Jones Bëene wrote > > > > But when you look at the test reports, when JLN runs the device on > > full DC power, he is able to input 1324 watts, which seemingly > > couldn't happen if this power was all going to a filament with a > > resistance higher than an ohm. > > > > Plus even then (full DC) he is getting out only 70% of the input > > as heat - where is the rest of the heat going? Conversely if > > George Holz's theory about the power measurements were correct, > > when he was using the 50 % duty in the early testing but yet the > > OU was still strong even if you double the input power- or when he > > went to 5% but was getting only 5-1 OU , then it should have been > > 20-1 even then and not 5-1, so George's objection is also a little > > shaky from that standpoint - if the reciprocal of the duty is the > > measurement problem - the point being that ,there seems to be > > little way to logically account for all this. > > > > 1324 watts on continuous D.C. would require ~ 47 volts for a filament > temperature of 2700 K (1.66 ohms @ 28 amps) ~ 45 volts at 2500 K (1.50 > ohms @ 29.5 amps) ~39 volts at 2000 K (1.15 ohms @ 34 amps) > and ~35 volts at 1700 K (0.95 ohms @ 38 amps ) etc., based on the posted > filament diameter of 2.5E-4 meters x 0.1 meters length. > If that should perchance be a typo and the power is 132.4 watts the D.C. current at 12 volts would be 11.03 amperes, and the filament resistance 1.08 ohms indicating a temperature greater than 1700 K, but less than 2000 K. No?
Frederick
