This is an update on the technology being used to drive my Christmas light display this year.
I have about 1100 feet of Red/Green/Blue LED strip around the perimeter of my roof. Because of length limitations, this is implemented as eight separate sections, each with its own separate controller. There is also a separate section on the observation tower, with its own controller.
These controllers can receive infrared (i.e., standard remote-control) commands. To control them I built an IR repeater circuit using an Arduino and wrote some python code to drive everything.
Last year’s detailed write-up is still generally correct, aside from anything new I write about here.
THIS YEAR’S IR REPEATER CIRCUITRY
At the end of last year I prototyped a modification for controlling the roof perimeter (8 strands / 8 controllers) separately from the observation tower. With this modification I can have the roof perimeter all be one color while the observation tower is another color, or blink the tower but not the roof, and vice versa. I still can’t control individual strands on the roof perimeter (entire perimeter will always display identical color); however, since the boundaries of these strands are haphazard (they occur wherever one strand ends and another begins) and coarse (there are only 8 strands across the entire 1100 feet of perimeter), it’s not clear that viable effects could be had by controlling those individually. Though I may try that next year anyway (haha of course).
This year I implemented a new version of the IR repeater circuitry to let me control the roof perimeter (as a whole) separately from the tower. The new circuit looks like this (click image to open it full size if you want):
This is just a refined version of the modification I performed last year.
To control the roof perimeter, I have eight individual infrared emitters taped onto the receiving area of each of the eight controllers (one controller per strand) scattered around my roof perimeter. The leads from these emitters are connected to wires that all run back to one spot at my house where I have connected them all in series, with additional components as shown in the above circuit diagram.
The advantage, in my application, of connecting them all in series is that if any one of them fails, I’d rather have all eight of the lighting strands become non-responsive, rather than having all but one of them responding to commands. That would look wrong; it’s better to have them all stuck on one color plus that would make me notice the problem right away. This is all theoretic, as no IR emitter (or wire leads to them) has failed this year or last.
Power for the IR emitters is supplied this year by a 12V regulated power source. Last year I used an unregulated wall-wart; this year I am using a scavenged PC board power supply.
The 38KHz IR digital PWM signal comes out of my Arduino on pin3, all as described in last-year’s article write-up. This signal drives a MOSFET gate to modulate the power to the entire string of IR emitters (which together require more power than the Arduino can drive directly; hence the 12V supply for that part of the circuit).
However, rather than feeding the 38KHz signal directly to the MOSFET gate, it is split into two and fed into two separate AND gates from an SN74HCT08 quad dual-input AND chip. The two “enable” lines – ENA1 and ENA2 – are just simple digital outputs from the Arduino and allow me to separately enable the signal on its way to the two different MOSFETs. By turning ENA1 and ENA2 on/off in my code, I can determine whether IR commands will go out to just the roof perimeter, the tower, or both.
Although we might casually think of the HIGH and LOW inputs on logic chips as being 5 volts vs zero, the TTL spec is broader than that and allows a HIGH to be as low as 2.7 volts. It turns out the SN74HCT08 AND gate output is higher than that, but it is still not high enough to drive the MOSFET gate directly like I was doing when it was being driven directly from the Arduino output pin. For this reason I also inserted a TC427 MOSFET gate driver into the MOSFET gate path. This chip converts a TTL-level input into a rail-to-rail signal (5V/0V in this case) suitable for driving a MOSFET gate input. In general it’s probably a best practice to use a driver chip like this for MOSFETs anyway, even if you are coming directly out an Arduino with sufficient voltage for the 4.5V logic-level requirement of this particular MOSFET gate.
I wrote about my software extensively before and put a repository, arduino-json-IO on github that implements a tiny web server in an Arduino and allows you to send it commands to perform various digital I/O operations. One of those commands allows you to send PWM-modulated IR codes. This makes extensive use of the Arduino IRRemote library to do the actual PWM control.
The IRRemote library outputs these PWM waveforms on pin 3, which becomes the “IR” signal in my circuit diagram above.
