Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.


Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get? Here is
one LED I came across. Is it ok? http://tinyurl.com/d3qcp
And here is a list of half a dozen other infrared diodes which I
can get relatively easily: http://tinyurl.com/8heeq

Q. Maybe I can put in a LED which actually draws a bit more power
than the original one?

Q. Is the way to do it to put two LEDS in parallel?

COuld anyone kindly advise me. Thanks.

Zak

-------------- SPEC OF REMOTE CONTROL ------------

UK Sony television.

Remote control model is:
Sony RM-657
3 volts
Is original remote control

On circut board it says:
1-598-168-12
1-623-978-12
RC

RCW
K PEI 208 02
K PEI 207 02.

Single chip on circuit board:
BU3870F
033 079

For Sony TV model:
KV-M19TU
BE-1 chassis

Remote control Sony RM-694 also works on this TV
but is not the original one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:31:12 GMT, Zak Gave us:

Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

It is more complicated than that. It is designed for the one it has
AND is likely not going to feed more power to a different one without
adjusting the circuitry.

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

Not really how it works. The improvements made on some products, or
components are only in the lifespan arena. Also, the circuit would
likely have to push more.

Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get?

I don't recommend the change, so I will stop here.

snip remainder.

In article , Zak wrote:
Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.


Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get? Here is
one LED I came across. Is it ok? http://tinyurl.com/d3qcp
And here is a list of half a dozen other infrared diodes which I
can get relatively easily: http://tinyurl.com/8heeq

Q. Maybe I can put in a LED which actually draws a bit more power
than the original one?

Q. Is the way to do it to put two LEDS in parallel?


Why not just try another new remote. May work better. You could try using the new
LED. If it does not work, go backwards.
Most new stuff has higher energy than the old stuff.
Adding LEDs has 2 problems. Current capacity of the driver, and voltage drops.

greg

COuld anyone kindly advise me. Thanks.

Zak

-------------- SPEC OF REMOTE CONTROL ------------

UK Sony television.

Remote control model is:
Sony RM-657
3 volts
Is original remote control

On circut board it says:
1-598-168-12
1-623-978-12
RC

RCW
K PEI 208 02
K PEI 207 02.

Single chip on circuit board:
BU3870F
033 079

For Sony TV model:
KV-M19TU
BE-1 chassis

Remote control Sony RM-694 also works on this TV
but is not the original one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:07:16 GMT, (GregS) Gave us:

Why not just try another new remote. May work better. You could try using the new
LED. If it does not work, go backwards.
Most new stuff has higher energy than the old stuff.
Adding LEDs has 2 problems. Current capacity of the driver, and voltage drops.

greg


That would be the other point. How much is one's time worth? Buy the
new $15 remote, and fix that one casually or just pitch it... :-]

Roy L. Fuchs writes:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:31:12 GMT, Zak Gave us:

Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

It is more complicated than that. It is designed for the one it has
AND is likely not going to feed more power to a different one without
adjusting the circuitry.

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

Not really how it works. The improvements made on some products, or
components are only in the lifespan arena. Also, the circuit would
likely have to push more.

Why not? There may indeed be LEDs with the same wavelength and much more
output power at the same operating current.

But, probably not needed if the rest of the remote is working properly.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

Zak wrote:
Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

possible - but...

Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get? Here is
one LED I came across. Is it ok? http://tinyurl.com/d3qcp
And here is a list of half a dozen other infrared diodes which I
can get relatively easily: http://tinyurl.com/8heeq

Q. Maybe I can put in a LED which actually draws a bit more power
than the original one?

Q. Is the way to do it to put two LEDS in parallel?

COuld anyone kindly advise me. Thanks.

The most problematic case is where the handset uses two cells
in series and you try to use Nicads which only provide 1.2Volts
each instead of 1.5volts. This leaves the circuit short of voltage
and the only solution is to use Alkalines to give the circuits their
correct supply.

You can assess the brightness of the LED by observing it in the
LCD viewfinder of a digital camera.

