KL1 circuit efficiency?

Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

We can always ask someone to disect another KL1 and see the circuit and measure it...
grin.gif
Who will be the sacrificial lamb?
grin.gif
 
This is what I posted in that thread

66% efficiency at what Vin ? Seems the KL1 is more efficient at 6Vin using 2x123 than at 3Vin using 1 x 123 looking at the runtime charts.

Klaus
 
Am I wrong in assuming dat2zip's circuits have 80%< efficiency when using 2AA batteries which also provides around 3 volts. As the batteries drops to 2.2 volts, the efficiency is still above 80%?
 
Nerd - always take efficiency claims with a grain of salt - those do vary widely over the input voltage range and expect whatever high claim to be only true for the voltage the specidifc circuit is tuned to.

Klaus
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
I need to chime in here. I was the one that dissected a KL1 and here's the measurement:
Input voltage = 5.8V
Input current draw = 290mA
Output voltage (across 9.1ohm resistor) = 3.18V
Output current = 349.5mA

Input Power = 1.68W
Output Power = 1.11W

Eff = 1.11/1.68 = 66%

Klaus is right that efficiency is a function of how much the switcher has to step up (or down in the 2x123 case) the voltage but over a small range, it is probably close to 66% +/- 5%. This not so good efficiency is due to the nature of the KL1's input operating range. Because it has to operate above and below the Vf of the LED, the KL1 uses a SEPIC converter which is less efficient in general than a circuit designed to boost only or buck only. The circuit in the Arc LS is not quite 80% but it does achieve much better efficiency than the KL1 (I also dissected an Arc LS). Remember the Arc is a boost current regulator so it is inherently gonna be more efficient than the KL1's SEPIC. Hope this helps.
 
This test was run using a resistor instead of the LED; thats not a fair test since LEDs being semiconductors are not linear as a resistor

During operation of a switcher, the system will feedback the voltage into the controller chip and depending on what mode it runs (Voltage, Current, Ripple) the switcher could operate differently supplying power to a LED than a resistor due to the non-linearity of the LED
 
Mike, over the range we are talking about, it is a fair comparison. It is what we call in engineering as piecewise linear and it is linear enough over the operating point we're talking about. The reason is that there is a capacitor in the circuit that keeps it in the "piecewise linear" region. I've also done some circuit analysis (spice type) and if you keep the diode forward biased using a filter (capacitor), it acts just like a resistor. The circuits in question is current regulated. The way this operates is it uses a sense resistor followed by a BFC to measure the average current flowing through the resistor. The BFC is required since in order to properly sense current, the voltage must be filtered of excess ripple. Also, in my measurements of the Arc LS, I mimicked the LED using a resistor (to get the same voltage drop) and got the same input current draw as with the LED. What does that tell you? Well, that tells you that the resistor looks exactly like the LED to the circuit!!!! The Arc LS I measured has an efficiency in the mid to high 70's which is pretty respectable in my opinion. You could do much better at the cost of higher complexity of course. Wayne's circuit in the Arc is an excellent design, very elegantly executed in my opinion.
 
CM,

first of all thanks for your explanations

Two (or three) questions:

- Did you measure a KL1 with 3V Vin (1 x 123)

- Did you measure an "old" pre-Wayne ARC LS using voltage regulation

- Your profile shows "MEZA" as your location which is AFAIK the old home of ARC - any relation ?

Thx

Klaus
 
Klaus,

I did not measure the KL1 with 1x123 as I don't use this configuration (not enough run time in regulation for me, the Arc LS is much better with 1x123)

I did not measure an old pre-Wayne Arc LS as I can only afford to have one Arc LS sacrificial lamb and I chose the latest version
smile.gif
Efficiency measurement on the old circuit would also be somewhat more complicated since I would have to take several measurements into the discharge cycle because the output power varies as Vin drops. In effect, I would have to perform a mathematical integration which is not difficult to do, it's just more involved. Granted, the measurement I took with Wayne's ckt is at the beginning of the cycle so I guess what I measured was initial efficiency but since it's fairly constant, it's probably "good enough".

Mesa is where Arc Flashlight is located. I have visited with Peter on several ocassions since I work about five minutes drive from Arc's office. It's sometimes a negative since my credit card has a tendency of coming out of my wallet whenever I'm at his facility
grin.gif
 
It is a treat when Chris (CM) visits because of his excellent electronics knowledge. He is definately ahead of me on electronic theory! He also has a good selection of SF and Arc products and knows how to test them. The last time he visited, Henry from HDS was also here and they compared notes on the KL1 and Arc-LS.

I was surprised that both the SF and Arc circuits were not as efficient as I expected. These designs tend to work differently on the bench versus in the field. The reason the Arc-LS has a better run time in the 3V configuration is a combination of a more efficient converter and the LED not being driven with as much current.

As you can see with the KL1, turning the LED up too much with the 1x123 results in a less flat output curve and higher heat (mitigated by the larger housing).

