The Future of Monolithically Integrated LED Arrays

LEDs are ubiquitous in our electronic lives. They are widely used in notification lighting, flash photography, and light bulbs, to name a few. For displays, LEDs have been commercialized as backlights in televisions and projectors. However, their use in image formation has been limited.

A prototype emissive LED display chip is shown. The chip includes an emissive compass pattern ready to embed into new applications.

A prototype emissive LED display chip is shown. The chip includes an emissive compass pattern ready to embed into new applications.

The developing arena of monolithically integrated LED arrays, which involves fabricating millions of LEDs with corresponding transistors on a single chip, provides many new applications not possible with current technologies, as the LEDs can simultaneously act as the backlight and the image source.

The common method of creating images is to first generate light (using LEDs) and then filter that light using a spatial light modulator. The filter could be an LCD, liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), or a digital micromirror device (DMD) such as a Digital Light Processing (DLP) projector. The filtering processes cause significant loss of light in these systems, despite the brightness available from LEDs. For example, a typical LCD uses only 1% to 5% of the light generated.

Two pieces are essential to a display: a light source and a light controller. In most display technologies, the light source and light control functionalities are served by two separate components (e.g., an LED backlight and an LCD). However, in emissive displays, both functionalities are combined into a single component, enabling light to be directly controlled without the inherent inefficiencies and losses associated with filtering. Because each light-emitting pixel is individually controlled, light can be generated and emitted exactly where and when needed.

Emissive displays have been developed in all sizes. Very-large-format “Times Square” and stadium displays are powered by large arrays of individual conventional LEDs, while new organic LED (OLED) materials are found in televisions, mobile phones, and other micro-size applications. However, there is still a void. Emissive “Times Square” displays cannot be scaled to small sizes and emissive OLEDs do not have the brightness available for outdoor environments and newer envisioned applications. An emissive display with high brightness but in a micro format is required for applications such as embedded cell phone projectors or displays on see-through glasses.

We know that optimization by the entire LED industry has made LEDs the brightest controllable light source available. We also know that a display requires a light source and a method of controlling the light. So, why not make an array of LEDs and control individual LEDs with a matching array of transistors?

The marrying of LED materials (light source) to transistors (light control) has long been researched. There are three approaches to this problem: fabricate the LEDs and transistors separately, then bond them together; fabricate transistors first, then integrate LEDs on top; and fabricate LEDs first, then integrate transistors on top. The first method is not monolithic. Two fabricated chips are electrically and mechanically bonded, limiting integration density and thus final display resolutions. The second method, starting with transistors and then growing LEDs, offers some advantages in monolithic (single-wafer) processing, but growth of high-quality, high-efficiency LEDs on transistors has proven difficult.

My start-up company, Lumiode (www.lumiode.com), is developing the third method, starting with optimized LEDs and then fabricating silicon transistors on top. This leverages existing LED materials for efficient light output. It also requires careful fabrication of the integrated transistor layer as to not damage the underlying LED structures. The core technology uses a laser method to provide extremely local high temperatures to the silicon while preventing thermal damage to the LED. This overcomes typical process incompatibilities, which have previously held back development of monolithically integrated LED arrays. In the end, there is an array of LEDs (light source) and corresponding transistors to control each individual LED (light control), which can reach the brightness and density requirements of future microdisplays.

Regardless of the specific integration method employed, a monolithically integrated LED and transistor structure creates a new range of applications requiring higher efficiency and brightness. The brightness available from integrated LED arrays can enable projection on truly see-through glass, even in outdoor daylight environments. The efficiency of an emissive display enables extended battery lifetimes and device portability. Perhaps we can soon achieve the types of displays dreamed up in movies.

The Future of Small Radar Technology

Directing the limited resources of Fighter Command to intercept a fleet of Luftwaffe bombers en route to London or accurately engaging the Imperial Navy at 18,000 yards in the dead of night. This was our grandfather’s radar, the technology that evened the odds in World War II.

This is the combat information center aboard a World War II destroyer with two radar displays.

This is the combat information center aboard a World War II destroyer with two radar displays.

Today there is an insatiable demand for short-range sensors (i.e., small radar technology)—from autonomous vehicles to gaming consoles and consumer devices. State-of-the-art sensors that can provide full 3-D mapping of a small-target scenes include laser radar and time-of-flight (ToF) cameras. Less expensive and less accurate acoustic and infrared devices sense proximity and coarse angle of arrival. The one sensor often overlooked by the both the DIY and professional designer is radar.

However, some are beginning to apply small radar technology to solve the world’s problems. Here are specific examples:

Autonomous vehicles: In 2007, the General Motors and Carnegie Mellon University Tartan Racing team won the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Urban Challenge, where autonomous vehicles had to drive through a city in the shortest possible time period. Numerous small radar devices aided in their real-time decision making. Small radar devices will be a key enabling technology for autonomous vehicles—from self-driving automobiles to unmanned aerial drones.

