SVT-CL or SVT-VR output power NOT anywhere close to 300W

[Chuck H]

I think "RMS power" is just audio jargon used for power amp output.
It is a technically and mathematically wrong term as multiplying two rms quantities like current and voltage does not give another rms quantity (power) in the true sense of root-mean-square.

Jargon? Sort of?. I think it's more like nomenclature. Like Tom mentioned, the industry needed a standard so that ratings could be understood and quantified by consumers. It's intended as a measure of continuous output power of an amp (as opposed to peak) or continuous handling power of a speaker. But I surely grant that the "RMS formula" to determine a continuous rating from any measurement does seem arbitrary.

[Helmholtz]

It's intended as a measure of continuous output power of an amp (as opposed to peak) or continuous handling power of a speaker.

I guess so, but then it should be called just that.
I'm sure you won't find the term "RMS power" in any official audio safety or performance standard.
BTW, peak power of a sine voltage across a resistor is exactly twice the average power.
Averaging is important as AC power is always oscillating with twice the voltage (or current) frequency.
(Averaging apparent power gives real power as the time average of reactive power is zero.)

But I surely grant that the "RMS formula" to determine a continuous rating from any measurement does seem arbitrary.

Don't understand what you mean.
You could apply the rms formula to time dependent power P(t), but the result would not be continuous real power.
Actually gives a useless number.

[nevetslab]

Now getting back to the Power Output column of the data I recorded and published earlier in this post, that Voltage Output was measured with a Fluke 8060A which measures True RMS AC Voltage. I calculated the power output from that recorded V Out for the V^2/R = power output. Common method, but for accuracy, needs to be measured with a True RMS meter so I've been told.

[Chuck H]

Alright. Most of this is over my head but I gather from this article that the RMS figure is useful and consistent for determining theorhetical electrical properties performed into a resistance. Which would certainly be something to know for an engineer. That said, if you say it's not useful I need to believe you because I can't argue differently. But I expect there's a reason it was conceptualized long before any home had electricity and has been standardized and used for over a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

Something I read regarding the application:

"The root mean square function has evolved from a mathematical concept to a critical tool in various scientific and engineering disciplines. Its ability to provide a meaningful average of varying quantities makes it invaluable in both theoretical and applied contexts."

Well that sounds like a good reason for it. Though it doesn't speak to accuracy. It sounds like you feel there are more accurate means than RMS of determining electrical theories? To be fair I wouldn't know and couldn't say.

Is RMS a shortcut for more involved equations? Or is it a necessary tool for theorhetical figures that can't be accurately determined other than by physical measurement? I don't know. But I'm trying.

[Helmholtz]

Now getting back to the Power Output column of the data I recorded and published earlier in this post, that Voltage Output was measured with a Fluke 8060A which measures True RMS AC Voltage. I calculated the power output from that recorded V Out for the V^2/R = power output. Common method, but for accuracy, needs to be measured with a True RMS meter so I've been told.

As long as you're dealing with a pure sinewave, a True RMS meter and an averaging RMS meter should give same results.

[nevetslab]

I agree with you there. Though I'd have to go digging for the AES publication that called for the use of TRUE RMS instrumentation used for measuring Distortion and Power in that long drawn out battle to get standards that clarified the power output battle back in the 70's & 80's. I've always used that kind of instrumentation for AC measurements.

[Helmholtz]

Alright. Most of this is over my head but I gather from this article that the RMS figure is useful...

Sorry, it's past midnight here and I'm tired, so just so much:
Of course RMS values of voltage and current make much sense and that's why DMMs read RMS.
Just not so with power.
A power meter reads real power and maybe apparent power, but never "RMS power" because it wouldn't make sense.

[nosaj]

I agree with you there. Though I'd have to go digging for the AES publication that called for the use of TRUE RMS instrumentation used for measuring Distortion and Power in that long drawn out battle to get standards that clarified the power output battle back in the 70's & 80's. I've always used that kind of instrumentation for AC measurements.

Here it is buts its like a $100 for non members
nosaj

[Helmholtz]

Is RMS a shortcut for more involved equations?

Yes, RMS means (square) root of the mean value of the squared time function.
The time function would be a sine or a cosine for a sine quantity.
Applying the above definition to a sine shows that the RMS value is the square root of the peak value.
But that relation only holds for a simple sine without further harmonics.
With more complex signals a true RMS meter needs to square the signal, integrate/average the result and extract the square root.
The RMS value is well defined and an accurate number.

For 10 years I was part of an IEC standardization group dealing with power quality.
The IEC is the International Electrotechnical Commision and prepares international standards.
You can use the IEV (= International Electrotechnical Vocabulary) to look up official terms and definitions.
https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev...lcome?openform

There is no entry for RMS power.