength. As cast and T6 condition hardness measurements were then compared along with microstructures to determine the success of the heat treating. Casting Process Mold Preparation The casting temperature chosen was 720 C (Based on previous experience this temperature works well with our specific suppliers alloy in casting) and general casting temperatures range from 677-788 C for A356. Our mold (1256.1 cm was first designed in Solidworks with a single pour spout, six riser vents (to allow for shrinkage during cooling), and a single parting dividing the mold in two pieces through the zplane (Figure 4.). The mold was then transferred to a Rapid Prototyping Machine and created using ZCast501 sand and binding material. The mold was then placed in a catch tray and packed with sand/clay to hold the two pieces in place (Figure 4. page 9).
3) 3

Pouring & Machining Following mold preparation approximately ~220 cm of liquid A356
3

720 C alloy were poured from the

ceramic pour cup into the pour spout of the mold and allowed to cool for twelve hours (Figure 4 page 9.).

Molten A356 Riser Vents

2-Piece Mold

Catch Pan Sand holding two-piece mold

Figure 4. Pouring of Casting of A356 Base. Notice the six riser vents accounting for shrinkage, and the sand holding the two piece mold tightly in place during pouring.

After the casting was finished cooling a screwdriver was used to separate the mold from the casting (Figure 5.)

Figure 5. Separating mold from casting. A screwdriver was used to separate the Mold from the casting. The subsequent Mold pieces were then discarded. After mold separation the gating from the pour cup and risers was left behind (Figure 6. Page 10). It was then machined off using a band saw leaving the nearly geometrically finished base part ready for machining the screw holes for adjusting screws and the ABS Adjustable LED holder. Final weight was 562g. The casting was then heat treated to T6 condition.

Gating from riser vents

Gating from pour spout

Figure 6. Casting after mold separation. The gating from the pour spout and riser vents was subsequently machined off. Heat Treatment

Following casting a heating treating to the T6 condition was performed in order to analyze the effects of age hardening on hardness of A356. Following the ASTM handbook for A356 sand casting heat treatment the cast part was solutionized at 540 C for 12 hours to allow for the Mg particles to dissolve into the aluminum matrix. The casting was then taken out and quenched into a water bath for ~5 seconds to supersaturate the aluminum matrix. The casting was then placed into a furnace for 3 hours at 155 C following the sand casting procedure. Following the heat treatment the casting was quenched again into a water bath for ~3 seconds to stop the precipitation growth of Mg precipitates.

Hardness Values

Post heat treating samples of the A356 gating (As Cast) and A356 gating (T6) were compared using a Rockwell hardness tester. Testing on the gating was initially done using the HRE scale, however, the T6 condition gating samples proved too hard to use the HRE scale so the HRB scale was used to subsequently test all of the T6 sampled.

Results for the As Cast yielded a x= 31.31 and StDev= 16.21 HRE scale Results for the T6 yielded a x= 20.84 and StDev= 5.96 HRB scale The As Cast samples may appear to be harder, however, the HRB scale (1.6mm diameter ball used for indenting) is used for far harder material testing than HRE scale (3.2mm diameter ball used for indenting ) and in reality the T6 is much harder than the as cast sample.

10

Microstructure, Phase Diagram, and Hardness Connection

In order to validate that our heat treatment was successful in addition to hardness values metallographic samples were prepared and analyzed to find evidence of a successful heat treatment. Samples were compared at the 200x and 500x magnifications (Figures 7, 8, 9, 10).

250 Micron Bar

Unknown Silicon compound

Lamellar Eutectic Structure Si Grains

Tiny Precipitates

Unknown Silicon compound

Spheroidized Silicon Grains

(Al) Matrix

Figure 7. (Left) As Cast Microstructure at 200x Figure 8. (Right) T6 Condition Microstructure at 200x Note the grains of silicon appear far more spheroidized in the T6 condition. Evidence of a eutectic type structure is noticeable in both microstructures. Many of the tiny precipitates, formed during unequilibrium cooling, have spheroidized into larger grains in the T6 treated sample. The 200x magnification gives a good view of the proportion of Silicon to Pro-eutectic Aluminum in the A356 alloy.