HTH
-------------- SPEC OF REMOTE CONTROL ------------

UK Sony television.

Remote control model is:
Sony RM-657
3 volts
Is original remote control

On circut board it says:
1-598-168-12
1-623-978-12
RC

RCW
K PEI 208 02
K PEI 207 02.

Single chip on circuit board:
BU3870F
033 079

For Sony TV model:
KV-M19TU
BE-1 chassis

Remote control Sony RM-694 also works on this TV
but is not the original one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:31:12 GMT, Zak Gave us:

Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

It is more complicated than that. It is designed for the one it has
AND is likely not going to feed more power to a different one without
adjusting the circuitry.

If the OP finds an LED with a lower voltage drop than the original, then
it will most assuredly have more current flowing thru it with no changes
to the rest of the circuitry.

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

Not really how it works. The improvements made on some products, or
components are only in the lifespan arena. Also, the circuit would
likely have to push more.

Hardly. LEDs are MUCH more efficient than they were 15 years ago. Not
to mention that the LED in the remote may be below 50% of its original
brightness due to being driven hard.

Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get?

I don't recommend the change, so I will stop here.

Good for you.

"Zak" schreef in bericht
...
Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.



HI,

Buy a cheap universal remote control (for Euro 3,- available at local
drugstores over here )

Try if it works with your Sony equipment (at my place it works with all Sony
equipment I have)

Be satisfied with this remote, or disassemble the remote control, steal the
LED and use it in your original remote control.

Kind regards,
Ben

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

If the OP finds an LED with a lower voltage drop than the original, then
it will most assuredly have more current flowing thru it with no changes
to the rest of the circuitry.

The current fed to LEDs is typically controlled and limited for a
reason. There is no reason for you to be correct if said circuit is
one such regulated circuit.

Also, single junction diodes such as that discussed here have
changed very little over the DECADES. The junction threshold voltage
hasn't changed much at all. Do you have any examples?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Hardly. LEDs are MUCH more efficient than they were 15 years ago.

They are also being fed more current. DOH!

Not
to mention that the LED in the remote may be below 50% of its original
brightness due to being driven hard.

May be? Do you know ANYTHING about the drive circuitry in question?
"Driven hard"? Such remotes are designed to last at least a decade
and their MTBF is NOT related to the LED.

Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get?

I don't recommend the change, so I will stop here.

Good for you

**** you asshole! You don't get to claim to be diplomatic in one
part of a post, then turn into an asshole at will without being called
on it. **** off!

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

If the OP finds an LED with a lower voltage drop than the original,
then
it will most assuredly have more current flowing thru it with no
changes
to the rest of the circuitry.

The current fed to LEDs is typically controlled and limited for a
reason. There is no reason for you to be correct if said circuit is
one such regulated circuit.

If the current limiting is done with a resistor, as it often is, then
the resistor would be forced to drop more voltage. This means more
current thru the resistor and consequently more current thru the diode.

Also, single junction diodes such as that discussed here have
changed very little over the DECADES. The junction threshold voltage
hasn't changed much at all. Do you have any examples?

Then please tell me how an LED can now be blindingly bright with 20mA if
they aren't more efficient? They're a far cry from the things of
yesteryear. Examples abound, traffic lights, tiny flashlights etc....

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Hardly. LEDs are MUCH more efficient than they were 15 years ago.

They are also being fed more current. DOH!

Not necessarily.

Not
to mention that the LED in the remote may be below 50% of its
original
brightness due to being driven hard.

May be? Do you know ANYTHING about the drive circuitry in question?
"Driven hard"? Such remotes are designed to last at least a decade
and their MTBF is NOT related to the LED.

Usually they die from a cracked resonator or worn keypad, but blown LEDs
are not unheard of. It's common knowledge that LEDs driven by excessive
currents will dim over time. Here's some info on it:
http://www.signweb.com/moving/tips/movingtips1.html

Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get?

I don't recommend the change, so I will stop here.

