I never read any evidence in datasheets or elsewhere that tells me multiplexed tubes last shorter than directly driven tubes, despite the somewhat higher current required for similar brightness. Is this really the case? What do you base this on? In LED's, this generally evens out, and the datasheet will specify what pulse frequency & current will work (a higher current is allowed because it's the average current that matters to heat, etc.).
By the way, that LCD completely defeats the purpose of the nixies - such a shame he tacked that on there :( On Friday, September 5, 2014 9:38:13 PM UTC+2, MichaelB wrote: > > "Seems silly to me to save a few dollars by multiplexing when the tubes > are so costly." My thoughts exactly! > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/c73ce50f-5d05-41ea-962c-9850f3dedec3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