11

100 Micron Bar

Unknown Silicon compound (Al) Matrix

Lamellar Eutectic Structure Tiny Precipitates

Spheroidized Silicon Grains Si Grains

Unknown Silicon compound

Tiny Precipitates

Figure 9. (Right) As Cast Microstructure at 500x Figure 10. (Left) T6 Condtion Microstructure 500x The unidentified silicon compound is visible in both microstructures, evidence it was not dissolved during the heat treatment. The Silicon grains are more spheroidized in the T6 condtion microstructure than the As Cast. Note the lamellar structure in the As Cast sample of Silicon and Aluminum. The tiny precipitates visible in both microstructures do not appreciably contribute to the strengthening of either sample. Lamellar Structure

The 200x magnification As Cast sample shows a nearly 50% eutectic structure, of Al and Si rich phases, in a lamellar configuration. This corresponds with the phase diagram mass fractions for what equilibrium an equilibrium cooled sample should have (Figure11.). The minor differences occur from some of the Si that should be in the lamellar structure forms tiny precipitates due to non equilibrium cooling.

Tiny Particles

The tiny visible precipitate particles are formed due to the unequilibrium cooling rate after casting and the decreasing solubility of Si in (Al) (Figure 11.). As the sample cools at non-equilibrium conditions most of the Si in the sample has enough time to form the lamellar-like structure present in Figure 7, however, some of the Si that is dissolved in the Al phase at 555C is no longer soluble as it cools and must precipitate out into the tiny particles visible in the (Al) matrix phase and does not have ample time to diffuse into large grains. Those precipitates are then once again almost completely dissolved during solutionizing of the sample during heat treating as the solubility is once again raised at the higher

12

temperature. Solubility is then lowered again during quenching and more, tiny precipitates reform. During the furnace treatment at 155C many of the smaller precipitates have enough energy to move either into the spheroidizing lamellar grains or back into the (Al) rich matrix phase as solubility is once again increased. When the final quench occurs fewer tiny particles are present as the solubility drop is less than from solutionizing or As Cast cooling and particles have had more time to diffuse into the larger spheroidized grains.

Figure 11. A356 position on Al-Si Phase diagram At nearly 50% of the distance between the eutectic Composition and maximum solubility of silicon in (Al) A356 (7%) should have a nearly 50% eutectic lamellar microstructure as shown in Figure 7 with the rest being matrix phase of Pro-eutectic Al. Unidentified Silicon Compound

[9]

In all four samples an unidentified compound was found represented by the light grey grains in the (Al) matrix. Currently more research needs to be done in order to identify this unknown compound.

Hardness and Microstructure

The hardness of the sample is due to the formation of Mg2Si precipitates during the T6 heat treatment. These particles are much too small to be seen under the 200x or 500x magnifications available to use. These particles form during the final step of the T6 treatment (Furnace treat 155C as the heat from the furnace allows the supersaturated atoms of Mg (formed during solutionizing) to move to lower energy states, by spheroidizing tiny precipitates, that inhibit slip along slip planes. In order to actually observe these particles we would need to utilize a Transmission Electron Microscope. The tiny precipitates that are visible are much too large to contribute to the strengthening or hardness of our alloy. As precipitates grow to the micron or tens of micron scale they can no longer effectively interact with inhibiting the slip along slip planes.

