Express Ver 5

[rrowan]

Slightly off topic but slightly relevant

Last year one of my gfci outlets keep tripping. It was easy to figure out it was my tomato cage mini trees. This year I didn't use them and I had no trips on the outlets. I had a ton of rain and snow this year (high winds also) and not one problem related to the weather.

Just some food for thought (maybe a snack)

Rick R.

[tbone321]

I tend not to use them on most of my display as they were really not designed with that use in mind.  There is a much greater risk of someone tripping on an extension cord or inflatable tether and falling on something that can cause real harm so I do what I can to keep people from walking in the middle of the display.  Now where there is a real risk as small as it is like on my front portch where there is an illuminated wreath on the metal storm door and rope lights on the iron rails that area is protected by GFI but I see no point in doing it with lights on the frame of the house or in the trees in the yard. 

[austindave]

Wow. I'm not going to harp on this, but to me, this position is scary. GFCI's are intended to provide a level of safety to humans, to protect them from completing an unintended circuit path to ground - possibly resulting in death. I can imagine any number of scenarios where people might come into contact with my outdoor display (shoot, *I'm* going to be out there touching stuff at times). I'd sure hate to be responsible for somebody (including myself) being electrocuted because I didn't want to deal with protecting my connections from water intrusion (resulting in GFCI's tripping).

Yeah, I know it's a drag, but being safe with electricity is critically important for this hobby. GFCIs are specified in the US NEC (National Electrical Code) for a reason.

Just my 2 cents worth...

--Dave

[rrowan]

Wow. I'm not going to harp on this, but to me, this position is scary. GFCI's are intended to provide a level of safety to humans, to protect them from completing an unintended circuit path to ground - possibly resulting in death. I can imagine any number of scenarios where people might come into contact with my outdoor display (shoot, *I'm* going to be out there touching stuff at times). I'd sure hate to be responsible for somebody (including myself) being electrocuted because I didn't want to deal with protecting my connections from water intrusion (resulting in GFCI's tripping).

Yeah, I know it's a drag, but being safe with electricity is critically important for this hobby. GFCIs are specified in the US NEC (National Electrical Code) for a reason.

Just my 2 cents worth...

--Dave

I totally agree with Dave and most areas required a gfci outlet for outdoor use.

Rick R.

[tbone321]

Yes, most areas require GFI on outdoor outlets on new homes or new electrical work in older ones and if people feel safer using them for their displays then go for it.  I am not in any way telling people not to use them, I am simply stating that this is not what they were designed to do and that there are much higher risks to people walking around in a large display.

[Night Owl]

Yes, most areas require GFI on outdoor outlets on new homes or new electrical work in older ones and if people feel safer using them for their displays then go for it.  I am not in any way telling people not to use them, I am simply stating that this is not what they were designed to do and that there are much higher risks to people walking around in a large display.

I'm curious about your statement that GFCIs were not designed to do (this).  Not designed to do what?  GFCIs break the circuit if it detects a difference in current flow from the hot and neutral lines to prevent individuals from receiving a shock. 

[RJ]

Talk about your left turn! how did we go from talking about new features of a controller to discussing the merits or GFCI or lack there of?  LOL

Now back to our regularly schedule program. 

RJ

[Blackbeard]

Talk about your left turn! how did we go from talking about new features of a controller to discussing the merits or GFCI or lack there of?  LOL

Now back to our regularly schedule program. 

RJ

Shucks,

I was wanting to ask about the new Health Care Plan being considered in Congress.

steve

[tbone321]

I'm curious about your statement that GFCIs were not designed to do (this).  Not designed to do what?  GFCIs break the circuit if it detects a difference in current flow from the hot and neutral lines to prevent individuals from receiving a shock.  

As RJ said and I agree, this thread is not about this but I will answer your question and then I will stop hijacking this thread.  In many areas copper pipe was required for water supply lines and this combined with metal faucets and wet locations such as in a bathroom made electrocution from something like a defective hair dryer a real possibility.  GFI was designed and implemented with the  prevention of situations like this in mind.  It was also extended to kitchens, basements and outdoor outlets to protect against similar situations.  The point is that in all of these situations, the person would be holding or picking up an electrical device while providing a good ground connection thru their body.  When is this likely to happen in your outdoor light display?  The cords wil be lying on the ground and even if wet, if stepped on will do nothing as the best path to ground is the ground itself.  Another problem with using GFI in this situation is that if you have multiple cords plugged into each other and each one is leaking a few mills when wet at the plugs, even though that level of current at each connection would not even be felt the total leakage of all the connections would trip the GFI because as I said before, they were not designed with this use in mind.  As I said before, I am in no way telling people not to use GFI in their displays but IMHO, they provide little to no valid protection in this use while making it very difficult to run an outdoor light display.

