Facebook
youtube
Home
What's new
New posts
New display videos
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Wiki
Search wiki pages
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Display videos
New display videos
Search display videos
Display locations
Displays by region
Members
Current visitors
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Close Menu
New to Christmas lighting?
Get started with the
AusChristmasLighting 101 Manual
Home
Forums
Welcome
101 display basics
Wiring Pixels to Falcon F16V3
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="i13, post: 117048, member: 21708"] The power layout in your previous diagram was better than this one; it just could have had a few redundant cables removed. Data should be zig-zagged (and sometimes you'll connect the negative alongside it) but it is better for the power (including the negative) to be connected at the base of every strand regardless of what happens with the data. If you want two strands to share a power cable, it is better to connect them both to the same power cable at the base of the tree. The reason for this is that voltage drop happens over distance. If the current needs to travel all the way up and down the tree in order to reach the lowest pixel on some of the strands, there will be more voltage drop than if that strand was connected to the power at the base. In other words, from a power perspective, in your diagram here, the furthest pixels from the power injection points are 108 pixels away. In your previous diagram, the furthest pixels from the injection points are 54 pixels away. Data is directional but power isn't. Having said all of this, your current diagram might work fine at 30% brightness. On the topic of voltage drop, I don't expect this to be a problem at 30% brightness when you're building for 100% but there may be scenarios in which you need to use thicker cable than the minimum thickness that can safely handle the current. Voltage drop is due to resistance in the cables. Thicker cables have lower resistance. Depending on the length of the cables, they might have enough resistance to cause incorrect pixel colours due to voltage drop even though they can safely handle the current. I would not trust the seller to supply pixels with actual 18 AWG wire between them. It might be a bit thinner than 18 AWG but still better than the default. Powering each strand at the base of the tree should help compensate for this because the wire between them will only need to carry the current for a maximum of 54 pixels. Your diagram will need to have a separate positive bus bar for each power supply but they can share the same negative one. One 480W power supply might be enough for 30% brightness. Hopefully someone who reduces power supply capacity with brightness can chime in. My thinking is that it is a good idea to have two of them in case one fails. If you have two then you may as well use both and share the load. If one fails then your backup plan could be to use the remaining one to run the whole tree at 30% brightness. If you're planning to add more 12V display items in future then there's nothing wrong with having spare power supplies now. [/QUOTE]
Verification
The title of our introductory lighting manual contains a three digit number. What is that number? Clue: Display basics forum
Post reply
Home
Forums
Welcome
101 display basics
Wiring Pixels to Falcon F16V3
Top