Specification Verification Testing Log

P08456 Underwater LED Light R.I.T. MSD-II

P08456: Jeremy Schiele Justin VanSlyke

2/13/2008

of 11 P08456 Underwater LED Light R.I.T. MSD-II

Document Contents

Project Verification Specifications 3 Individual Testing Protocols (Test #): (1) LED Power Consumption 4 (2) Minimum Luminous Flux 5 (2a) Luminosity Plots 6 (3) Multi Spectral Capabilities 7 (4) Enclosure Envelope 7 (5) Maximum Mounting/Removal Time 8 (6) O-ring Sealing Verification 9 (7) Control Duality Verification 9 (8) Pressure Resistance 10 Built in Specifications 11

Project Verification Specifications (Design Specs.)

The success of project P08456 is measured by verification specs that show whether a design requirement has been met and to what degree. Table 1 shows the list of design specifications and their satisfactory and ideal values. The satisfactory value is that which signifies completion of the design specification. The ideal value is a target specification marking completion above what is critical for the success of the project.

Spec. Satisfactory Design Specification Unit Ideal Value Est. Value # Value 1 Low wattage LED system watts/ fixture 10 5 3.30 @ 350 mA (12 max) 2 Low heat generation from LEDs watts/ fixture 2.8 1 2.41 @ 350mA (7.65 max) 3 Luminous flux lumen/ fixture 250 350 300 @ 350 mA (675 max) 4 Multi-spectrum light NA White + 1 color White + 2 color White + 1 color 5 Enclosure size in x in x in 3x3x6 2x2x4 2.75 dia x 4.5 6 Unit mounting/removal time sec 90 60 TBD 7 Microcontroller voltage volts 5 3.3 5 8 Board Voltage volts 5 3.3 5 9 LED Voltage Power volts 24 7.6 24 (driver) 3.15 (LED) 10 LED Current amp 1 0.7 1 11 Submergible (water tight seals) ft 400 500 500 est. 12 Pressure resistant psi 170 216 216 est. 13 Preservation of open architecture y/n y y y Preservation of open source 14 y/n y y y system Lights & thrusters controlled by 1 15 y/n y y TBD software package Table 1: Project Verification Specifications with satisfactory and ideal values

Test 1) LED Power Consumption

Test Run By:______

Date Run On:______

Results: Satisfactory Value: ≤ 10 Watts Ideal Value: ≤ 5 Watts

Tested Value: ______Watts

Notes:

Test 2) Minimum Luminous Flux Test

Test Run By: Jeremy Schiele and Justin VanSlyke

Date Run On: 2/14/08 Results: Test # Voltage [v] Current [A] Lux 1 14.25 0.051 300 2 14.58 0.076 420 3 14.86 0.101 560 4 15.00 0.126 700 5 15.25 0.153 800 6 15.39 0.178 900 7 15.43 0.203 10000 8 15.52 0.221 1100 9 15.84 0.300 1500 10 16.30 0.349 1600

MAX 16.78 0.430 2000

Test # Voltage [v] Current [A] Lux 1 7.31 0.024 110 2 7.72 0.050 210 3 7.97 0.076 340 4 8.15 0.101 400 5 8.30 0.127 500 6 8.40 0.155 600 7 8.48 0.182 680 8 8.54 0.201 740 9 8.60 0.225 800

MAX 9.29 0.750 1400

Notes: Values were measured in Lux and converted to Lumen for evaluation based on the formula. Lumen = Lux*(Measurement Area)*(Steridian Area/Measurement Area) where, Measurement Area = 0.0005067m2 and Steridian Area = 0.26m2.

White and Green LED Luminosity vs Current

400 ] n e m u L [

t 300 i s o n i m u L 200

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Current [mA]

White LEDs Green LEDs Figure 1: Luminosity of both the white and the green LEDs vs Current drawn. White LEDs give more light for the same amount of current as green LEDs.