13

Hardness vs. Strength

During our heat treatment we increased both strength and hardness. This is because both strength and hardness rely on an increase in inhibition of movement along slip planes (proportional). Hardness is a convenience measurement of resistance to plastic deformation while strength is a, much more difficult to obtain measurement, is a reflection of resistance to slip along slip planes. Since strength measurements were not used, CES gives maximum tensile strength of 174 MPa for As Cast A356 and yield strength of 114 MPa, while tensile strength increases to for 310 MPa for T6 and yield strength to 234 MPa . This increase corresponds with our hardness increase found in our samples. Conclusion
[8]

Although the precipitates were not visible under the microscope we know that the heat treatment was successful based on the HRB scale being necessary for the T6 treated sample (as well as correctly following the ASTM standards for sand casting A356). The spheroidization of Si being present in both the 200x (Figure 8.) and 500x samples (Figure 10.) shows signs of some sort of heat treating and lowering of energy within the grains of Si.

Fabrication and Assembly

Team Purples LMS utilized fiber optics to transmit light from the LED holder to the Ocean Optics Spectrometer. The fiber optic cable utilized a 200 micron OD fused silica fiber that was fed into a polyethylene tube, which was surrounded by Kevlar reinforcing fibers, and utilized an orange furcating tube. An example fiber optic cable can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Fiber optic cable cutaway. the Kevlar reinforcing braided sheath as well as polyethylene inner tube are both clearly visible.

[8]

Following the insertion of the core of the fiber, the ends of the fiber were then affixed using epoxy to an SMA connector and a boot was placed over the connection to further protect the fragile fused silica fiber (Step 4 of Calibration in the Standard Operating Procedures shows the boot and SMA connection). The

14

cables chosen were one meter in length to show a proof of concept for the utilization of fiber optics to allow analysis of samples to be done some distance away from the loading device.

The sample holder required minimal machining and manufacturing as most assembling is done at the end client user level. A drill press was used to drill the three .250 inch diameter extruded holes for the LED Adjustable Holding Piece in the cast base. Additionally a drill press was used to drill the four holes for the four 6-32 hex head .138 adjustable screws in the base Step 1 of Set up Procedure in the Standard Operating Procedures). A tap and die set was used to tap the holes for the screws to be loosened and tightened from. All additional assembly and manufacturing is done by the final operator.

During assembly of the fiber optics problems arose with keeping the fused silica inner cable from sliding out of the tube during the connection of the SMA Connector to the cable. This problem was magnified as a result of the epoxy setting much more quickly than manufacturer claims. In the future it is recommended to change epoxy manufacturers as setting the fiber on time proves difficult in the current time constraints. Additionally drilling of the three extruded holes in the base of the LMS provided difficult to align properly by hand. In the future the holes should be cast into the base and then machined to spec to provide better alignment and a more accurate position for the ABS LED adjustable holder to fit into.

Attenuation Causes by Constituent

In order to better pinpoint the location of the most attenuation in our system the System Block Diagram was used (Figure 13.).

Power Source

LED Filter Holder

Fiber Optic Cable

Computer

Spectrometer

Figure 13. System Block Diagram. Displays the breakdown of individual constituents and their relation to the whole system.

After creating the System Block Diagram, we ran through each constituent and tried to evaluate whether the constituent contributed a significant amount to the total loss of attenuation, and if the constituent did pose a significant loss, what individual component (I.E. fiber optic cable has multiple components, SMA connector fiber, etc..) within the constituent lead to that significant loss.

15

Power Source The power source did not contribute a significant amount of attenuation as the light has yet to have been produced at this point in the system. LED Filter Holder The filter holder creates the most attenuation as there is light lost at multiple points in the system (Leaving LEDs, passing through filter tubing, and passing into the fiber optic cable), however, for our Light Measurement System calculating the loss is extremely difficult, as getting proper alignment of the LEDs and the fiber optic cable, proves extremely difficult. Additionally the LEDs produce a radial intensity distribution that is different for each LED, (color/wavelength) as well as each individually manufactured LEDs. For the red LED, with maximum intensity at 8 off the normal in a conical shape, our tube of 60.96mm decreases the intensity by a factor of 11.74 xs solely by placing the fiber optic cable father away from the light source. Fiber Optic Cable The fiber optic connection created minor attenuation. The SMA connections were not perfectly aligned and the air to glass transitions also creates some minor refraction when entering the spectrometer. Additionally the light also changed mediums three times before reaching the spectrometer. Each transition created minor refraction lowering signal quality. All of these factors helped contribute to the light loss of the system. Spectrometer The spectrometer itself did not directly affect the light entering it. Only the connections between the fiber optic cable and spectrometer contributed significantly to attenuation. Computer The computer did not contribute significantly to the attenuation of the light as it was only processing the digital signal, and not helping the light flow in any way.