Good for you

**** you asshole! You don't get to claim to be diplomatic in one
part of a post, then turn into an asshole at will without being called
on it. **** off!

You can change your nym all you want Darkmatter, but you're still the
same ole same ole. BTW, I didn't claim to be diplomatic. After all the
crap you've thrown at me over the years, I'll likely never be polite to
you.

Roy L. Fuchs writes:

On 15 Feb 2006 11:31:29 -0500, Sam Goldwasser
Gave us:

Roy L. Fuchs writes:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:31:12 GMT, Zak Gave us:

Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

It is more complicated than that. It is designed for the one it has
AND is likely not going to feed more power to a different one without
adjusting the circuitry.

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

Not really how it works. The improvements made on some products, or
components are only in the lifespan arena. Also, the circuit would
likely have to push more.

Why not? There may indeed be LEDs with the same wavelength and much more
output power at the same operating current.

But, probably not needed if the rest of the remote is working properly.


I see no reason for your assertion to be incorrect.

However I also see no reason for there to have been such "great
strides" in said diode manufacturing efficiency such that it would be
the case *at the same current*. Were it a transistor or FET perhaps,
but a simple single junction device hasn't changed much. No?

Go look at all the varieties of LEDs with essentially the same maximum
current but output power all over the map.

In fact, LEDs in general is one of the hottest areas of R&D with efficiency
being one of the most important considerations, especially for lighting
applications.

I don't know whether the vanilla flavored IR LED has improved greatly
though.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:30:19 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

If the OP finds an LED with a lower voltage drop than the original,
then
it will most assuredly have more current flowing thru it with no
changes
to the rest of the circuitry.

The current fed to LEDs is typically controlled and limited for a
reason. There is no reason for you to be correct if said circuit is
one such regulated circuit.

If the current limiting is done with a resistor, as it often is, then
the resistor would be forced to drop more voltage. This means more
current thru the resistor and consequently more current thru the diode.

Also, single junction diodes such as that discussed here have
changed very little over the DECADES. The junction threshold voltage
hasn't changed much at all. Do you have any examples?

Then please tell me how an LED can now be blindingly bright with 20mA if
they aren't more efficient? They're a far cry from the things of
yesteryear. Examples abound, traffic lights, tiny flashlights etc....


The discussion is about NON visible spectrum LEDs and no, IR remotes
do NOT "typically use a resistor" for the current limiting, it is a
controlled, driven circuit.

There has been no reason for IR LED makers to make versions that are
like those of the visible spectrum arena, which is far more diverse,
and has far more applications being addressed. That is why "high
brightness" versions even ever came to be. It called demand. There
has been no demand for making communications IR LEDs any more powerful
than they are, though I am sure some are out there, one poster
mentions buying an entire new unit and pulling the LED from it. It
would likely be cheaper than digging one up somewhere.

How much is one's time worth?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:35:55 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

You can change your nym all you want Darkmatter, but you're still the
same ole same ole.

As are you... you are the same old RETARD.

BTW, I didn't claim to be diplomatic.

Hahahaha...

After all the
crap you've thrown at me over the years, I'll likely never be polite to
you.

I was merely trying to put the **** where it belongs... on the
****pile.

On 15 Feb 2006 18:58:03 -0500, Sam Goldwasser
Gave us:

Roy L. Fuchs writes:

On 15 Feb 2006 11:31:29 -0500, Sam Goldwasser
Gave us:

Roy L. Fuchs writes:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:31:12 GMT, Zak Gave us:

Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

It is more complicated than that. It is designed for the one it has
AND is likely not going to feed more power to a different one without
adjusting the circuitry.

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.

Not really how it works. The improvements made on some products, or
components are only in the lifespan arena. Also, the circuit would
likely have to push more.

Why not? There may indeed be LEDs with the same wavelength and much more
output power at the same operating current.

But, probably not needed if the rest of the remote is working properly.


I see no reason for your assertion to be incorrect.