White and Green LED Luminosity vs. Power Usage

5.00 ] W [ e g a s 4.00 U r e w o P 3.00

0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Luminosity [Lumen]

White LEDs Green LEDs Figure 1: Power used by both the white and the green LEDs vs Luminosity. The green LEDs are more efficient than the white at the lower lumen range.

Test 3) Multi-Spectral Capabilities

Test Run By: Jeremy Schiele

Date Run On: 2/15/08

Results: Satisfactory Value: ≤ White + 1 Color Ideal Value: ≤ White + 2 Colors Tested Value: White + 1 Color (Green)

Notes:

Test 4) Enclosure Envelope

Test Run By: Justin VanSlyke

Date Run On: 2/8/08

Results: Satisfactory Value: ≤ 3 x 3 x 6 in. Ideal Value: ≤ 2 x 2 x 4 in. Tested Value: 3 x 3 x 5 in. (2.875 in dia. x 5 in)

Notes:

Test 5) Maximum Mounting/Removal Time

Test Run By: Justin VanSlyke

Date Run On: 2/4/08 – 2/7/08

Results: Individual Mounting time Moving time Removal Time (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) 1 34.79 24.16 19.36 2 17.00 38.00 12.00 3 15.00 32.00 7.00 4 14.00 18.00 20.00 5 18.00 21.00 10.00 6 21.00 20.00 9.00 7 16.00 27.00 10.00 8 13.99 24.20 5.78 9 7.76 16.50 7.89 10 13.00 21.40 16.50 AVG 17.05 24.23 11.75

Satisfactory Value: ≤ 90 sec per operation Ideal Value: ≤ 60 sec per operation Tested Values: See Above Averages

Notes: All tests are below the ideal value of 60 seconds by a large percentage. One probable way of exceeding either value is if the mounting bolt is inaccessible and other components need to be removed from the ROV or Robot platform.

Test 6) O-ring Sealing Verification

NOTE: This test can be conducted in parallel with the Pressure Resistance test. When pressure testing is concluded, and housing is inspected, if there is water inside housing, but no physical damage due to pressure change, the fault must lie at the sealing surfaces. This condition would mandate an inspection of the o-rings and sealing surfaces.

Results: Satisfactory Value: ≤ 400 ft. Ideal Value: ≤ 500 ft. Tested Value: ~910 ft

Notes:

Test 7) Control Duality Verification

Test Run By:______

Date Run On:______

Results: Satisfactory Value: Positive Verification Ideal Value: Positive Verification Tested Value: ______

Notes:

Test 8) Pressure Resistance

To be conducted at Hydroacoustics Inc. (HAI) with the aid of D. Scoville.

Results: Satisfactory Value: ≤ 170 psi Ideal Value: ≤ 216 psi Tested Value: 400_____ Psi

Notes:

Built In Specifications

Certain critical specifications set in the project verifications specs (Table 1) are not tested because they have been built into the design of the light unit from the beginning of the design iteration process. The verification of these components can be seen in the individual product data sheets or are inherent to the project itself. The preservation of open architecture and open source information are inherent to the RIT Multidisciplinary Senior Design curriculum and is upheld by all teams participating in it. All information is publicly available on the EDGE website (www.edge.rit.edu).

The following specs are can be verified by the data sheets, or have driven the design from the beginning and are intrinsic to it. 1) Microcontroller voltage is ideally 3.3 volts, and satisfactory at 5 V, the microcontroller selected used a 5 V power supply, and will only work with such. 2) The Board voltage is also specified to be 5 and 3.3 V at the ideal and satisfactory level. The voltage able to be pulled at many points in the board is 5 volts as provided by the power regulator selected for this project. 3) The LED Voltage in the final design is 24 volts, this is the satisfactory number and was chosen to limit the amount of power conditioning required for the 24 volts supplied by the batteries. 4) The LED current ideal value is 0.7 Amperes (satisfactory is 1.0 Amperes). T Because our light unit has a variable current to the LEDs, and its maximum rating is 1.0 Amperes, so it can not physically go over that without causing harm to the LEDs. The white LEDs are estimated to provide the required amount of light at 0.350 amperes, which is well below the 0.7 Amps ideal target.