Total Attenuation & Recommendations

The total attenuation amounted to far less than 1% of radiated power actually entering the spectrometer (Table 4.). Table 4. Total Light Attenuation. Displays the system settings (left), Power in (mid), power measured out of fiber (mid), Resulting Attenuation (mid right), and corresponding spectrometer settings for good readings (right). Light Throughput Measurements Voltage (V) Blue Green Red 3 4.1 1.8 Current (A) 0.01 0.06 0.01 Power in (watts) 20*10^-3 7.0*10^-3 7.2*10^-3 Power transmitted through Fiber Optic (watts) 123*10^-9 168*10^-9 53.4*10^-9 Attenuation total(dB) 52.11 46.19 47.67 60000 60000 48000 Counts Integration Time (ms) 10 10 10

16

Following the calculation of total attenuation, we then calculated the amount of photons of each LED produced that were actually incident upon the photocathode. (Table 5.). Table 5. Photons incident on the photocathode by wavelength. Magnitudes of x10^11 amount of photons are incident on the photocathode each second.

Wavelength(m)

Energy (joules/photon)

Power received from spectrometer (Watts) 123*10^-9 168*10^-9 53.4*10^-9

Photons/Second

465*10^-9 528*10^-9 639*10^9

4.27484E-19 3.76477E-19 3.1108E-19

2.8773E+11 4.46242E+11 1.7166E+11

After calculating the total attenuation we then calculated the attenuation lost by the fiber optic cables specifically, so we could establish a general idea of what proportion of attenuation was lost prior to entering the cables and then through the Fiber Optic Cable stage in our system Table 6. .

Table 6. dB lost due to fiber optic connections. angular attenuation produces about twice as many dB as Lateral

dB Laterally 0.3852dB

dB Angular 0.628

Although our dB values were high, indicating that minimal light from the LEDs was incident on the photocathode through our LMS, upon initial trial testing all three LEDs (Red, Blue, Green) were able to be tested at their corresponding integration times (Table 1.) Although the data in Table 1. does not suggest a correlation between wavelength and attenuation (Due to the lack of precision between measurements), as wavelength decreases diffraction increases, meaning the alignment for blue light would be more difficult to obtain than red light, creating more attenuation do to the extra misalignment of the fibers.

17

In order to reduce our overall attenuation in the future, adding a lens to further column ate the light entering the fiber optic cable may be used. By reducing the dB of the holder we will significantly reduce the overall dB (Figure 14.)

Attenuation Fiber optic vs. Holder

dB Lateral dB Angular Blue Led Holder dB

Figure 14. Attenuation caused by holder vs. fiber optic cable. Attenuation caused by the holder makes up a large majority of overall attenuation.

Testing Methodology
Standard Operating Procedure for LMS

Set Up Procedure 1. Take the aluminum base plate and loosen the screws to allow for future adjustment 2. Obtain the adjustable lens holder and separate the adjustable O ring so that the piece resembles the picture on the right

18

3. Obtain the adjustable O ring 4. Attach the adjustable O ring to the adjustable lens holder to the extruded area as shown to the left. Twist the O ring until it is flush with the aluminum casting 5. Take out the 0.5 inch diameter lens holder

6. Place the 0.5 inch diameter lens holder into the extruded holder with the screws as shown to the right 7. Screw together the 0.5 inch diameter lens holder and the adjustable lens holder so that it resembles the picture to the right 8. Obtain another 0.5 inch diameter lens holder, and screw on to the end of the lens holder, as shown on the right. Note: As of now, the model should resemble the picture on the right