However I also see no reason for there to have been such "great
strides" in said diode manufacturing efficiency such that it would be
the case *at the same current*. Were it a transistor or FET perhaps,
but a simple single junction device hasn't changed much. No?

Go look at all the varieties of LEDs with essentially the same maximum
current but output power all over the map.

In fact, LEDs in general is one of the hottest areas of R&D with efficiency
being one of the most important considerations, especially for lighting
applications.

That would be VISIBLE spectrum LEDs.

I don't know whether the vanilla flavored IR LED has improved greatly
though.

I don't think there has been much demand. Maybe in the machine
vision arena, ie picker placers for PCB assembly contract
manufacturing.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:30:19 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"


Then please tell me how an LED can now be blindingly bright with 20mA
if
they aren't more efficient? They're a far cry from the things of
yesteryear. Examples abound, traffic lights, tiny flashlights
etc....


The discussion is about NON visible spectrum LEDs and no, IR remotes
do NOT "typically use a resistor" for the current limiting, it is a
controlled, driven circuit.

Elaborate on that if you would.

There has been no reason for IR LED makers to make versions that are
like those of the visible spectrum arena, which is far more diverse,
and has far more applications being addressed. That is why "high
brightness" versions even ever came to be. It called demand. There
has been no demand for making communications IR LEDs any more powerful
than they are, though I am sure some are out there, one poster
mentions buying an entire new unit and pulling the LED from it. It
would likely be cheaper than digging one up somewhere.

You're a lunatic and I'm quite sure that Vishay thinks so too.

How much is one's time worth?

You might consider a LED with a narrow beam angle - it concentrates its
energy in a narrow(er) spot - like the difference between a spotlight
and a floodlight. Of course, you'll have to aim the remote a bit more
carefully.

But as others have said, a cheap universal remote is the easiest way to
go. Are you trying to change channels from three rooms away?

Zak wrote:
Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.


Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get? Here is
one LED I came across. Is it ok? http://tinyurl.com/d3qcp
And here is a list of half a dozen other infrared diodes which I
can get relatively easily: http://tinyurl.com/8heeq

Q. Maybe I can put in a LED which actually draws a bit more power
than the original one?

Q. Is the way to do it to put two LEDS in parallel?

COuld anyone kindly advise me. Thanks.

Zak

-------------- SPEC OF REMOTE CONTROL ------------

UK Sony television.

Remote control model is:
Sony RM-657
3 volts
Is original remote control

On circut board it says:
1-598-168-12
1-623-978-12
RC

RCW
K PEI 208 02
K PEI 207 02.

Single chip on circuit board:
BU3870F
033 079

For Sony TV model:
KV-M19TU
BE-1 chassis

Remote control Sony RM-694 also works on this TV
but is not the original one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:38:21 -0000, "Graham W"
Gave us:


The most problematic case is where the handset uses two cells
in series and you try to use Nicads which only provide 1.2Volts
each instead of 1.5volts. This leaves the circuit short of voltage
and the only solution is to use Alkalines to give the circuits their
correct supply.


Good call!

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:08:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

You're a lunatic and I'm quite sure that Vishay thinks so too.

You're an idiot. Where are all your links showing us a broad
spectrum of IR LEDs for use with remotes?

Until that time, you can **** off, FreeTurd.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Hardly. LEDs are MUCH more efficient than they were 15 years ago.

They are also being fed more current. DOH!


Even at the same current, LEDs today give out far more light energy for the
same current than LEDs of yesteryear, and they get better almost every year.
It is an area of electronics to which a lot of time and research is being
devoted. A modern LED can be glaringly bright and realistically used as a
source of illumination at only 10mA, whereas years ago even driving one hard
at 20mA or more would have had little more use than an indicator.

It is true that high power LEDs are available which are fed large currents,
but that is another subject entirely.

Have a look here-.

http://www.ledmuseum.org/

Examples-

a true green 5mm LED tested at 26mA and gives out 14,340 mcd.
a white 5mm LED tested at 19.28 mA that gives out 17,670 mcd.