[PJNMCT]

RJ,

Can we take this to a new topic because I think this needs more discussion as I believe this to be totally incorrect. GFCIs are indeed meant to protect personnel from electrocution from exactly the way we use them in light animation.

No flaming intended, just a healthy discussion.

-Paul

[RJ]

I do not believe you two disagreeing on this is going to productive. Everyones opinion has been made. Some people do not use them I believe most do. They are a safety device and do indeed save lifes. I know of no places in the USA the codes do not require them on the outside feeds that our shows run on.

Beyond this it is a personal choice that we are not here to tell people what to do. It is their responsibilty and so their choice.

These type of threads are great up to this point, and then it heads down hill. Lets leave it be.

RJ

[bmsgaffer86]

I have another question about the Lynx. I know this would not work for the wireless guys (yet anyways). But how hard would it be to have each lynx send out a status signal on the second pair of data cables?

For example, for both security reasons and troubleshooting reasons I would love to have a device plugged in right at the dongle that would give me a quick status report on each of the Lynx. Heck it could even be plugged into the computer as well so you can make a gui for it.

All i would want to know is what the device is (Lynx Express) and what the starting channel is. The device/software would then interpret this, compare it to my list of installed hardware and let me know if anything is locked up or physically missing. If one of the controls were to stop responding after like 10 seconds it would set an alarm (sound, or light, or even trigger something in the display).

I leave my controllers powered on 24/7 to keep them warm so that isnt an issue. Is anyone else looking for anything like that or am I just weird?

[tbone321]

While this sounds simple, it is far more complicated than it seems.  Although the device name and starting channel might work for you, it wouldn't for me or many others because I have more than one device of the same type starting on the same channel.  You could code an identifier in the firmware but that will eat up space.  Then there is the issue of adding hardware to all of the controllers which both increases costs and required a redesign of all of the boards.  After the hardware is installed then you will have to come up with a reliable method of communication.  Remember, unlike the outgowing where only the dongle is originating the transmission and everything else simply forwards it, what you want to do would have everything but the dongle transmitting information.  A method would have to be created or implemented to prevent or avoid collisions on the return side and while methods to do this already exist, I'm not sure that the current hardware has enough space for the code required to implement both it and the message being sent or the speed to process it as well as respond to DMX commands as is. 

I'm not sure about what you mean when you said the second pair of data cables.  If you are talking about the second data jack on the express and other controllers, that cannot be done since the dimmers are linked together by these.  If you meant a second pair of wires in the existing cables then the dongle would have to be redesigned for two way communications.  That in itself might not be a bad idea but it doesn't end there.  The software would also have to be redesigned for both two way communications and what to do with the incoming data.  There will be a heck of a lot of work to do this and really not much bang for the buck IMHO.

[bmsgaffer86]

I was referring to the second data pair in the cable. I was actually thinking to put in a device inline before the dongle that would remove and process the data so the dongle and interface software wouldn't have to change.

But I guess the PIC space would really be the most limiting factor as RJ redesigns the boards often anyways it wouldn't be too hard to add another 485 chip. The hardest part would be collision management (you would have to use the actual 485 protocol since that is two way) and all the involved coding in the chip. Although, with the identifier as you mention, the controllers wouldnt have to do anything more than beacon their ID every so often. But that would, like you said, probably make the effort outweigh the gains. Beyond that I don't see the difficulty beyond original hardware designs.

Since the schematics aren't public I cant really tell how it all works and I'm going on my assumptions and electronics knowledge. More than likely there isnt even enough pins left on the pic to do another dataline (ever considered multiplexing? pros cons?) but having two way communication as an option could be very beneficial to future expansion.

I just love projects, so I love kicking around all these different ideas. THank you for humoring me, and I'm sorry if i become annoying. DIY is my thing!

~Brandon

[RJ]

Never Annoying! , Interesting ideas.

RJ