Since our goal at Arc is to produce the best LED EDC, our design was optomized for the 1x123.

Peter Gransee
 
I guess maybe why a KL3 has a better run-time/brightness plot compared to a KL1 with the same battery config. is due to the KL3 not needing the boost circuitry. 19 lumens for 4.5 hrs as opposed to 17 lumens for 4 hrs could mean a 10-15% increase in converter efficency. Of course all of this is based on Surefire's advertised spec's, no independant data on % efficiency. If anyone knows more about this story, I'd be interested to know.
 
Could the test please be done with a LED instead of a resistor ?

That is its design goal anyway, since its current mode - its even more sensitive to the curves of a non-linear device such as a semiconductor which will change its current while operating due to voltage and heat
 
Mike, the current mode DC-DC converters DO NOT CARE THAT THE LOAD IS A RESISTOR OR A LED (sorry but i'm having a tough time getting my point across). Because the way the circuit works is by sensing a voltage drop across a very small resistor, the circuit doesn't care about whether it is driving a led or a resistor . As long as it senses the right drop across the resistor (Ohms law, V=IR) it will servo the loop to drive the error to zero, in this case the error is the difference between the reference in the converter and the drop across the sense resistor, typically a very low value resistor on the order of 100 milli ohms or so. Now what is critical here is that the voltage that is sensed is "smooth" and that's why monolithic DC-DC converters have an output filter network to smooth out the voltage that ultimately goes into the sense feedback circuit. This makes the converter operate *independently" of the type of load presented to it.

I did not measure using a LED because, as you pointed out, the LED is non-linear. Because of this non linearity I would have to:

1.) Infer the current through the LED by measuring the voltage. This is not accurate since you need the I-V characteristic of THAT PARTICULAR LED under test. I do not have the test equipment to characterize this parameter. Inferring current this way is very prone to error in your set up and measurement.

2.) I would have to use an ammeter in line with the LED. An ammeter also has a small series resistor so this would present a measurement error as the converter would have to compensate for the resistance of the ammeter. This can be a substantial error depending on the series resistance of the ammeter.

If you really want to do the measurement using a LED, I would use method #1, being very careful about setup error. In the old days, transistors I-V curves were characterized using a curve tracer. You need to use one of these curve tracers to characterize the LED's I-V curve. Also, since the curve is very steep once you turn on the diode, you need to have millivolt ABSOLUTE (not relative) accuracy in measuring the quiescent operating point of the diode in the circuit. This also presents another problem since the diode is driven by a switcher with tens of millivolts ripple. How are you gonna make the measurement accurately? Remember, a few millivolts change on the Vf of the diode amounts to an order of magnitude change in current through it. Are you getting the picture now? To get an accurate measurement using a LED is a lot more complicated after you think about all the gotchas that you need to account for. This is not worth the hassle when a more direct way (good 'ol ohms law) works with a lot less error. Even if I had a curve tracer, I would still use a resistor since I have the knowledge to understand that the assumptions I'm making are valid and that this is the elegant and accurate way to measure efficiency.
 
Just FYI,

Correct, about the design I have being around 70% efficiency. At 4V and higher the Badboy circuit (and Arc) circuit achieve about 85% efficiency. So, using a Badboy with 2 123 and the 5W actually achieves better efficiency. It blows me that when the IC is operating it dissipates 0.25W. So, designing a 1/4W output design would immediately be 50% efficient (or less). The lower the output power the less efficient this design becomes since the IC power is pretty constant.

The Madmax design BTW can achieve over 90% efficiency if used with the Maxim 1675 instead of the Maxim 1674. Full load output with 2V input is still at 89% and would be around 93% at 3V input and ~280mA output.

Wayne
 
Originally posted by Alan:
As far as I understand (not much), efficiency of the driver changes on voltage input. Don't you think KL1 driver's efficiency should be worst when the battery is new and becoming better and better when the battery voltage drops?

The bottom line is : ARC LS on 1 123 runs for a bit over 2 hrs and KL1 on 2 123 runs for a 4.5 hrs. If there's such a big efficiency difference btwn ARC LS and KL1, where's the juice come from to keep the KL1 running?

Just a non-engineer's question:-)

Alan
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Alan,

I think with two 123 cells you are not going to have the problem where the input Voltage falls to the point where the IC just won't run. For Badboy this is 1.6V and I have no idea where the KL1 dies at.

Starting at a higher voltage (2 123) for example means you can suck the batteries dry and squeeze the maximum juice out of them.

[Hidden on]As for Wizard, it too will have low efficiency numbers around 60%-65%...[/Hidden off]

Ooops. That UBB code doesn't seem to work anymore....
smile.gif


Wayne
 
OK,

I'm getting my neurons all mixed up now... I remember now. It was not UBB code. It went something more like...

"Wax On." <hand circling in clockwise fashion>

"Wax Off." <hand circling in a counter clockwise fashion>

.

.

.

Wayne
 
Back
Top