There's a section on IR LEDs and one on UV LEDs as well, it's a fascinating
site.


Dave

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:30:15 -0000, "Dave D" Gave
us:


"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:46:25 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Hardly. LEDs are MUCH more efficient than they were 15 years ago.

They are also being fed more current. DOH!


Even at the same current, LEDs today give out far more light energy for the
same current than LEDs of yesteryear, and they get better almost every year.
It is an area of electronics to which a lot of time and research is being
devoted. A modern LED can be glaringly bright and realistically used as a
source of illumination at only 10mA, whereas years ago even driving one hard
at 20mA or more would have had little more use than an indicator.

It is true that high power LEDs are available which are fed large currents,
but that is another subject entirely.

Have a look here-.

http://www.ledmuseum.org/

Examples-

a true green 5mm LED tested at 26mA and gives out 14,340 mcd.
a white 5mm LED tested at 19.28 mA that gives out 17,670 mcd.

There's a section on IR LEDs and one on UV LEDs as well, it's a fascinating
site.


Did not see ANY IR LEDs on the PURE ADVERT site.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...

Did not see ANY IR LEDs on the PURE ADVERT site.

Then you missed them, he reviews several. UV LEDs as well. Also lasers,
flashlights and other lamps. I had no problem at all finding them. There's
no need to shout just because you've had 'words' with other posters.

It's not an advert site, he gives often brutally honest reviews on all the
products he tests. If something is crap, he says so in no uncertain terms..

Dave

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:08:35 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

You're a lunatic and I'm quite sure that Vishay thinks so too.

You're an idiot. Where are all your links showing us a broad
spectrum of IR LEDs for use with remotes?

Until that time, you can **** off, FreeTurd.

Google seems to have no trouble finding IR LEDs ranging from 1.25 to 1.7
Vf (forward voltage drop). Look he
http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm
Just scroll down to the IR LEDs and see how wrong you are about Vf on IR
LEDs. Though I really don't understand how the 1.65 Vf LED can
dissipate less power at 50mA than the 1.25 Vf LED does.

Just look at the "broad spectrum" of IR LEDs he
http://www.plasma-ireland.com/lp/infrared.html

Here's some high power LEDs:
http://www.roithner-laser.com/LED_HP_single_chip.html
And some mo
http://www.roithner-laser.com/LED_MID_IR.htm

Is that enough yet?

HTH, HAND

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:37:23 -0000, "Dave D" Gave
us:

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
.. .

Did not see ANY IR LEDs on the PURE ADVERT site.

Then you missed them, he reviews several. UV LEDs as well. Also lasers,
flashlights and other lamps. I had no problem at all finding them. There's
no need to shout just because you've had 'words' with other posters.

I didn't shout. I feel it is stupid for the idiot running the site
to call it a museum when he really means "collection of links to sites
that will sell you something".

ALL CAPS throughout is shouting. Certain capitalized words IN a
sentence is NOT.

It's not an advert site, he gives often brutally honest reviews on all the
products he tests. If something is crap, he says so in no uncertain terms..

So. He still carries NOTHING but links and pictures (banners) to
other sites that want to sell you something, and that usually at
overtly high prices.

Thanks anyway.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Google seems to have no trouble finding IR LEDs ranging from 1.25 to 1.7
Vf (forward voltage drop). Look he
http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm


1.25V to 1.7V. Imagine that! The same voltage that it has been at
for decades.

You lose. Your original remarks were about finding one with a LOWER
voltage drop than the norm.

Maybe you should research things before you spew something as if you
are a pro, when all you seem to be is a google twit, and you didn't
even get that right.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm
Just scroll down to the IR LEDs and see how wrong you are about Vf on IR
LEDs. Though I really don't understand how the 1.65 Vf LED can
dissipate less power at 50mA than the 1.25 Vf LED does.

More proof of your idiocy.

The power ratings they give are for output, not consumption.

