I did a simple study of that issue back in 2002, which is findable in
the early yahoo group archives.
The tubes are 'on' for less time, but the current needs to be somewhat
higher for a similar apparent brightness. The tube life is proportional
to something like i^-3 for higher currents. With a 1/6 duty cycle
multiplexed clock running at twice the current of an always-on clock,
the tube life will be similar but the display a bit less bright appearing.
I've been running my multiplexed ZM1040 clock in my living room for 13
years with no problems.
On 9/11/14 5:26 AM, Niek wrote:
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!
--
David Forbes, Tucson AZ
--
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/5411CABE.40900%40dakotacom.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
