How much can this transformer handle?

[panther100]

Hello again,

I purchased these from ikea:

http://m.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/art/00119419/

Now it has 4 LED light bars in the kit but I want to know if I can add another 4 without overloading the circuit.

This is the transformer that is in the kit:

Many thanks
Si

 

[stillp]

Probably not. That transformer is rated 0,5 to 5W. The 4-bar kit has the following in the specification:
-Energy consumption: 3.4W.

6,8W being greater than 5, the answer is NO. (Ignoring the small loss in the transformer)

 

[panther100]

Thank you that's the answer I needed.

 

[winston1]

Hello again,

I purchased these from ikea:

http://m.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/art/00119419/

Now it has 4 LED light bars in the kit but I want to know if I can add another 4 without overloading the circuit.

This is the transformer that is in the kit:

Many thanks
Si

That is not a transformer. It is a switch mode LED driver and does not have sufficient capacity for another 4 LED light bars.

 

[stillp]

Funny how forum members get wound up (no pun intended) about LED drivers and SMPS being called transformers, but are quite happy with consumer units full of MCBs being referred to as "fuse boxes".

 

[JohnW2]

Funny how forum members get wound up (no pun intended) about LED drivers and SMPS being called transformers, but are quite happy with consumer units full of MCBs being referred to as "fuse boxes".

Some of them get wound up by that as well Conversely, I used to get wound up by things like 'Continuity Testing', but decided that, so long as I know what is actually meant, life is too short to get excited!

HNY & Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

What's your problem with continuity testing? Now, if you'd said "PAT testing", that's a different matter!

 

[JohnW2]

What's your problem with continuity testing? Now, if you'd said "PAT testing", that's a different matter!

As you say, the likes of "PAT testing" are a different matter - although I have to say that I sympathise with it's use, given that I wouldn't much like the sound of "PA testing", either, even though it's actually correct (although maybe just because I'm not used to it)!

Maybe you were brought up differently from me, but as far as I am concerned, 'continuity testing' refers to a dichotomous (almost qualitative) assessment - like a blind (wo)man would undertake if they used a multimeter with a 'continuity buzzer'. The result of what I understand as a 'continuity test' is either 'yes' or 'no', depending upon whether the measured resistance is above or below a programmed (essentially arbitrary) threshold.

However, if we have a sighted electrician who wants to be able to record results like 0.43Ω, then (in terms of my upbringing) that's a quantitative measurement of a (low) resistance, not a continuity test.

I realise it's pedantic and, as I said, I therefore never bother to moan about it - but like so many things which differ from one's 'upbringing' it somewhat 'grates' on me every time I hear/see 'continuity test(ing)' being used to refer to a quantitative measurement!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, I wasn't brought up differently - in fact I've changed some standards to reflect the fact that 'continuity' is just that - if current can flow between two points then continuity exists, even if there's a resistance of megohms between those points.

My comment about PAT testing was, as I'm sure you guessed, somewhat tongue in cheek. I have far bigger problems with PAT testing than the tautology!

 

[JohnW2]

No, I wasn't brought up differently - in fact I've changed some standards to reflect the fact that 'continuity' is just that - if current can flow between two points then continuity exists, even if there's a resistance of megohms between those points.

Good for you. However, I have no real problem with a 'qualified continuity test', with a relatively low resistance 'threshold' (as with multimeter buzzers) - provided that the answer is a dichtomous yes/no.

My comment about PAT testing was, as I'm sure you guessed, somewhat tongue in cheek. I have far bigger problems with PAT testing than the tautology!

Quite so - and not only that, but the term (however expressed) gives no insight into what sort of 'testing' the portable appliances are to be subjected to!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

My comment about PAT testing was, as I'm sure you guessed, somewhat tongue in cheek. I have far bigger problems with PAT testing than the tautology!

Talking of PAT testing, PA testing or whatever and tautology - what about 'anti-tautology' (i.e. the corollary of the PA/PAT testing situation) ....

'MOT' seems to have come to mean 'MOT test' - since, in this case, the 'T' of the abbreviation doesn't mean 'test' but, rather 'Transport'

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The thick plottens:

I was intending to say something clever and witty but discovered that VOSA actually do call the test 'the MOT' even though the MoT is now actually the DfT.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/vehicle-and-operator-services-agency

 

[JohnW2]

The thick plottens: I was intending to say something clever and witty but discovered that VOSA actually do call the test 'the MOT' even though the MoT is now actually the DfT.

Quite so - and, in any event, I think you'll find that when the DfT was still the MoT many people (maybe even including the MoT, the trade and the police) were calling the test 'the/a/an MOT' !

My comment was prompted by the fact that my wife's car has its MOT test today. With reference to your comment about VOSA, looking at the certificate issued today, most of it is written in terms of "MOT Test", but there is one reference in the notes to "MOT failure items". Even if it still existed, I'm not sure that the MOT would be too pleased to be accused of 'failure'

Kind Regards, John