Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lebanon, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    2,290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

    A guy went to the doctor with a complaint. "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc replied, "Then don't do that".

    All joking aside, I think I can confirm that it just isn't you. We had (replacing them this year) "houses" made out of pipe. Pixabulbs were zip-tied to those pipes showing off the outline of our "house". Our failure rate on those that were on the slant of the roofs was very low. The pixabulbs on what would be considered the "ridge" went down at a much higher rate than those on the slants or facing forward along the eves.

    The eves and the edges were at a slight slant. The ridge pixabulbs were pointing straight up.

    I thought it was just us, and our luck.
    Live, Laugh, Love.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lebanon, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    2,290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

    A guy went to the doctor with a complaint. "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc replied, "Then don't do that".

    All joking aside, I think I can confirm that it just isn't you. We had (after several years - replacing them this year) "houses" made out of pipe. Pixabulbs were zip-tied to those pipes showing off the outline of our "house". Our failure rate on those that were on the slant of the roofs was very low. The pixabulbs on what would be considered the "ridge" went down at a much higher rate than those on the slants or facing forward along the eves.

    The eves and the edges were at a slight slant. The ridge pixabulbs were pointing straight up.

    I thought it was just our back luck, or something like that. Apparently not.
    Last edited by algerdes; 09-16-2018 at 11:16 AM. Reason: part of message missing.
    Live, Laugh, Love.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Chicago - Southwest Suburbs
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

    Quote Originally Posted by ags0000 View Post
    If my hunch is correct, water intrusion with (at least your vertically-oriented) PixaBulbs is through wicking (or gaps) along the wires. For use in a megatree, they are not (absolutely) vertical, but that might be worse. If water is wicking, it will be running down the wires and potentially into to electronics. If that is correct, then the only safe orientation is horizontal (bulb direction) with in/out wiring horizontal (parallel to the ground) so that neither in nor out wires will have water flowing down and into the electronics. I hope this isn't true, but I have no other explanation why you are seeing such a big difference in reliability based on orientation. How many PixaBulbs are you running? with 8k pixels, just a 1% failure rate annually will be a big nuisance.
    I have just shy of 1000 in my display. 340 of those are pointed straight up on frames 6" above the ground. Those have a high failure rate. The rest make up eaves, window frames, and roof ridges. The eaves and window frames point outward. Eaces are naturally horizontal, window frames go both ways. The ones on the roof point at about 45 degrees. So my failure rate on those is around 0.31% overall. if you extend that over the 4 years they've been up, it's 0.06%

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

    If I can achieve 0.06% annual failure rate I'll be ecstatic. 5 pixels per year is OK with me.

    How did you get from 0.31% over 4 years to 0.06% annually? Wouldn't it be 0.0775? Or over 5 years? Or is it a "fencepost" error (on my part) whereby in 4 elapsed years you've had 5 shows?

    I've torn apart my samples and just don't see how the water intrusion could be happening - other than possibly wicking up the wire entry points. If the freeze/thaw is actually cracking the lens to enter that would be evident - and there is an O-ring at the base of the lens that should minimize that. So back to the wire entry points, I would expect that bulbs mounted with the wires in a vertical orientation would be the most likely to transfer water along the wires and into the pixel - but that's not what your experience shows. I wonder, could water be collecting in the base of your problem pixels (under the actual pixel epoxy body, in the "green bathtub" beneath it) and then over time being drawn up the wires? If that were true, drilling a small hole in the base of the PixaBulbs you have pointing up would solve (or reduce) that problem. Just a thought.

    Do get a few samples and take a look a the IP68 epoxy-filled Technicolor bulbs (with transparent body) in the dark when lit. For me they don't work because they look to me like a "rocket ship" and the whole reason I'm not using bare bullet pixels is because I am trying to create a link (pay homage) to the older style bulbs from Christmas past.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Chicago - Southwest Suburbs
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Versions of Technicolor pixels and waterproofing...

    0.31 / 5 = .06. I said 4 but was thinking 5. I cant remember exactly when the pixabulbs entered my show. It was the very first year they were available, whenever that was. I originally had GECEs in their place, that started in 2011. I think those ran for only 2 years before I switched to pixabulbs. But in any case, the failure rate is very very low.

    I think that's exactly how they're failing when they're upright. The o-ring doesn't really do anything. It sits on the shoulder of the inner lens and seals between that shoulder and the diffuser lens. it's in the wrong place to have any useful effect. I guess it keeps water out of the lens, but who cares about that. it still allows water around the inner housing. That's probably where it's sitting and the freeze/thaw cycles force it in along the weakest point, along the wires. Someone over on another forum gave that exact same suggestion to add weep holes. I think i'm going to try that this year.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •