RGB LED, 1 resistor vs. 3

Okay, So I know that I need to use 3 individual resistors between the pins and the LEDs instead of using 1 resistor between the ground pin and ground because with only 1 resistor I'm essentially putting them in parallel and splitting the current. I'm Just confused how this:



has 5 volts for each LED but this:


Only has the 5 total volts. (Sorry I can only embed 3 photos because I'm new to the forum but I'm sure you can imagine how it looks hooked up).

Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something here? Either in electrical theory or in how the Arduino Uno works?

Welcome!

Both circuits may work, the first will be the best, the second with only one resistor will light the red the brightest, the green maybe and probably not the blue. Why? Because red, green, and blue LEDs don’t have the same forward voltage.
Red ≈ 1.8–2.0 V
Green ≈ 2.1–3.2 V
Blue ≈ 3.0–3.4 V

With one resistor in parallel, the LED with the lowest forward voltage (usually red) turns on first and takes most of the current.
That means:
Red gets too much current → can burn out
Green/blue get too little → dim or off

So the current doesn’t split evenly, which is why it’s a problem.
Rule: each LED (or each series string) needs its own resistor.

Try it, you won’t hurt anything!

If you put the LEDs in series as long as the forward voltage total is less then the supply they will light. Brightness varies by component and color.

Sorry, but I do not understand your claim...
Could you reformulate this?
By convention schematics are presented with gnd on the bottom. So yours are upside down.

1 Like


I've seen the uparrow as vcc.

No, you are not splitting the current. This is not a "problem" with the Arduino it will happen in every case where you use only one resistor with an RGB LED. So it is your understanding of electrical theory that is at fault.

I'm just confused because if each pin is supplying 5V then there should be 15V to work with, right? Shouldn't there be more than enough to light all 3? I feel so dumb, I keep getting the same answer. Thank you for your help.

Please enlighten me. I should be able to understand it, I have a chem degree and they pound Ohms law, KVL and KCL at us once a year. Just don't know what I'm missing.

So even if I had 3 totally separate 5V power supplies, there would still only be enough power to turn on the one LED?

I modified your circuit. When doing circuit analysis, it's best to have a completed circuit in mind:

As you can see, the 5V 'supplies' you've depicted are in parallel, and therefore any one circuit only sees 5V - the 5V cannot be summed, as they're in parallel. You could also depict this with a single 5V source, connecting it's + to all three LED anodes.

Now, apply the voltage drops for each LED that others have described. Note that the summing node can only have one voltage applied, not three different ones. Which voltage should be assumed? The lowest. Google "LED forward voltage drop", it's very... illuminating.

Hence, as the red is the lowest, neither green nor blue will see a voltage necessary to emit full intensity. Put another way, more properly, the majority of current will flow through the red LED.

As an aside, what would happen with three perfectly matched red LEDs? Ohms law still applies, so the current through the resistor would be divided three ways, equally.

3 Likes

Oh my God, yes thank you! Okay. I hadn't been thinking about the power supplies as being in parallel as well! Suddenly it is clear.

2 Likes

I was a UK University lecturer, so:-
How to annoy a Chemist? Ask him if he has his own shop.

How to annoy an Organic Chemist? Ask him if he sells herbal remedies.
:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Seriously though what you are failing to understand is you are using the word power, you don't mean that.

The other thing you need to know is that LEDs are not liner devices and therefore do not obey ohms law. Ohms Law only applies to linear devices, under DC conditions. Under AC conditions there are a whole lot of other things to take into consideration.

I see from you comments that the penny has dropped concerning what is happening, but I thought I would just address why your understanding of theory is letting you down.

2 Likes

I wrote this some time ago about Ohms Law.

There seem to be two camps here,

  1. Ohms law is always true.
  2. Ohms law is not always true.

In fact the actual truth is:-
Ohms law is NEVER true

First off think what Ohm was trying to do. He was wanting some way of characterising the voltage / current relationship in a circuit. In other words for a given circuit how many amps per volt characterised the circuit. He did this by saying that "voltage is proportional to current" and anything that is proportional can be made into a equivalence by using a constant of proportionality. Hence
E = kI

Where E is the electro motive force measured in volts, and I is the current measured in Amps. The constant of proportionality k he gave to a constant which was called resistance, but it is just a constant of proportionality.
Where this is fundamentally wrong for ALL materials is that k is not a constant, meaning that resistance is NEVER a constant.

Sure for some materials it is close to a constant but it never is a constant. The truth is that what we call resistance is a function of many things, these things include, but are not exclusively limited to, temperature, voltage, current, frequency, atomic structure, and time.

Let's look at a case where most people think ohms law works. Take a lump of carbon, at low voltages and currents it is constant enough, but it has a temperature coefficient, as does most materials. So it is only a constant at a fixed temperature. As you increase the current through it, it heats up and so the resistance changes. Therefore ohms law is not obeyed because the temperature change introduces a deviation from what would have been predicted at a lower current. Sure it is pretty dam good and well good enough for working with electronics, but it is not a fundamental law of physics and it does not hold.

The problem is that all real materials do not have a linear relationship between voltage and current. Take a gas for example, that has a very high resistance for small voltages. As the voltage increases the resistance stays quite constant until it reaches a point where the voltage is sufficient to start to remove electrons from the outer orbits of the gas molecules.

This doesn't happen at a single voltage but is spread over a very small range. What happens is the normal thermal energy in the gas is added to the pull by the electric field it is in caused by the voltage. Sometimes this thermal force is in the opposite direction of the electric field and sometimes in the same direction.

When it is in the same direction it combines with the electric field to detach an electron. When enough of these events happen electrons can pick up enough energy from the electric field to be involved in collisions with other molecules and help to dislodge them. All the time the resistance of the gas is dropping. A point will be reached when the gas breaks down and these collisions form a continuous discharge and the quantity we call resistance has dropped to a very low point. Clearly the voltage / current relationship is not constant and is very none linear.

So in conclusion for any situation you can think about resistance is never constant so ohms law is never true.

But for something that is never true it is very useful because it's deviation from true is so small it is not important, especially if it is applied correctly.

That is for materials that exhibit a near constant resistance, OR over a small enough section of the restive function that equates to a straight line.

1 Like