RANT CAFFE ASYLUM

[picowatt]

EMJ,
Are you in contact with CaptainLoz?
Do you know if he has attempted connecting his lamp loads directly to his DC supply to see what they draw?
Just curious...
PW

[picowatt]

EMJ.
The posts I made (that you deleted) were in reference to the two
small incandescent lamps that were used in CaptainLoz's video.
Without knowing more about the internals of the LED lamp, I would
not venture to guess what that lamp represents as a load.
That LED lamp is rated for AC operation.  The simplest AC led
lamp circuits use a series capacitor to provide current limiting via reactance.
Although it is possible the LED lamp uses a series resistor for current limiting (as your
Ohm's law assumptions would indicate), that would be very inefficient
and rather unusual/doubtful.  The bulb is also rated as dimmable, and is UL rated,
so likely there is a bit more circuitry in there than a simple cap (or resistor).
In any case, regarding the led lamp, I would not consider any kind of linear
relationship using Ohm's law as if it were a resistive load.

However, the incandescent lamps are indeed resistive, but their resistance
is very non-linear relative to the current through them.  They will even
have some inductance that may be significant at the frequencies used.
However, they have enough thermal mass that connecting them to the
DC supply adjusted for similar brilliance would provide a useful wattage
for comparison to the scope values.
PW

[picowatt]

EMJ,

You seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.  All you
apparently want to discuss is an led lamp I never mentioned (which
likely has an internal AC to DC supply, current regulation and
overtemp protection). 

In the CaptainLoz video I discussed with you he had two small
incandescent lamps being used as a load.  These lamps appear to
be standard 14V panel lamps that typically draw less than 1 watt each.
His scope was reading over 20 watts.  Admittedly, he has since noted an
issue with a probe, but his newer results seem similar, or even higher than
in that video.  Surely it would make sense to do as many crosschecks
as possible to confirm his scope's math is programmed correctly.

It would only take a few minutes to connect the two incandescent lamps to
the DC supply and note their power draw a full brightness.

If that test seems two difficult, perhaps you can ask him for the model number
of those incandescent lamps.
PW
   

[picowatt]

EMJ,

The scope reading was irrelevant, the two lamps are what was important.

Consider this, in the video I discussed with you, there was a DC power
supply providing 15 watts or so of power to a circuit that was lighting what
was very likely only 2 watts or less of incandescent bulbs.  That is an undeniable
fact that is there for all to see. 

The fact that the scope was indicating that those two small bulbs were incredulously
dissipating over 20 watts should be an obvious indication that the scope's math is
programmed incorrectly.  In fact, it sounds like the scope is taking the RMS or average
of both the voltage and current and multiplying those two averages (or RMS values) which
will provide very inaccurate power indications in the presence of large amounts of reactive current.

Think about it, the CaptainLoz video demonstrated how to use 15-20 watts to light two small panel
lamps (probably equal to a couple watts).  That should make everyone involved wonder how and why
the scope was reading what it was during that time.

In all the years I have watched your POC "productions", I have never seen any results that appeared
to be more than 70-80% efficient.  In the CaptainLoz video, surely you can see that it would have been
much more efficient to drive the two lamps with 2 watts from the supply than to eat up more than
15 watts to do the same...
PW

[picowatt]

Deleted double post...