The new question, with the enable lines, becomes how to manage those. I could just have used the existing capabilities of arduino-json-IO and explicitly managed the enable lines by writing pseudo-code like this:
# to do something with just the tower
POST "set ENA1 low" command to arduino
POST "set ENA2 high"
POST "IR command for a tower color"
but this is cumbersome and, more importantly, it requires multiple HTTP transactions between the python code driving all this and the poor little arduino generating the IR codes (and enables). Of course, this could be factored out since we only need to send the enable line commands when they need to change from their current state, but that would then require keeping track of the output enable states, and also would be subject to getting “out of sync” if, for example, the arduino server rebooted due to a bug, or a power glitch.
To avoid all that, I decided to customize the generic arduino-json-IO library to add the enable lines directly into the JSON structure sent along with each POST request to the IR emitter code. The way it works now is that the enable lines are set high when an “enable: xxx” directive is encountered in the JSON (“xxx” being the pin to set high) and any pin that was set high as a result of doing that is returned to LOW when the POST request processing is finished. This makes the management of the enable pins be, essentially, an “atomic” operation tied in with each individual POST request that sends IR codes.
The revised code is available here:
Admittedly this isn’t as “generic” as it could be, but the beauty of something like Arduino is that it’s not unreasonable to customize the embedded software for a specific application, which is exactly what is going on here with this modification.
Given all that let’s review the old way a “heartbeat” effect was created with the arduino-json-IO IR POST command. The JSON I sent looked like this:
The minimum gap that I found reliable between IR commands was 175msec (175000 microseconds). Call that period of time a “beat”. The above JSON commands the lights to be RED (16718565) for 3 “beats” (about half a second – 525msec), OFF for one beat (175msec), RED for 3 beats, OFF for 6 beats, and then repeats that entire cycle 10 times. This creates a “heart beat” like effect on the lights, all with one POST operation to the arduino server.
With the enable-line modification, that POST request now looks like this:
Where pins 6 and 7 are my ENA1 and ENA2 pins (roof perimeter enable and tower enable). The arduino server will drive those pins HIGH when the “enable” element is encountered in the “codes” sequence, and will return them to LOW at the end of the “codes” sequence. In this way the management of the enable pins becomes atomic and stateless with respect to any given POST operation.
I wrote some python library code to encapsulate all this into an “XMASLED” object, with methods such as “heartbeat” that would generate the above JSON code and post it to the server. The question then became how to control which enable lines to turn on/off in any given request. I decided to use python context managers for this, instead of explicit “enable” / “disable” method calls. Conceptually the XMASLED object contains two state variables for the enables – “enable_tower”, and “enable_perim”, and the various methods such as heartbeat() use them to form the above JSON. The only thing the context managers do is provide a syntactic sugar allowing these variables to be saved/restored and automatically returned to the prior values on return (or exception) from a nested structure. Thus, the python code to run the heartbeat routine only on the tower, while having the roof be green, looks something like this:
# "X" is the XMASLED object
Arguably this is overkill, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world to write:
# (assume both enables are ON already)
but the context manager way seemed a lot prettier, and it is robust against any exceptions (e.g., network down) that might throw us out of heartbeat and up to some higher level without knowing that the internal state for the perimeter enable was still “off”.
It’s hard to know where to stop with this idea of using a JSON data structure as a primitive programming language to have the arduino drive the IR emitters on its own. I’ve drawn the line at the spot we see here; enable pin management, sequences of individual codes, intra-code delays, and repeat counts can all be specified in a single POST command. Anything else requires multiple posts to the Arduino and management by higher-level code (i.e., python in my case).
As I wrote about last year, these cheap controller boxes for the LED strands are really the wrong solution for this application. It’s fun that I’ve managed to build an integrated control system to operate 9 of them in unison via wifi and a baby web server interpreting JSON POSTs, but every now and then one of the controllers misses a code (just like sometimes your TV seems to miss a button press on your remote control) and shows the wrong color. Plus there are other features people clamor for (“Can the lights change with the music?”) that can never be pragmatically implemented so long as my only control mechanism is limited to imitating an IR remote control.
So, I’m not sure about next year; I think I will be investigating higher-end commerical-grade control systems that already have integrated networking capability and are meant to be controlled “at scale” with multiple units at once. We’ll see…