Measured node strings are very short

[jnealand]

I measured my strings this morning and they are grossly short of what I expected.  My 50 node string which I expected to be around 19 ft is only about 13.5 lit length (1st bulb to last bulb) not even close to the 19.5 ft shown in the node chart although that is supposed to include leaders which measure about 2 ft total so still a difference of 4ft.  A 100 light string measured 26.75 ft not even close to the 36 ft shown in the chart in the wiki.  I have to reconsider how I was going to use the SS this season or find the money to order more and that will be a problem.  I recommend that everyone measure the strings to make sure you will be able to cover the area you are planning.

[Steve Gase]

Well, that is not good. 

I'm waiting on my 128-pixel strings and if your numbers can be extrapolated to mine, then my 20.9' tree will become a 16.7' tree.

Since I won't be able to add pixels, my only solution would be to lop off 4.2' from my tree.

[rrowan]

The header in the chart does state Approx

The stated length is rarely what you get since the node to node spacing is done by hand so the wire length is not always the same.

I have 3 window frames exactly the same size and two of the frames have 44 nodes and the third one has 45 nodes. It does mess up some of my sequencing

It would be a lot of work but adding some wire between each "short" length of wire between the nodes could get you closer to the correct totally length you are looking for.

Rick R.

[tng5737]

I usually use 3.1" for a spacing guide - The avg space is actually slightly larger than that number but I'd rather be conservative when calculating my runs (I can always trim off a few nodes - much easier than adding a few!)

[Steve Gase]

Well, that is not good. 

I'm waiting on my 128-pixel strings and if your numbers can be extrapolated to mine, then my 20.9' tree will become a 16.7' tree.

Since I won't be able to add pixels, my only solution would be to lop off 4.2' from my tree.

I asked Ray, and got this response:

the new ip68 node has the same distance as the old model,please check the attached photo, and we use 10cm spacing(from solder to solder), so the real spacing(from end to end)should be less than 10cm, should be about 8cm, for 128 node, total lenght is :11.3m(37feet)

While he says 37 feet, if I take the 8cm number and calculate from first to last bulb I get 10.16m (33.3 ft), which is not very close to the DLA esitmate [with leads] of 13.8m (45.3ft).

Since I planned to fold the string back on itself to increase the density of lights, my new tree height will be 16.1 feet -- not 20.9 feet, as I planned.

oh, well.  I'm not about to cut and solder in wire between each pixel.  There are just too many strings and too many pixels.

Now, maybe since lights are congested at the top I could insert empty wire between the first 80 pixels and the remaining 48.  hmmm...  The top part of the tree would look like 16 strings, and the bottom would look like 32.   ...I'm going to need to visualize this to see how it looks.   

A 5-foot shorter tree looks very likely now.

[RogerA]

What is the maximum allowed spacing between nodes?
I assumed that each node talks to the next one and has a limited length of wire it can handle.
This would mean that Ray is selecting the node spacing for reliability of communications.
That would also mean that adding more wire between two nodes could be problematic.
So what is the story on this?

[jnealand]

I believe it can be several feet but that would mean an awful lot of cutting and soldering since they are built the way they are.

[RogerA]

Thanks.
That is good to know.
I guess the spacing is more related to brightness and extra wire would just raise shipping costs.
Maybe Ray can provide a stretched version at a premium.

[kylec]

Well, that is not good. 

I'm waiting on my 128-pixel strings and if your numbers can be extrapolated to mine, then my 20.9' tree will become a 16.7' tree.

Since I won't be able to add pixels, my only solution would be to lop off 4.2' from my tree.

I just went and measured one of my 128 node strings.  It was exactly 40' including the leads.  So you might be ok.

Kyle

[Steve Gase]

Did you get a measurement without the leads?

                             Feet        Inches
String length:   16.67*2   199.98*2

This assumes that diameter is 1/2 height -- recommended by someone as a "perfect" ratio for christmas trees...
And that I am folding my string back on itself -- so my 16 - 128 pixel strings will look like 32 - pixel strings...
Also, I am using the lighted length using Ray's stated 8mm pixel-to-pixel distance...

height   16.10   193.20
diameter   8.05   96.60
radius   4.03   48.30
length   16.60   199.15  (hypoteneus)  sqrt(height^2 + radius^2)
circumfrence   25.29   303.48

[TAdamsOK]

There is no perfect ratio that I have seen.  Some people like their trees really fat and others very skinny; it's all a matter of individual taste.  I run mine much more than half and think it looks pretty nice, but that of course is my opinion of what a Christmas tree should look like.  I would play with the strings by laying them out on a floor and making the triangles you are talking about and See if i could find a height/width combo that fits the strings and your tastes. 

Are you running the strands along the bottom of the tree as well (back toward the center)?  That would free up some string, but your calcs don't show it so I would assume that you are not doing that. 

Another thing you could do is not double them and use the excess part of the strand somewhere else while achieving the desired height/base circle.  The nodes are actually pretty bright so I'm not sure if you really need to double them.

The other option is to put another controller on the end and run a portion of a string back up the leg which will be missing the nodes.  Not cheap though as it will require more nodes/controllers/power/hub maybe.

[Steve Gase]

Right, lights will stop as the bottom edge and not go inward.

The tree that I am replacing was a 16ft mega tree with 5600 LEDs, so I wanted to have something similar in intensity.  This will give me about the same height, but not the 20-something feet I wanted  (...you know: bigger, brighter ).  And  the new plan was for 2048 pixels.

I'd consider putting more strings onto the tree, but I am concerned about the effort in raising the trunk.

I'd like to have the strings as close together at the bottom, I don't want it to seem sparse as it opens up at the foot of the tree.  I'm thinking the LSP2 effects will look better with density.

[TheBanker]

I am just wondering about why do we have those different lengths?  I just got mine and they are spliced together too.  But why not just order the pixels by the roll or by the node and then I can cut them to the length I want???

[TheBanker]

Pixel to pixel, stretched out, 25 count, is 83 inches.  That is with zero lead.