The proof is that you can't even GET what you attempt to read.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Google seems to have no trouble finding IR LEDs ranging from 1.25 to
1.7
Vf (forward voltage drop). Look he
http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm


1.25V to 1.7V. Imagine that! The same voltage that it has been at
for decades.

You lose. Your original remarks were about finding one with a LOWER
voltage drop than the norm.

No, my "original remarks" were about the OP finding one with a lower
drop than the one currently installed.

Maybe you should research things before you spew something as if you
are a pro, when all you seem to be is a google twit, and you didn't
even get that right.

Maybe you should read what is written rather than what you wanted to be
written.

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm
Just scroll down to the IR LEDs and see how wrong you are about Vf on
IR
LEDs. Though I really don't understand how the 1.65 Vf LED can
dissipate less power at 50mA than the 1.25 Vf LED does.

More proof of your idiocy.

The power ratings they give are for output, not consumption.

So are you saying that the power out doesn't equal the power in? BTW,
luminous intensity is never stated/measured in watts.

The proof is that you can't even GET what you attempt to read.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:43:55 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm
Just scroll down to the IR LEDs and see how wrong you are about Vf on
IR
LEDs. Though I really don't understand how the 1.65 Vf LED can
dissipate less power at 50mA than the 1.25 Vf LED does.

More proof of your idiocy.

The power ratings they give are for output, not consumption.

So are you saying that the power out doesn't equal the power in?

Hahahah... Will you EVER know how stupid the remark you just made
is?

BTW,
luminous intensity is never stated/measured in watts.

NEVER? It appears that you don't know how to read the specs THEY
POSTED, you retarded twit. EVERY produced energy has a wattage
allegory.

The proof is that you can't even GET what you attempt to read.

The above statement still stands.

Here's a test, boy. Give an example of ANY device or transducer
where the "power out" equals the "power in".

Maybe in your quest, you will actually get a clue.

Your remote was designed to use a particular IR LED on its output. If you
were to put in a stronger LED design of the driver circuits for the LED
would have to also be modified to be able to supply the new device. In the
end, I would think this to not be feasible.

Also, there are most likely more efficient IR LED's around, but you would
have to first work out the specs of the origional one, and then search out
for an equivlent replacement that are more efficient. This may avoid any
necessary modifications.

Considering that your TV and remote is very old, you should be considering a
new system, rather than trying to modify it. In both the TV and remote, it
is very probable that some of the components have drifted slightly out of
specs over the years.

I have seen in some places that sell TV's and sound systems, a gadget that
is called a remote control repeater. It is a unit that sees the IR from the
user's remote control, and repeats it on its output. You only have to face
the repeater in the direction where you want the IR beam to go. On the
opposite side, it has a receiver for the user's remote. This also works very
well under the proper conditions.

--

JANA
_____


"Zak" wrote in message
...
Apart from cleaning my TV remote control (see other thread) I
would like to put in a more powerful infrared LED

The remote control is about 10 to 15 years old. The spec is
below. Note that I am in the UK.

I would guess I can get an LED nowadays which draws the same power
as the orignal LED but with a noticeably better light output.


Q. What is the spec of the infrared LED I need to get? Here is
one LED I came across. Is it ok? http://tinyurl.com/d3qcp
And here is a list of half a dozen other infrared diodes which I
can get relatively easily: http://tinyurl.com/8heeq

Q. Maybe I can put in a LED which actually draws a bit more power
than the original one?

Q. Is the way to do it to put two LEDS in parallel?

COuld anyone kindly advise me. Thanks.

Zak

-------------- SPEC OF REMOTE CONTROL ------------

UK Sony television.

Remote control model is:
Sony RM-657
3 volts
Is original remote control

On circut board it says:
1-598-168-12
1-623-978-12
RC

RCW
K PEI 208 02
K PEI 207 02.

Single chip on circuit board:
BU3870F
033 079

For Sony TV model:
KV-M19TU
BE-1 chassis

Remote control Sony RM-694 also works on this TV
but is not the original one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 17 Feb 2006, JANA wrote:

Your remote was designed to use a particular IR LED on its
output. If you were to put in a stronger LED design of the
driver circuits for the LED would have to also be modified to be
able to supply the new device. In the end, I would think this to
not be feasible.

