Jump to content
Light-O-Rama Forums

Kensonic

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Kensonic

  • Rank
    New Forum User

Profile Information

  • Location
    WA - Washington
  • Occupation
    Retired Electrical Engineer

More About Me

  • Favorite Decorating Holiday?
    Christmas

LOR Software

  • LOR Software Version
    5.4.2
  • License Level
    Pro
  1. k6ccc,, You caught my error, thanks! These are from Amazon, but they are from Paul Zhang and not Ray Wu, my bad. Here is the link https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07VX24WX3/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Yes, my measurement are accurate and it is for 100 pixels. I did not blow a fuse (4A) on any of the tests when illuminating all 100 pixels. I also tested my LOR pixels for comparison: Pixel Curve Amps Power LOR Pixel String Color 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% White Wire, 12V, 100 Pixel Square String #1 100 Red 0.867 0.948 1.027 100 Green 0.866 0.948 1.025 100 Blue 0.863 0.944 1.022 100 White 1.893 2.065 2.232 26.784 W White LUX 3450 5600 6280 7180 8300 80% Power= 22.7 Watts/100 181.6 Watts/800 363.2 Watts/1.6k 90% Power= 24.8 Watts/100 198.4 Watts/800 396.8 Watts/1.6k 100% Power = 26.8 Watts/100 214.4 Watts/800 428.8 Watts/1.6k In addition, I tested the light output of a single pixel in Lux when placed direct on the sensor of my multimeter. Interestingly, the Paul Zhang pixels while consuming more power, are also brighter: Pixel Curve Amps Power Zhang Pixel String Color 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Green Wire, 12V, 100 Pixel Square String #1 100 Red 0.936 1.053 1.173 1.283 1.37 100 Green 0.973 1.094 1.22 1.322 1.42 100 Blue 0.967 1.086 1.213 1.331 1.4 100 White 2.071 2.297 2.52 2.73 2.94 35.28 W White LUX 6600 7360 8690 9400 10470 70% Power= 27.6 Watts/100 220.8 Watts/800 441.6 Watts/1.6k 80% Power= 30.2 Watts/100 241.6 Watts/800 483.2 Watts/1.6k 90% Power= 32.8 Watts/100 262.4 Watts/800 524.8 Watts/1.6k 100% Power = 35.3 Watts/100 282.4 Watts/800 564.8 Watts/1.6k The best match between the LOR and Paul Zhang pixels was: Curve W / 100 W / 1600 Amzn Zhang 12V 7360 lumens = 70% 27.6 W 442 W LOR 12V square 7180 lumens = 90% 24.8 W 397 W
  2. I recently purchased 2,000 Ray Wu 12V square pixels via Amazon. They have been working fine in my testing using both Pixie 8 and Pixie 16 controllers. I use Meanwell LRS-350 12 V power supplies for Pixie 8 controllers and Meanwell RSP-500-12 12 V power supplies for Pixie 16 controllers. I did some measurements to determine the power draw of these WS2811 based pixel strings. I inserted a ammeter in the 12 V line from the pixie controller to the pixel string to make the current measurements. Here are the result for a string of 100 pixels using various pixel curves in LOR Sequencer v5.4.2 Pro (results are in amps @12 V): Pixel Curve Amps Wu Pixel String Color 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 12V, 100 Pixel Square String #1 100 Red 0.815 0.936 1.053 1.173 1.283 1.37 100 Green 0.847 0.973 1.094 1.22 1.322 1.42 100 Blue 0.842 0.967 1.086 1.213 1.331 1.4 100 White 1.806 2.071 2.297 2.52 2.73 2.94 I tested 5 more strings are got almost identical results. With full white, at 2.95 3A (which is not an issue for the 4 A fuse), then a 500 W power supply for a Pixie 16 can support about 14 strings of 100 pixels (2.95 A * 12 V * 14 strings = 495.6 W - Yes, I know this zero headroom). If you set the Pixel curve to 80%, then about 16 strings can be supported (2.52 A * 12 V * 14 strings = 484 W). AT 70%, then there is good headroom for 16 strings = 2.297 A * 12 V * 14 strings = 441 W For a Pixie 8 using the 350W Meanwell power supply, full pixel curve setting is not an issue: 2.95A * 12 V * 8 strings = 283 W Based on my testing the Ray Wu pixel strings draw about 3 Amps on full white for a power draw of 36 W
×
×
  • Create New...