Less Beefy LOR Controller

[Richard Hamilton]

If this topic has been brought up already, then apologies for the repeat. I can't find anything in the search.

We all know the LOR controllers are really nice powerful units that can control just about any kind of load that is used in a Christmas display. However, in the last year or two, LED lights are becoming more popular for displays and some people (like me) use nothing but LED lights.

It is way overkill to use a 30 amp LOR controller for this purpose. It sure would be nice to have a "mini LOR" for light load usage. I'd sure like to see a controller design that is matched to lesser requirements of LED displays.

Given that a typical string of LED lights consumes only about 5 Watts, even with 10 strings on a single channel, it is still only 50 Watts (< 1/2 Amp). Ideally with some current limiting built in to each channel for maybe 1 Amp max or a box limit of 10 Amps, as many as 200 strings of LED lights could still be powered by this less powerful box.

The individual supply cords could be thinner (lamp cord gauge) and lighter since they only need to carry 1 Amp. Perhaps increase the number of channels to 24 for a single controller since the power per box is smaller. It brings down the cost per channel.

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm betting that LOR is far ahead of this idea and likely has some thoughts about.

Curious about anyone's thoughts.
Maybe a poll on this one would be interesting to see.

[-klb-]

There was the discussion of the 4P controller, which was 4 channels, with PLC signal to the device. We never saw any solid info, or projected price, but it was specifically targeted at LED applications. Hopefully this info will come out soon, as I can still think of several places I would like to try these out, and that they would make set up much easier.

There was some discussion about lower power variants, but there really is not that much space to be saved. Everything from the Optoisolators inward is not dependent on the power being controlled. And there is not that much space outside the Optos to be reduced. Single inlet versions would save some money, and work quite well with LED. But having lighter cord versions may cause as many issues with additional SKU/inventory as it saves in material costs.

[beeiilll]

Yes it would be nice to have a somewhat scaled down controller for just LEDs but then again it would be nice to have a lot of things!
I know that when I got started with this and built my boards I was initially worried about using the 12 ga. power cords and pigtails for all of them.
But once I got going and saw what kind of draw I was looking at with LEDs, I just went to using one 14 ga power cord and spt1 zip cord for the pigtails on about 1/2 of the controllers that I have.
This way I have boards that can handle whatever I can come up with but I can use them with the LEDs fairly cheaply by saving myself excess money on pigtails and such. And I can interchange the boards without worry about load if something happens.
Since as klb pointed out the basic board is pretty much standard no matter the exernal loads on it after the optos, so is there really any need for a special design. I think that the whole industry of this hobby will be past any gain of making another variation of the controllers by the time they could come out at the rate things are changing.
With E1.31, RGB, and other new "lights" on the immediate horizon it seems that it is just as easy to stick with what works now and actually design new controllers altogether to deal with the newer lighting options. Or just to make the software a little more tolerant of other hardware that is already out there to run them.

[Richard Hamilton]

I see your points. More than anything else, I was thinking that a lesser capable version doesn't need those bulky cables for the loads and only needs one supply plug instead of two. I noticed some people who have built their own boxes and using lighter gauge cords. It sure makes a difference on weight handling and storage.

[beeiilll]

I agree Richard.
The zip cord pigtails and only 1 power lead does take a couple of pounds off them for sure.

[gizmomkr]

I have never found my self staring at a controlelr WISHING the channels were rated LOWER. I do use a lot of LED, but it really doesnt make me want the hardware scaled back.

I think 16 ch for 99.00 is a great price point.
I also know most of my future purchases will be DC boards for LED's, and pixels.

I'd much rather see a LOR version of the Ethcon Gateway or the Sandevices 681

[Ken Benedict]

I think that the savings will be in the DC controller area in the future.

Just bought two DC controllers for LEDs; one controls 27 channels at 1 amp per channel (good for 7-8 "dumb" strips) and a 96 channel controller (good for partial "dumb" strips). First cost $40, second one cost $100.

Granted they are DMX only, and only compatible through an external DMX controller or an iDMX1000.


Some people are very careful on how they load up the channels for their lights but others just keep plugging things in until something doesn't work or the Magic Smoke gets out.

So for the second group of people, over-building, over-specing or putting in heavy duty components will keep them out of trouble.

It's a tough balance when you're designing for a wide variety of consumers and pocketbooks.


"Smart" LED strips are another story and LOR has met that with the CCR and soon with the CCB and CCF devices. Yes, the CCR 6803 strip is pricey, but you're also getting support and service along with it. Try to ask the same from foreign suppliers.

The strings of LEDs supplied by CDI and others are still driven by AC controllers and they have been addressed by previous people in this thread. Half wave, full wave and reliability have all been discussed in depth by people with plenty of experience, in other threads.

Even though there doesn't seem to be One Standard, be glad there are people that are pushing the envelope in this technology to experiment and find what works and what doesn't work.

I'm fairly positive that LOR is watching this develop and will bring products out when they can confidently stand behind them.

Meanwhile, feel free to experiment and share with others what you found out.



Any others want to share their thoughts?

