![]() |
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Two things posted by Jon Risch on August 29, 2012 at 20:37:30:
1st, the light bulb is a dynamic load, and with 96 volts present, it will not be at the same effective resistance, it will be at a higher resistance because it will not be running as hot at the lower voltage. Otherwise, your general idea is correct.
Splitting hairs....
All one has to observe is the difference in brilliance, lumens, of the light bulb at 120V vs 96 volts. Less power is being consumed at 96V.
Simple ohms law.
If the 100 watt light bulb were connected to a variac, a volt meter connected across the load, and an AC ammeter connected in series with the load I doubt the test would revile a rise in current with a reduction of applied voltage. As the voltage was lowered the current would also be lower...... Power consumed lower.
2nd, while he was referring to an older Denon amp, which undoubtedly has a conventional linear power supply with a honkin' transformer and big filter caps, many modern devices use switching power supplies, and when they attempt to maintain a given rail voltage, as the AC line voltage goes down, the current draw from the line goes up.
That may be for a piece of equipment that uses a switchmode power supply vs a power transformer... You are the EE here.
But does a drop of 24Vac cause a rise in current to maintain the rated power consumption? And Does equipment that use switchmode power supplies use voltage regulators? How do they come into play?
As for the Denon amp, I believe, the amp will output less power at 96Vac than 120Vac into a 8 ohm nominal speaker load.
AC power consumption of the Denon amp will be less at 96Vac than at 120Vac. I could be wrong.... I been wrong before.....
Jim
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I gave a simple example. Not technical...... - jea48 08:10:20 08/30/12 (3)
- RE: I gave a simple example. Not technical...... - Jon Risch 19:59:15 08/30/12 (2)
- Jon I appreciate your reply. - jea48 21:24:29 08/30/12 (1)
- RE: Jon I appreciate your reply. - Jon Risch 22:26:29 09/01/12 (0)