Electrical Engineering - Challenge To krw, Salmon Egg, CS, charles Perry Re Power-Save, KVAR and Power reduction

Author

Challenge To krw, Salmon Egg, CS, charles Perry Re Power-Save, KVAR and Power reduction

Politically Incorrect

2007-09-27, 3:25 am

You folks purport to be experts. You state categorically that devices like
the Power-save and KVAR Power Reducers are scams.

so, please be so kind as to educate us ignorant folk

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...ower_factor.pdf

Apparently the US Department of Energy and Alcoa Aluminum are party to the
scam. Please provide your analysis of the above referenced document and
explain how they are deceiving us. Explain how their results are
scientifically impossible and therefore part of a conspiracy to scam the
unsuspecting.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...dfs/mc60405.pdf

Please provide analysis showing that this report completely contradicts the
science of electricity.

http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Sauer_Rea..._Sep%202003.pdf

Peter Sauer of the university of Illinois is apparently a scammer, in your
estimation. Please analyze his paper and tell us poor unwashed how he is
deceiving us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reacti..._apparent_power

Being that Wikipedia is nothing but lies, please verify that the article
referenced is nothing but a lie and how it contributes to the scamming of
America

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

Detail the lies in this article from allaboutcircuits dot com

http://www.the-power-factor-site.com/

Please provide detail about the lies that are being promulgated in the above
presentation. We the great unwashed rely on your expertise to keep us from
being the victims of scams

To Mr CS, who started the thread about the Power-Save 1200, and who later
gleefully piled on me, please be advised that the folks here who have been
so adamant that power-Save and KVAR are scams, you should be aware that
these folks have demonstrated no knowledge of the research and the science
of the last 25 years in the subject of reactive power and power factor
optimization. They may know something about some things, but that does not
mean they know everything about everything. Their refusal to do any
research, their refusal to read the reports and the papers and the RESULT of
real time installation, their failure to make a few calls, shows them for
what they are - pompous asses who bray and kick and call names. But they do
not research. They are unwilling to educate themselves.After all, if they
were to do so, they might learn something. They might realize they are wrong
about something. they might have to admit that they don't know everything.

There IS science behind this. Do your research and check references and see
for your self. But stop pretending you know everything. Stop pretending that
you are the be all and end all of science. You're woefully lacking.

Charles Perry

2007-09-27, 9:25 am

"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
news:tZCdna5xaOAfzWbbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
> You folks purport to be experts. You state categorically that devices like
> the Power-save and KVAR Power Reducers are scams.

Why don't you stop posting links that are irrelevent to your application of
the product. A cap at a motor helps. A cap at the meter when the motors
are in the facility does not reduce your consumption. Easy as that. Let me
explain it in terms you might understand. A bullet proof vest, properly
worn, will stop small arms fire to the torso. However, if you put it in the
closet, drive to the local quicky mart, and get shot, it won't help. It is
all in the location of the product.

So please stop posting that anyone on here says caps don't help. They do IF
you put them in the appropriate place. Any power systems analysis program
can be used to prove what we are saying. Very very simple lab demos can
prove it also.

For someone billed on kW (like a residence) the following may reduce the
bill:

Utility....Meter....wire....CAP.Motor

The following will not:

Utility....Meter.Cap...wire....motor

Notice the importance of location. It is not uncommon for scammers to play
on the ignorance of consumers to sell such things. They pull out reports
that say caps are great and save all kinds of energy and then try to
convince the consumer that their magic box will save money the same way.
The problem is that the magic box has to be at the load, not the meter.

I challenge you to get a first year power systems analysis book and perform
a few calculations and see if you get different answers depending on where
you place the cap relative to the wiring and the load.

Charles Perry P.E.

