This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DLP4620SQ1EVM: It seems LM3409 makes unwanted laser operation

Part Number: DLP4620SQ1EVM
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LM3409

Tool/software:

I think I misunderstood the problem.
The phenomenon is that when the Sync period is lowered to increase the brightness in order to make it brighter,
unwanted current comes out of R, G, B.

I misunderstood this problem comes from noise before,
when the Red Enable timing was reached, the Green and Blue Gate-Source were opened and current flowed,
But, the problem is that even when each DAC Limit was 0, current flowed when the Sync period was lowered.

Below Oscilloscope data is same 0 DAC Limit but different current output because of Sync period
Yellow : Laser Red Current(1A/Scale)
Green : Laser Red Voltage(5V/Scale)
*Sync period 30(Laser slightly On)

*Sync period 210(Laser off)

As you said, zener diode shunt circuit for LED_COMMON_ANODE Peak voltage protection should be effective,
but this has not been resolved yet as the cause is a current malfunction due to DAC Limit, not noise.

I think this problem is come from LM3409 output generation.

Of course, Coff and Roff degenerate this noise, 
But I understood TPS99001's  SYNC Pin do same things
and that signal is controlled by DLPC230 Control Program's Pulse control

Sync period 210 cannot fully drive current(left), but sync 30 is better than 210,
So I should set sync period lower because of  brightness



Does this mean that this problem is unsolvable using LM3409?

  • Hello again Kim,

    This thread has also been assigned to the automotive team.  They should get back with you tomorrow.

    Fizix

  • Hi Kim,

    I heard that one of our other engineers has been messaging you offline in the past. I would suggest you continue to talk with them, as he has previously stated that the LM3409 LED driver is not suited for laser illumination.

    Please continue your conversation with them, as they may be able to provide additional inputs and possibly a reference design.

    Regards,
    Michael Ly

  • Thanks for your reply. I think the reason why LM3409 is not suitable for laser illumination is because it requires high power and high frequency switching. Is this correct? Also, is there any recommended CCM IC that can replace LM3409 in this environment?

  • Hi Kim,

    The LM3409 is not suitable for laser illumination because current cannot be controlled closely enough with this device. Laser illumination is generally much more sensitive to fluctuations in current than LEDs are within their operating modes. The LM3409, in this case, exposes this sensitivity, which is why TI does not recommend laser illumination with this driver.

    Regards,
    Michael Ly