9. Take the pre-assembled LED holder

10. Place the LED holder into the extruded holes

19

11. Adjust the adjustable lens holder until the front of the 0.5 inch diameter lens holder is flush against the LED holder Calibration 1. Locate the end of the lens holder adapter 2. Look into the hole of the lens holder adapter to see if the LED appears to be straight Note: If it is not straight, tighten or loosen the screws on the casting until the LED appears to be in a straight line 3. Take the fiber optic cable and screw it to the end of the lens holder adapter until taught. 4. Screw the other end of the fiber optic cable into an Ocean Optic USB4000 spectrometer 5. Spread the spectrometer and casting apart until the fiber optic cable is straight and taught

6. Plug in the USB adapter into the Ocean Optics USB4000 port

20

7. Plug the other end of the USB cable into a USB port on a computer

Data Processing 1. Once the computer has been turned on, open up the Spectra Suite application, which is located in the Ocean Optics folder from the start menu. 2. Obtain a power source

3. Connect the LEDs to the power source, the red pin goes into the red colored slot, and the black pin goes into the black slot. 4. Adjust the integration time to 10 milliseconds 5. Turn on the power source, and adjust the voltage and current for each LED until a peak of approximately 50000 to 60000 counts is obtained. Approximate Values Red- 1.9 Volts 0.1 Amps Blue- 3.0 Volts 0.1 Amps Green- 4.1 Volts

21

0.6 Amps 6. Copy the data obtained by clicking on the copy to clipboard button 7. Go to Microsoft Excel and copy the data into column A, row 2. 8. Excel will calculate the experimental chromaticity values for x, y and z and display them 9. Compare the experimental chromaticity values against the accepted values Red: x=0.640, y=0.330 Green: x=0.300, y=0.600 Blue: x=0.150, y=0.060 10. Repeat steps 3 through 9 three times for each LED to obtain a statistically significant amount of data.
To enhance the performance of our LMS tighter tolerances between the LED Holder and the extruded holes within the base would make alignment of the optical tube and LED much easier. Additionally employment of specifically set power sources would eliminate the necessity for adjusting the power source when powering LEDs and increase the ease of calibration and operation. Also possible introduction of collimating lenses to better focus the light leaving the LED into the fiber optic cable may improve light throughput and decrease attenuation when low intensity LEDs (ex. Red color) are used.

Results & Color Analysis

Post construction of our LMS samples were conducted on Thorlabs Red, Green, and Blue LEDs following the SOPs outlined above. Five sample measurements were used to determine the amount of measurements to be taken each day, however, the standard deviations of these measurements was so small it revealed that a single measurement daily would yield significantly different results over the course of the data collection. To yield more accurate data team Purple decided to take three measurements daily

22

to yield a larger data pool to analyze. Measurements were taken within a one hour timeslot each day, by separate operators daily, and consisted of three individual readings on each of the three different LEDs, for a total of nine measurements daily. These measurements continued for five days providing 15 measurements for each LED. These values taken as wavelength vs. intensity were converted to chromaticity values per client request through utilization of a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and compared to those produced by CRT phosphors utilized in CRT displays (Table 7. page 23)

Table 7. CRT Chromaticity vs. LED Chromaticity. LEDs match up well in the color red but deteriorate as the spectral wavelengths get shorter. CRT LED Purple Red x y Green x y Blue x y Avg Offset 0.640 0.330 Avg Offset 0.300 0.600 Avg Offset 0.150 0.060 0.340 0.590 0.312 0.074 0.205 0.653 0.083 0.132 0.207 88.0 % 32.37 % 68.33 % 91.17% 92.19 % 94.54 % Accuracy

Based on the data collected above the LEDs tested from Thorlabs do not provide enough of a match, based on chromaticity values taken, to completely replace the CRT Phosphors and maintain less than a 5% difference between chromaticity values. However, the human eye may not need a match to be within 5% and it may be possible to utilize LEDs without having a 95% match. We recommend additional studies on the human eyes perception of the difference before drawing a final conclusion. The results were also compared to group Brown to see if there were any variances between LEDs between different testing groups (Table 8. Page 24). A 2-Sample T-Test was used to determine if the LEDs mean of the LEDs measured between the two groups were statistically similar or different.