Consumer products: Recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers developed a radar sensor for gaming systems, shown to be capable of detecting gestures and other complex movements inside a room and through interior walls. Expect small radar devices to play a key role in enabling user interface on gaming consoles to smartphones.

The Internet of Things (IoT): Fybr is a technology company that uses small radar sensors to detect the presence of parked automobiles, creating the most accurate parking detection system in the world for smart cities to manage parking and traffic congestion in real time. Small radar sensors will enable the IoT by providing accurate intelligence to data aggregators.

Automotive: Small radar devices are found in mid- to high-priced automobiles in automated cruise control, blind-spot detection, and parking aids. Small radar devices will soon play a key role in automatic braking, obstacle-avoidance systems, and eventually self-driving automobiles, greatly increasing passenger safety.

Through-Wall Imaging: Advances in small radar have numerous possible military applications, including recent MIT work on through-wall imaging of human targets through solid concrete walls. Expect more military uses of small radar technology.

What is taking so long? A tremendous knowledge gap exists between writing the application and emitting, then detecting, scattered microwave fields and understanding the result. Radar was originally developed by physicists who had a deep understanding of electromagnetics and were interested in the theory of microwave propagation and scattering. They created everything from scratch, from antennas to specialized vacuum tubes.

Microwave tube development, for example, required a working knowledge of particle physics. Due to this legacy, radar textbooks are often intensely theoretical. Furthermore, microwave components were very expensive—handmade and gold-plated. Radar was primarily developed by governments and the military, which made high-dollar investments for national security.

Small radar devices such as the RFBeam Microwave K-LC1a radio transceiver cost less than $10 when purchased in quantity.

Small radar devices such as the RFBeam Microwave K-LC1a radio transceiver cost less than $10 when purchased in quantity.

It’s time we make radar a viable option for DIY projects and consumer devices by developing low-cost, easy-to-use, capable technology and bridging the knowledge gap!
Today you can buy small radar sensors for less than $10. Couple this with learning practical radar processing methods, and you can solve a critical sensing problem for your project.

Learn by doing. I created the MIT short-course “Build a Small Radar Sensor,” where students learn about radar by building a device from scratch. Those interested can take the online course for free through MIT Opencourseware or enroll in the five-day MIT Professional Education course.

Dive deeper. My soon-to-be published multimedia book, Small and Short-Range Radar Systems, explains the principles and building of numerous small radar devices and then demonstrates them so readers at all levels can create their own radar devices or learn how to use data from off-the-shelf radar sensors.

This is just the beginning. Soon small radar sensors will be everywhere.

Low-Cost SBCs Could Revolutionize Robotics Education

For my entire life, my mother has been a technology trainer for various educational institutions, so it’s probably no surprise that I ended up as an engineer with a passion for STEM education. When I heard about the Raspberry Pi, a diminutive $25 computer, my thoughts immediately turned to creating low-cost mobile computing labs. These labs could be easily and quickly loaded with a variety of programming environments, walking students through a step-by-step curriculum to teach them about computer hardware and software.

However, my time in the robotics field has made me realize that this endeavor could be so much more than a traditional computer lab. By adding actuators and sensors, these low-cost SBCs could become fully fledged robotic platforms. Leveraging the common I2C protocol, adding chains of these sensors would be incredibly easy. The SBCs could even be paired with microcontrollers to add more functionality and introduce students to embedded design.

rover_webThere are many ways to introduce students to programming robot-computers, but I believe that a web-based interface is ideal. By setting up each computer as a web server, students can easily access the interface for their robot directly though the computer itself, or remotely from any web-enabled device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet). Through a web browser, these devices provide a uniform interface for remote control and even programming robotic platforms.

A server-side language (e.g., Python or PHP) can handle direct serial/I2C communications with actuators and sensors. It can also wrap more complicated robotic concepts into easily accessible functions. For example, the server-side language could handle PID and odometry control for a small rover, then provide the user functions such as “right, “left,“ and “forward“ to move the robot. These functions could be accessed through an AJAX interface directly controlled through a web browser, enabling the robot to perform simple tasks.

This web-based approach is great for an educational environment, as students can systematically pull back programming layers to learn more. Beginning students would be able to string preprogrammed movements together to make the robot perform simple tasks. Each movement could then be dissected into more basic commands, teaching students how to make their own movements by combining, rearranging, and altering these commands.

By adding more complex commands, students can even introduce autonomous behaviors into their robotic platforms. Eventually, students can be given access to the HTML user interfaces and begin to alter and customize the user interface. This small superficial step can give students insight into what they can do, spurring them ahead into the next phase.
Students can start as end users of this robotic framework, but can eventually graduate to become its developers. By mapping different commands to different functions in the server side code, students can begin to understand the links between the web interface and the code that runs it.

