In my estimation, claiming a power output of more than 85W for this system as measured would be questionable. There's the possibility of almost 100W during the on time, but unless it has a mode where it can be on a greater percentage of the time than shown here, that's not a reasonable way of rating it IMO. And then there's likely to be some additional losses in the system, but since I can't accurately quantify them I'll give Pace the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100% of the difference between standby and full-on ends up in the tip.
Yes, agree, this confirms again what Dave and SDG saw, as we discussed years ago. Measuring the actual power consumption at the wall is a quick and easy way to see if a manufacturer is cheating the spec (some do, some don't).
Hakko does as well on their resistive heater irons:
- FM2027 70W claimed, peaks at 62W in reality
- FM2023 140W claimed, peak around 60W (its a tiny tweezer tip, 140W would be ridiculous)
As for the reasons behind this, mbless had a
DIY design where he had to take 4 cycles off out of 60Hz to get a stable temp reading (~93%?). My speculation was that Pace couldn't get the hardware working to that degree so settled on a dead-time of 70-80% to allow the thermocouple voltage to stabilize. We know it was just the one greybeard working on the firmware, so...
Anyway, for future iron designers, you are better off over-speccing the heater power initially. Use a lower resistance element than needed or higher PSU voltage, and then dial back consumed power to meet the actual spec based on current measurement.