[johnm160]

Ken Benedict wrote:

.....Just bought two DC controllers for LEDs; one controls 27 channels at 1 amp per channel (good for 7-8 "dumb" strips) and a 96 channel controller (good for partial "dumb" strips). First cost $40, second one cost $100.

Granted they are DMX only, and only compatible through an external DMX controller or an iDMX1000......

I believe I know which 27 ch controller you are talking about, but what is the 96 ch and could you please explain good for PARTIAL dumb strips means? Because on the surface just about a buck a channel sounds really interesting.

Thanks
John

[beeiilll]

Ken Benedict wrote:

Even though there doesn't seem to be One Standard, be glad there are people that are pushing the envelope in this technology to experiment and find what works and what doesn't work.

Any others want to share their thoughts?

I was pushing the envelope just yesterday!

I got a paper cut - LOL.


Oh and a nasty burning electronic smell.

Well it happens. Just make sure I don't do that one again (well anytime soon anyway)!

[Shubb]

johnm160 wrote:

Ken Benedict wrote:

.....Just bought two DC controllers for LEDs; one controls 27 channels at 1 amp per channel (good for 7-8 "dumb" strips) and a 96 channel controller (good for partial "dumb" strips). First cost $40, second one cost $100.

Granted they are DMX only, and only compatible through an external DMX controller or an iDMX1000......

I believe I know which 27 ch controller you are talking about, but what is the 96 ch and could you please explain good for PARTIAL dumb strips means? Because on the surface just about a buck a channel sounds really interesting.

I am interested in both controllers you are refering to. Please post additional info.

Scott

[Ken Benedict]

Three channel DC controller for $9 (plus shipping): http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/701799/209915969-378113147/Easy-DMX-LED-controller-dmx-decoder-driver.html

27 channel DC controller for $45 (plus shipping): http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/701799/209915969-378111925/Easy-DMX-LED-controller-dmx-decoder-driver.html

96 channel DC controller for $112 (plus shipping):
Part 1: http://www.usledsupply.com/shop/rgb-dmx-spi-decoder.html

Part 2: http://www.usledsupply.com/shop/rgb-32-spi-dmx-decoder.html

Keep in mind they have load limits. The 96 channel version can only control 300 milliamps per channel (or one third of one channel of a 5 Meter RGB strip; 65 inches).

Partial dumb strips start out as full length 5 meter strips, then cut with scissors on the cut line (every 3-6 inches) to whatever length you need for window outlines or whatever decorations, then resoldered back to a 4 conductor wire, then fed into a DC controller so it can be programmed for your light show. There's details on Youtube and other forums.

I'm building a 72 channel RGB starburst now, but each channel only draws 100 ma so the 96 channel version is ideal for me. A public THANK YOU to George Simmons for his Hawaii Five-O LOR sequence which will be the basis for this 7 foot diameter starburst. Pictures will be posted later.

Also building a 32 inch RGB snowflake composed of 4 different lengths of partial dumb strips. Started out life as 21 feet of RGB strip. Now a buncha little fellows getting strapped in for a fun ride. Using a LOR DC controller here for the 1.3 amps per channel load and the utter simplicity of plugging it into a LOR network. Gonna be fun this year.

Yee Haw

[Steve Constantino]

Richard Hamilton wrote:

If this topic has been brought up already, then apologies for the repeat. I can't find anything in the search.

We all know the LOR controllers are really nice powerful units that can control just about any kind of load that is used in a Christmas display. However, in the last year or two, LED lights are becoming more popular for displays and some people (like me) use nothing but LED lights.

It is way overkill to use a 30 amp LOR controller for this purpose. It sure would be nice to have a "mini LOR" for light load usage. I'd sure like to see a controller design that is matched to lesser requirements of LED displays.

Given that a typical string of LED lights consumes only about 5 Watts, even with 10 strings on a single channel, it is still only 50 Watts (< 1/2 Amp). Ideally with some current limiting built in to each channel for maybe 1 Amp max or a box limit of 10 Amps, as many as 200 strings of LED lights could still be powered by this less powerful box.

The individual supply cords could be thinner (lamp cord gauge) and lighter since they only need to carry 1 Amp. Perhaps increase the number of channels to 24 for a single controller since the power per box is smaller. It brings down the cost per channel.

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm betting that LOR is far ahead of this idea and likely has some thoughts about.

Curious about anyone's thoughts.
Maybe a poll on this one would be interesting to see.

I have been asking for a large channel count controller for years. 32ch, 64ch, 128ch. I was always told from the manufacturers that they were moving toward smaller channel count controllers like 2 and 4. So I just made my own.

Steve

Attached files

[hdracer]

I like that set-up Steve! AWESOME

[johnm160]

Ken thanks for the info, I will have to plan carefully to see if the 96ch would benifit me with the load limit. As I get more into this I am sure I will find a place for it.

[OneHotRT59]

I have been asking for a large channel count controller for years. 32ch, 64ch, 128ch. I was always told from the manufacturers that they were moving toward smaller channel count controllers like 2 and 4. So I just made my own.

Steve

WOW ...:shock::shock::shock:
That picture has to be Photoshopped :D

Nice Job !