23

Table 8. Chromaticity Values (Team Purple vs. Team Brown). Only Red y and Blue x were determined to be significantly similar. LED Purple Red x y Green x y Blue x y 0.1342 0.2226 0.01775 0.00737 0.13707 0.19402 0.00155 0.00290 Yes No 0.2182 0.6558 0.00310 0.00465 0.20956 0.66902 0.01154 0.00273 No No Mean 0.5904 0.3147 LED Purple Std.Dev. 0.00963 0.00279 LED Brown Mean 0.60717 0.31483 LED Brown Std.Dev. 0.00275 0.00066 Statistically Similar P>alpha No Yes

Only Blue x and Red y values were determined to be significantly similar. This is because the standard deviations of both data sets were extremely small due to the precision of the two LMSs that were being used to test. Long term reproducibility for the 5 days tested was = 0.00193 < 0.1 Target for 2. Short term repeatability was = 0.0075 < .04 Target for 2 The LMS fell within the target for both repeatability and reproducibility. The measurements would have had an even lower standard deviation if we had used the same operator for all of the trials and not pulled out the LED Adjustable Holder between each measurement. Additionally it is important to calibrate the LMS the same way each day which was very operator dependent.

Conclusions
Our LMS met all of the clients original performance objectives and user needs. The LMS cost only ~$355 far less than the original budget of $500 dollars and provides stable repeatable measurements of LEDs. The LMS is easy to operate and is safe to handle. No injuries were achieved during the 5 day trial with multiple different operators. The LMS was completed within the 10 week timeline and can be operated from 1-5 hours continuously. Samples can be loaded and tested within one minute. All previous guidelines have been met.

24

Project Plan
Table 4 (Attached Back) outlines a breakdown of both the timeline and work breakdown for completion of our LMS. Initial goals that were provided during the conceptual design review can be found below.

During our timeline it is important for us to complete casting and fabrication of the LED holder and base on time, as to allow sufficient time to test and calibrate our LMS for use. These two steps are the most vital in completion time and represent the most crucial and strict deadlines to follow. After completion, it is important for us to quickly fabricate and begin testing, so we may account for any potential problems or delay towards completion of the overall project. Initial project estimates of total hours were ~380 hours. Final hours actually amounted to only ~316 hours. Meetings originally intended for initial design and fabrication time outside of class were eliminated as it was found they were not needed. The total cost breakdown by task is shown in Figure 15.

Final Design Review 6% Communicate 11% Analysis 6% Testing 4% Fab Fiber optics 2% RPT ABS Drill Holes in Base 0% Ca 6% st Purchase Part Al 1% Ba Fabricate BOM CAD ABS Part se 1% 3% 2% 2%

Hours
Identify Functional Reqs. 16%

Brainstorm Solutions 9%

CDR 16% Detailed Design 13% CAD Al Base 3%

Figure 15. Breakdown of Project Hours by task. All tasks represent major steps in the Gantt Chart. Over half of the time spent on the project was on design

Overall hours could be reduced by eliminating drilling of holes in the base by casting them into the base. Additionally automating the casting of the base and the creation of fiber optics could reduce total time.

25

Identifying the functional requirements was the most important and thus should have the most hours in it in order to ensure the client specifications are all met.

Cost Analysis
Throughout completion of the LMS a record of prototype material costs was kept through the use of a Bill of Materials (Table 9.) Table 9. Bill of Materials. Costs were calculate as quantity multiplied by cost per unit. Powder binder represented the largest expenditure followed by the through-put tube hardware (Adjustable Lens Holder/Optical Tubes).

