Following on the on/off mode waveform topic, I have a question: is the MOSFET module capable of output 100% on, unmodified sine-wave power, after some firmware change? Maybe someone with experience in EE field can answer this…
The problem is, currently in on/off mode, the output power is only on for 88% of the time, as @dahanc has observed. (I think) the desired behavior is power-on should be 100% of the time.
I don’t know the answer because I don’t major in EE. But @epow said “MOSFETs can do whatever you want, I think…” and i also heard MOSFET is very versatile. So maybe this is possible?
I’m curious, if the output power is on for 88% of the time, would that mean that the light is ~88% of full brightness? @Glenn
I’m not an EE engineer so I cannot give an accurate answer. my guess is there won’t be a noticeable difference. Because (1) It’s on 96% of the sine wave area, and (2) human’s perception to brightness is logarithmic, not linear [^1], so 90% and 100% probably is not that different.
Brightness 100/100, power on for about 7.360 ms out of 8.333 ms, or 88% of the time, 96% of the sine wave’s area
I have no knowledge about the dimmable LED driver design though.
Someone pls correct me if i’m wrong.
[^1] Based on my (very limited) knowledge in computer graphics.
I heard that most of the dimmers cannot output 100% power. My concern is less about brightness but more about “will it damage non-dimmable lights in long term?”
But again, if it’s possible to get higher brightness with just a firmware update – then I will definitely be happy about it.
The PRO versions of the maestro non smart switch (model MA-PRO) supports both leading and trailing (aka forward and rsverse) edge. You can adjust it in the settings. They work great on lots of different LED types and are worth the upgrade from the cheaper 153 series. Of course, they’re also non smart.
Can someone TLDR this for me? I’m trying to talk to the engineer about this and it’s way above my head.
What I’m looking for specifically is:
What is the problem? Why is this a problem?
What is the desired outcome?
Bonus points if you can dumb it down for me (marketing major) so I can understand it as it makes it easier for me to explain the issue to the engineer.
–
I asked him about the, “click” and what that entailed and this was his response:
"Hard click"completely shuts down the load, and the relay disconnects the circuit without leaking weak current.
He also noted that the hard click requires the neutral wire.
The problem is that when the switch is configured as an on/off switch, when it’s on, it’s not passing the full sine wave to the load. It has a step, as shown in the image below.
This is a problem because some loads can’t handle that sudden voltage step seen at the center of the image, where it’s basically a flat horizontal line then there’s a vertical jump up to that faint gray grid line. For example, I’m pretty sure that’s what’s causing the transformer buzzing reported in this thread
And the desired outcome is for the switch in on/off mode to pass a smooth sine wave to the load, like the blue trace in the bottom image. If possible, the relay should click to connect the line directly to the load without the dimming circuitry being involved. But if the dimming circuitry is always going to be active, perhaps the MOSFETs could be turned on for more of the time to reduce/eliminate the step.
Switch configured for on/off, relay click is enabled:
I would also add that since solid-state technology (MOSFET transistors) are being used to perform the dimming, it really should be set up to do trailing-edge dimming. Maybe a bit more $ for parts (feel free to pass it on to the consumers), but well worth it as it will vastly reduce the number of incompatible LEDs. It’s a head-scratcher why your engineers chose to use MOSFETs for forward-phase dimming… TRIACs would have been cheaper.
I think we’re all in agreement that solid-state is the way we’d like to see Inovelli go…
But why? Here’s where I disagree with the design choices. Yes, some (plenty of?) people live in older construction homes without a neutral, but for them I’d rather see a separate sku (potentially with reduced feature set). For the majority (blind assumption of majority with no data backing it) that have neutral wires, why should we suffer loss of function/compatibility (reverse phase dimming)? Alternatively, we know that there are a few niche products that do forward and reverse-phase dimming. Why wasn’t this used for the Blues?
Too much effort on the fancy LED notification bar and smart switch features, imo… not enough time/thought/$ on the non-smart part of the switch. I’m looking at ~50% bulb replacement house-wide to get rid of the annoying buzz caused by forward-phase dimming. I’d gladly pay $10 more per switch for reverse-phase dimming… costs roughly the same as replacing all those bulbs, but far less annoying.
When you only have the cash to engineer one switch, the coverage of both neutral and non-neutral far outweighs other priorities.
Empirical data (that Inovelli has) says that non-neutral is a very broad need in the market. There are more options today, but Inovelli was among a select few that could even accommodate such installations.
We all agree the ability to flip between modes or a second SKU would be preferred, to be clear. It was a business case decision.
My house was built in 1985. Most of the time when I pull a switch out of the wall I find a neutral, but not everywhere. None in my garage, not many in my basement.
I purchased the 2-1 because I swore the marketing (or maybe just the pitch thread and subsequent talk about it) said it could be configured as a dimmer or an on/off switch with a real relay. Reading the item page on the website now it doesn’t say it has a relay but I swore that was part of the design.
I also noted it could use a neutral, which is a nice feature. I buy neutral switches as all my locations have them.