Also, there are most likely more efficient IR LED's around, but
you would have to first work out the specs of the origional one,
and then search out for an equivlent replacement that are more
efficient. This may avoid any necessary modifications.

Considering that your TV and remote is very old, you should be
considering a new system, rather than trying to modify it. In
both the TV and remote, it is very probable that some of the
components have drifted slightly out of specs over the years.

I have seen in some places that sell TV's and sound systems, a
gadget that is called a remote control repeater. It is a unit
that sees the IR from the user's remote control, and repeats it
on its output. You only have to face the repeater in the
direction where you want the IR beam to go. On the opposite
side, it has a receiver for the user's remote. This also works
very well under the proper conditions.


Overall consensus seems to be to leave it alone. Pity. Ok then I
guess tha's the best option. Thanks to all.

Zak wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006, JANA wrote:

Your remote was designed to use a particular IR LED on its
output. If you were to put in a stronger LED design of the
driver circuits for the LED would have to also be modified to be
able to supply the new device. In the end, I would think this to
not be feasible.

Also, there are most likely more efficient IR LED's around, but
you would have to first work out the specs of the origional one,
and then search out for an equivlent replacement that are more
efficient. This may avoid any necessary modifications.

Considering that your TV and remote is very old, you should be
considering a new system, rather than trying to modify it. In
both the TV and remote, it is very probable that some of the
components have drifted slightly out of specs over the years.

I have seen in some places that sell TV's and sound systems, a
gadget that is called a remote control repeater. It is a unit
that sees the IR from the user's remote control, and repeats it
on its output. You only have to face the repeater in the
direction where you want the IR beam to go. On the opposite
side, it has a receiver for the user's remote. This also works
very well under the proper conditions.


Overall consensus seems to be to leave it alone. Pity. Ok then I
guess tha's the best option. Thanks to all.


Zak

Dont give up.

Advice such as "If you were to put in a stronger led..." and suchlike
is mere gobblydegook.

The existing led has a peak wavelength of either 880 or 940nm.
You need to get the right wavelength.

Then, to a first approximation, the efficacy (output) of all modern 5mm
IR leds is pretty much the same from the major manufactureres. However
the dispersion angle (2 theta 1/2) will greatly affect the range
obtained - just like visible leds where a narrower angle makes the led
'brighter' on axis but dimmer away from the axis etc.

Yes modern IR leds are more efficacious that those of 15 years ago.
Yes your old led will likely not be emitting anywhere near the power
that it did when new - all leds, including IR leds, degrade with time.
IR leds are generally bashed quite heavily and can show marked
degradation with use. (The leds only degrade significantly with use).

Since current peaks are large put decent batteries in your remote.
*NOT* heavy duty marked batteries - this type of battery is not
intended for significant current peaks - use high power alkalines..

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:04:15 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:43:55 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:49 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/leds.htm
Just scroll down to the IR LEDs and see how wrong you are about Vf on
IR
LEDs. Though I really don't understand how the 1.65 Vf LED can
dissipate less power at 50mA than the 1.25 Vf LED does.

More proof of your idiocy.

The power ratings they give are for output, not consumption.

So are you saying that the power out doesn't equal the power in?

Hahahah... Will you EVER know how stupid the remark you just made
is?

BTW,
luminous intensity is never stated/measured in watts.

NEVER? It appears that you don't know how to read the specs THEY
POSTED, you retarded twit. EVERY produced energy has a wattage
allegory.

The proof is that you can't even GET what you attempt to read.

The above statement still stands.

Here's a test, boy. Give an example of ANY device or transducer
where the "power out" equals the "power in".

My mother in law:

I tell her no (-1) and she replies YES ( +1)

Can't you discuss it rather then arguing about ?

Maybe in your quest, you will actually get a clue.