Kyle Granat

Kyle Granat, who wrote this essay for Circuit Cellar,  is a hardware engineer at Trossen Robotics, headquarted in Downers Grove, IL. Kyle graduated from Purdue University with a degree in Computer Engineering. Kyle, who lives in Valparaiso, IN, specializes in embedded system design and is dedicated to STEM education.

Students will delve deeper into the server-side code, eventually directly controlling actuators and sensors. Once students begin to understand the electronics at a much more basic level, they will be able to improve this robotic infrastructure by adding more features and languages. While the Raspberry Pi is one of today’s more popular SBCs, a variety of SBCs (e.g., the BeagleBone and the pcDuino) lend themselves nicely to building educational robotic platforms. As the cost of these platforms decreases, it becomes even more feasible for advanced students to recreate the experience on many platforms.

We’re already seeing web-based interfaces (e.g., ArduinoPi and WebIOPi) lay down the beginnings of a web-based framework to interact with hardware on SBCs. As these frameworks evolve, and as the costs of hardware drops even further, I’m confident we’ll see educational robotic platforms built by the open-source community.

CC281: Overcome Fear of Ethernet on an FPGA

As its name suggests, the appeal of an FPGA is that it is fully programmable. Instead of writing software, you design hardware blocks to quickly do what’s required of a digital design. This also enables you to reprogram an FPGA product in the field to fix problems “on the fly.”

But what if “you” are an individual electronics DIYer rather than an industrial designer? DIYers can find FPGAs daunting.

Issue281The December issue of Circuit Cellar issue should offer reassurance, at least on the topic of “UDP Streaming on an FPGA.” That’s the focus of Steffen Mauch’s article for our Programmable Logic issue (p. 20).

Ethernet on an FPGA has several applications. For example, it can be used to stream measured signals to a computer for analysis or to connect a camera (via Camera Link) to an FPGA to transmit images to a computer.

Nonetheless, Mauch says, “most novices who start to develop FPGA solutions are afraid to use Ethernet or DDR-SDRAM on their boards because they fear the resulting complexity.” Also, DIYers don’t have the necessary IP core licenses, which are costly and often carry restrictions.

Mauch’s UDP monitor project avoids such costs and restrictions by using a free implementation of an Ethernet-streaming device based on a Xilinx Spartan-6 LX FPGA. His article explains how to use OpenCores’s open-source tri-mode MAC implementation and stream UDP packets with VHDL over Ethernet.

Mauch is not the only writer offering insights into FPGAs. For more advanced FPGA enthusiasts, columnist Colin O’Flynn discusses hardware co-simulation (HCS), which enables the software simulation of a design to be offloaded to an FPGA. This approach significantly shortens the time needed for adequate simulation of a new product and ensures that a design is actually working in hardware (p. 52).

This Circuit Cellar issue offers a number of interesting topics in addition to programmable logic. For example, you’ll find a comprehensive overview of the latest in memory technologies, advice on choosing a flash file system for your embedded Linux system, a comparison of amplifier classes, and much more.

Mary Wilson
editor@circuitcellar.com

Member Profile: Scott Weber

Scott Weber

Scott Weber

LOCATION:
Arlington, Texas, USA

MEMBER STATUS:
Scott said he started his Circuit Cellar subscription late in the last century. He chose the magazine because it had the right mix of MCU programming and electronics.

TECH INTERESTS:
He has always enjoyed mixing discrete electronic projects with MCUs. In the early 1980s, he built a MCU board based on an RCA CDP1802 with wirewrap and programmed it with eight switches and a load button.

Back in the 1990s, Scott purchased a Microchip Technology PICStart Plus. “I was thrilled at how powerful and comprehensive the chip and tools were compared to the i8085 and CDP1802 devices I tinkered with years before,” he said.

RECENT EMBEDDED TECH ACQUISITION:
Scott said he recently treated himself to a brand-new Fluke 77-IV multimeter.

CURRENT PROJECTS:
Scott is building devices that can communicate through USB to MS Windows programs. “I don’t have in mind any specific system to control, it is something to learn and have fun with,” he said. “This means learning not only an embedded USB software framework, but also Microsoft Windows device drivers.”

THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF EMBEDDED TECH:
“Embedded devices are popping up everywhere—in places most people don’t even realize they are being used. It’s fun discovering where they are being applied. It is so much easier to change the microcode of an MCU or FPGA as the unit is coming off the assembly line than it is to rewire a complex circuit design,” Scott said.

“I also like Member Profile Joe Pfeiffer’s final comment in Circuit Cellar 276: Surface-mount and ASIC devices are making a ‘barrier to entry’ for the hobbyist. You can’t breadboard those things! I gotta learn a good way to make my own PCBs!”