Interesting pojt Bill on the fact that some data sheets specify multiplexing and some dont, as you say some tubes were not 'desgined' to be muxed, I think thats probably because muxing wasnt common when nixies were current, I wonder what manufacturers did to a tube to make it intended for muxing, or whether its just a new spec applied to an old design.
I really dont spose I'm going to know without trying if lifecycle is greatly reduced without trying it myself, one thing encouraging is that there are folks that have clocks with muxed tubes that have been going for years, and theres no mention of anyone with a clock that munches tubes every 10 minutes. On 21 Sep, 19:48, Adam Jacobs <a...@jacobs.us> wrote: > I believe that the "singing" issue is primarily a problem with larger > nixie tubes, of which I have no (as of yet) experience. I've never had a > problem with singing tubes with IN-12, IN-14, IN-8, IN-8-2, IN-16, IN-17 > tubes.. but these are pretty small tubes (18mm digit height or less). > never had a problem with ghosting either, but the IN-12's in a 1x6 are > definitely lower brightness with a very slight flicker that is only > noticeable from the edge of the eye. There is a very distinct "look" to > the 1x6 mux, so I use it only for my lowest-end clocks. If I'm > interested in how it looks, I'll use a 2x3 mux or direct drive. To my > eye, the 2x3 mux looks a LOT better tan 1x6. > > -Adam > > On 9/21/2012 11:35 AM, Bill van Dijk wrote: > > > > > A lot of the discussion here about multiplexing is in generalities. I use a > > number of Burroughs B5750 tubes (who have miraculously survived more than 30 > > years of clean-up attempts from the ball and chain :-)) and their > > documentation specifically states that this tube is designed for time share > > applications, and even provides data for increased anode currents at > > different duty cycles. > > > Since some tubes do not have that information, I would suspect they were not > > specifically designed with multiplexing in mind. This of course does not > > mean it would be bad for them I suppose.... Any of the tubes I multiplexed > > did not complain, although some did not like a 1-6 multiplex in the sense > > that there were brightness issues and some ghosting issues to be resolved. > > I have not had any noise issues from the tubes, but I use mostly small tubes > > that may be less susceptible. > > > Bill van Dijk > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: neonixie-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:neonixie-l@googlegroups.com] > >> On Behalf Of dr pepper > >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:10 AM > >> To: neonixie-l > >> Subject: [neonixie-l] Re: Why is multiplexing nixie's bad > > >> That answers a few points. > >> So overdriving tubes isnt necessarily a no no. > >> I also didnt know poisoning occurs at too low a current, better put a > >> minimum brightness limit on any new designs then. > >> I have a dekatron circuit that uses 'pull mids', it works without them, > >> I was wondering why they were there, I think your comments answer that > >> question.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To post to this group, send an email to neonixie-l@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to neonixie-l+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
