Jump to content
Light-O-Rama Forums

tonyjmartin

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tonyjmartin

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Traverse City, Michigan
  • Occupation
    Attractions Manager

More About Me

  • How I learned about Light-O-Rama -
    Carson Williams' viral video.
  • Favorite Decorating Holiday?
    Christmas

LOR Software

  • LOR Software Version
    3.11.2
  • License Level
    Advanced
  1. I agree that it's not possible, given the the way that the firmware executes LOR protocol commands. As I understand it from a few years back, the pic chip receives commands for certain channels, then it fully executes them, unless it receives other commands for the same channels. But... If the controllers are driven with DMX, which renders them "dumb", and they then receive all instructions at the DMX refresh rate instead of executing commands on their own, and the software is smart enough to layer the effects together, couldn't this effect be achieved? I'm not sure if that's how foreground/background effects work is S2, but if the fading shimmer/twinkle effect were above the percentage of the fading solid effect, it seems that there would be an oscillation that emerges from the steady lights, and then becomes more obvious as the steady lights fade out. Not that I'm plugging DMX... :?
  2. PaulXmas wrote: I would try updating to the more/most recent firmware for the DC16, as that's where bugs like this are usually fixed as they occur. In the off-season, I've missed firmware updates on more than one occasion that had already addressed what I thought were "new" problems.
  3. Wow. Speaking of deviating from the original question. :shock:
  4. Jeff Millard wrote: Oh, I get it now. YOU are the only one who is allowed to have an opinion on electrical matters, and you reserve the right to be rude and condescending to anyone who dares to challenge that self-appointed authority. Sorry, I missed that part of the forum guidelines.
  5. shfr26 wrote: LOL. If the electricity doesn't get you...then the added frustration of trying to roll a lift around a soggy yard should give you a heart attack. Uh...the 3-prong output dangles have female connectors, so they aren't being plugged into anything. It's the extension cord [to the lights] that you are dragging over to the controller that has a male connector that plugs into the dangle. Unless I missed a joke in there somewhere...pulled the graveyard shift last night...I'm a little foggy right now.
  6. I think was is at work here is the tendency to lump everyone into a category that we either agree or disagree with and then take pot shots at that group if we disagree. I'm sorry, but the world is not so black and white. Just because someone questions the overall logic behind using or the effectiveness of GFCI's, it does not mean that they are advocating that they should be abandoned. They are merely pointing out some of the flaws in the logic behind their use. And I would hope that just because someone wholeheartedly believes in the proper use of GFCI's, then it would not necessarily follow that they believe that GFCI's are a some sort of sacred panacea for the prevention of electrocution in outdoor or moisture-prone environments. For myself, I believe in use of GFCI's as indicated in the codes to reduce the risk of electrocution. But it is also true that the NEC's are in a constant state of revision. And just because a new code requirement appears, it does not necessarily follow that ALL installations that do not follow the new requirement are suddenly more or less hazardous than they ever were. The installation is the same. It is the new code requirement that changed. This is one of the reasons that many new codes only apply to new installations, not existing ones. If someone has a house with exterior/bath outlets that were at code when they were originally installed, then the use of GFCI's does not apply to that house. Sure, it might be a good idea to install them, but it is not something that is a regulated requirement. This should be a factor when determining whether or not someone's installation is "wrong" and another's is "right." This reminds me of the debate in the entertainment industry over whether or not it is safe to use "cherry-picker" lifts without their outriggers. We all knew that manufacturers started adding all kinds of "idiot proof" cutoff circuits to their lifts so that the equipment could not be used without outriggers. But this was a relatively recent development to increase safety and to reduce their liability should accidents occur. And in cramped spaces it was often impossible to to use a lift since the outriggers took up such a large footprint. So are you "stupid" if you find a way to use the lift without it's outriggers? Not necessarily. The reality is that it depends upon the user. Someone who knows very little about lifts, disables the outrigger cutoffs and then hangs outside the basket to reach something gets what they deserve IMHO. But the operator who disables the outrigger cutoffs and then takes additional precautions because they know that the lift is more likely to tip is certainly not being careless. And it flies in the face of logic to label both operators the same. And it certainly requires no skill on the part of a critic to criticize an operator for not following the manufacturer's instructions to the letter. Actually, it takes no skill at all, though this opinion is often offered as if merely quoting the manual bestows some level of knowledge or authority on the person offering their opinion. And drawing lines in the sand in this manner gets us nowhere. Are GFCI's a good idea? Sure. Are they always required? No. Do they fail? Yes, but not as often as previously, but especially when exposed to surges. And nobody's yet mentioned how/where AFCI's or AFCI/GFCI combo's are now required. You might be surprised if you read the codes. And if the NEC indicated both kinds of protection, would you run right out and upgrade? And do I get to take a dim view of your and your opinion if you don't? If you don't get what I'm saying, then you never will, and further debate is pointless. Opinions are like backsides. Everybody has one, and they all stink!
  7. GaryMartin wrote: I can't help you either (also intended as a mood lightener) I wonder how far the odds go up if the yard in which you're trespassing is a neighbors...or a member of the LOR Forums. (Substitute PC, CC, DIY, D-Light, Aurora, LSP, SCL, TCL, LSH, CCF, or MHD if you like. )
  8. I just love watching a Network Administrator, a Network Engineer, and a Systems Developer debate the use of ground fault protection. And the one electrician in the discussion just simply states that he's installing GFCI on the outlet. No arguing, no debate...he just says that's what he's going to do. And the rest of the thread digresses into debating the electrical conductive properties of pure/impure water. And it all started with someone wondering why there were 3-prong dangles on his controller....
  9. Orville wrote: Since Dan has mentioned that there is an "insignificant" price difference between 2 and 3-prong dangles, I would vote that it's just a matter of convenience for the user. If your controller has 3-prong output cords, no matter what type of household extension cord you drag over to it, you will be able to make the connection without an adapter. I don't think that UL certification applies to your PC controller package though. If memory serves, the Showtime line of controllers are the ones that carry a UL certification.
  10. Mountainwxman wrote: Not invisible...they're just not plugged in... LOL
  11. 1) ShowTime Flex-O-Light-RGB CR150D 2) Showtime Pixel-Flex CR150D EDIT: #1 is sorta taken...you make the call, Dan.
  12. LightORamaDan wrote: Looks like everybody is on board (pun intended) with addressing the various servo manufacturers' different performance characteristics. Excellent!
  13. Beats the heck out of trying to do a wireframe star without a welder. Thanks for sharing!
  14. LightORamaDan wrote: So I imagine that a bad day at the office kinda looks like this:
  15. lightoramaMary wrote: Funny...your avatars look exactly the same.
×
×
  • Create New...