Bill of Materials ABS Rapid Prototyping Al A356 Casting Alloy Powder binder Fiber Optic Cable SMA Connector Protective Coating Epoxy Epoxy Syringe Polishing Pad Screws Adjustable Lens-holder Optical Tube SMA to SMO Adapter Retaining Ring Total

Quantity 1.68 0.5559 1256.06 1 4 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1

Cost ($) 10 4.1 0.15 7 9.95 1.5 3.75 1.25 1 0.5 28.6 15.3 24 5.1

Cost Total ($) 16.8 2.27919 188.409 7 39.8 1.5 7.5 1.25 1 2 28.6 30.6 24 5.1 355.83819

Total cost amounted to only ~$355 dollars much less than the target of $500 as discussed in the functional requirements. More than half of the total cost (53%) was attributed to the powder binder for the casting of the base for the LMS. In order to reduce costs in the future an alternative casting process or binder should be used in addition to more optimization of CAD molding to reduce total binder used. Additionally two fiber optic cables were fabricated while only one was needed for our design to work which would have reduced total budget had only a single cable been utilized. Optical tubes and an adjustable lens-holder were used to reduce interference from outside light. These pieces could have easily been replaced with an ABS or similar polymer tube for the same function which could reduce total overall cost.

26

As stated in the Project Plan section total project hours amounted to 316 hrs. This time multiplied by average engineering salary of 100$/hr gives a total project development cost of $31,600+355.83819 prototype cost. Recommendations for reducing these expenses are outlined in the Project Plan and Cost Analysis sections.

27

Appendix A

28

Appendix A (Cont.)

29

References
1. 3M, (2010). LCD Optics 101. Retrieved October 20, 2010 http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Vikuiti1/BrandProducts/secondary/optics101/ 2. ThorLabs, 16686-S01 Rev. A, (02/07/2007) LED630E. Retrieved October 15, 2010 https://blackboard.calpoly.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?useCas=1&tab=courses&url=/bin /common/course.pl?course_id=_60546_ 3. Ocean Optics, (12/3/2007) USB4000 Miniature Fiber Optic Spectrometer. Retrieved October 20,2010 http://www.oceanoptics.com/Products/usb4000.asp (1 of 5)12/3/2007 8:30:25 AM 4. Ocean Optics, (1999-2006 Ocean Optics, Inc) SpectraSuite Spectrometer Operating Software, Installation Manual. Retrieved October 20, 2010 https://blackboard.calpoly.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?useCas=1&tab=courses&url=/bin /common/course.pl?course_id=_60546_ 5. ThorLabs, 20946-S01 Rev. A, (02/16/2010) LE465E. Retrieved October 20, 2010 https://blackboard.calpoly.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?useCas=1&tab=courses&url=/bin /common/course.pl?course_id=_60546_ 6. Thorlabs, 20969-S01 Rev. A, (02/19/2010) LED528EHP. Retrieved October 20,2010 https://blackboard.calpoly.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?useCas=1&tab=courses&url=/bin /common/course.pl?course_id=_60546_ 7. A. C. Harris and I. L. Weatherall (September 1990). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand (The Royal Society of New Zealand). Retrieved October 21, 2010 "Objective evaluation of colour variation in the sand-burrowing beetle Chaerodes trachyscelides White (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) by instrumental determination of CIE LAB values".

8. Computer Program Cambridge Engineering Selector 2010 Granata Aluminum A356 As Cast, Aluminum A356 T6, Retrieved December 4, 2010

9. G.J. Kipouros, Ph.D., P. Eng. Rheology of Slags and Alloys. Retrieved December 1, 2010 http://myweb.dal.ca/kipourgj/ferrous.htm 10. HIDDE(N)VISUALS 2010. Novasub Data Cable Retrieved December 1, 2010 http://www.seascape.nl/media/NVS/DSC01842_resize.JPG

30