Jump to content
Light-O-Rama Forums

GaryM

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

GaryM last won the day on October 25 2012

GaryM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About GaryM

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Yes, its been screwed up since the upgrade.
  2. No. Two different network topologies.
  3. A Sandevices controller runs E131, not DMX, so to answer your question, no. Take daisy-chaining out of your thought process when thinking about E131, its not the same approach as a string of LOR controllers, or DMX controllers using RS485.
  4. If you are running DMX devices on your E131 network, you would use this. If you are all E131, its of no use to you.
  5. Would you agree that if reducing max intensity from 100 down to 86 extends the life of a LED string, then others who do not do that should be seeing a high(er) incidence of failure? That was my reasoning behind asking if others were experiencing what you experienced. I see nothing that says running LED strings at 100% intensity will "sap" them. Show me the data, meaning, multiple people who are seeing high incidences of failure, and then have reduced max intensity, and no longer experience failures, and then I'll be a lot closer to being convinced. I'd more inclined, at most, unless you have more data to substantiate what you are saying, is that strings from Travis may be of inferior quality, and have a higher failure rate, having nothing to do with max intensity settings. I would expect there may be a veteran or two that also purchased strings from Travis and can speak to that.
  6. Read post 27. I trust the judgment of those who can explain what they did, and why, and present concrete data that shows it works. Again, I'll ask..what data is there that shows lowering max intensity from 100 to 86 will extend the life of a LED string? Based on your comment above, I read that to say thats is why you are doing it. Earle is saying he feels he can "see" the extra amount of time that is consumed in bringing full brilliance to 100, as opposed to 86. If his eyes are that good..I'm certainly envious.
  7. I'm curious if anyone else has had the issue of losing a significant number of LED strings to a full power intensity setting? Seems like if it was a real issue, it would be evident across the decorating community, and I'm not recalling hearing about it. Assuming that the intensity reduction is not a direct linear voltage reduction, I'd be interested to know if you actually have measured the voltage levels at the two settings...86% and 100%...would be interested in knowing just how much of an actual V drop you really see.
  8. Can you clarify the part I've bolded? Not sure I understand based on how I understand a triac works.
  9. Chuck? GFCIs are not there to protect your equipment, they are there to protect humans, including yourself.
  10. Best bet is to re-download the file. Sounds like it got corrupted during the download.
  11. Based on the testing I have done, they have not. If I recall, LSP does do a software-generated shimmer, but have not tested it to confirm.
  12. Speed of each update, meaning? Might just be me missing something simple there with what you said and how the LOR controller handles the shummer at a higher rate.
  13. Thats essentially a dmx issue. Twinkle and shimmer side by side on dmx are pretty much the same, including LOR controllers running dmx, and non-LOR controllers (all DMX).
×
×
  • Create New...