Don Kelly

2007-09-28, 3:25 am

----------------------------
"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
news:tZCdna5xaOAfzWbbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
> You folks purport to be experts. You state categorically that devices like
> the Power-save and KVAR Power Reducers are scams.
>
> so, please be so kind as to educate us ignorant folk
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...ower_factor.pdf
>
> Apparently the US Department of Energy and Alcoa Aluminum are party to the
> scam. Please provide your analysis of the above referenced document and
> explain how they are deceiving us. Explain how their results are
> scientifically impossible and therefore part of a conspiracy to scam the
> unsuspecting.
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...dfs/mc60405.pdf
>
> Please provide analysis showing that this report completely contradicts
> the science of electricity.
>
>
> http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Sauer_Rea..._Sep%202003.pdf
>
> Peter Sauer of the university of Illinois is apparently a scammer, in your
> estimation. Please analyze his paper and tell us poor unwashed how he is
> deceiving us.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reacti..._apparent_power
>
> Being that Wikipedia is nothing but lies, please verify that the article
> referenced is nothing but a lie and how it contributes to the scamming of
> America
>
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html
>
> Detail the lies in this article from allaboutcircuits dot com
>
> http://www.the-power-factor-site.com/
>
> Please provide detail about the lies that are being promulgated in the
> above presentation. We the great unwashed rely on your expertise to keep
> us from being the victims of scams
>
>
> To Mr CS, who started the thread about the Power-Save 1200, and who later
> gleefully piled on me, please be advised that the folks here who have been
> so adamant that power-Save and KVAR are scams, you should be aware that
> these folks have demonstrated no knowledge of the research and the science
> of the last 25 years in the subject of reactive power and power factor
> optimization. They may know something about some things, but that does not
> mean they know everything about everything. Their refusal to do any
> research, their refusal to read the reports and the papers and the RESULT
> of real time installation, their failure to make a few calls, shows them
> for what they are - pompous asses who bray and kick and call names. But
> they do not research. They are unwilling to educate themselves.After all,
> if they were to do so, they might learn something. They might realize they
> are wrong about something. they might have to admit that they don't know
> everything.
>
> There IS science behind this. Do your research and check references and
> see for your self. But stop pretending you know everything. Stop
> pretending that you are the be all and end all of science. You're
> woefully lacking.
>

---------------------
Yes, capacitors for power factor correction do work- this has been known for
something in the order of 100 years. Big deal. However they supply
capacitive reactive to balance the inductive reactive of motors and some
ballasts. Properly sized to the application, they do save money. Improperly
sized- they don't. They do not reduce the real power taken by the motor nor
losses in the motor ("downstream" from the capacitor. They do reduce power
losses upstream because the current is lower.

If you have residential service there are three factors that exist:

a) loads are generally resistive or nearly so- compensation is either
useless or provides negligable gains (cost benefits ratio stinks) .
b) Losses in equipment "downstream of the capacitors" are not reduced and
motors will not run cooler or have lower losses.
c)Residential metering is of KWh and measures only real power so putting the
capacitors at the entrance will not reduce power bills as the losses beyond
the capacitor are unchanged.

I have read the references and there is nothing in them to contradict what
Salmon Egg, Charles Perry, etc have been saying. However, there is
definitely nothing in them to support some of your claims and hyperbole. You
don't seem to understand the references that you presented (even the watered
down ones) - they are fine but some of your claims are not. That is the
problem- Power factor correction with capacitors is fine but don't claim
benefits that don't exist. Those claims are the scam.
By the way, I know Pete Sauer as a colleague in the same line of business
and same academic background (just that I am older and retired for several
years). --

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Politically Incorrect

2007-09-28, 9:25 am

found another refernece for you experts to look at

http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/HBD853-D.PDF

my own research continues to show a whole science of power factor
correction, along with a whole industry. Study after study, business after
business, all point to the same conclusion - placing capacitors into the
electrrical system, WORKS

well, I'm tired of dealing with people who think they know everything when
the fact is they have done no research whatsover. the only scammers on this
newsgroup are those who proclaim their expertise, even though they have done
no research and and dont know what they are talking about.

hasta la vista, babies

"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
news:tZCdna5xaOAfzWbbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
> You folks purport to be experts. You state categorically that devices like
> the Power-save and KVAR Power Reducers are scams.
>
> so, please be so kind as to educate us ignorant folk
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...ower_factor.pdf
>
> Apparently the US Department of Energy and Alcoa Aluminum are party to the
> scam. Please provide your analysis of the above referenced document and
> explain how they are deceiving us. Explain how their results are
> scientifically impossible and therefore part of a conspiracy to scam the
> unsuspecting.
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industr...dfs/mc60405.pdf
>
> Please provide analysis showing that this report completely contradicts
> the science of electricity.
>
>
> http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Sauer_Rea..._Sep%202003.pdf
>
> Peter Sauer of the university of Illinois is apparently a scammer, in your
> estimation. Please analyze his paper and tell us poor unwashed how he is
> deceiving us.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reacti..._apparent_power
>
> Being that Wikipedia is nothing but lies, please verify that the article
> referenced is nothing but a lie and how it contributes to the scamming of
> America
>
> http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html
>
> Detail the lies in this article from allaboutcircuits dot com
>
> http://www.the-power-factor-site.com/
>
> Please provide detail about the lies that are being promulgated in the
> above presentation. We the great unwashed rely on your expertise to keep
> us from being the victims of scams
>
>
> To Mr CS, who started the thread about the Power-Save 1200, and who later
> gleefully piled on me, please be advised that the folks here who have been
> so adamant that power-Save and KVAR are scams, you should be aware that
> these folks have demonstrated no knowledge of the research and the science
> of the last 25 years in the subject of reactive power and power factor
> optimization. They may know something about some things, but that does not
> mean they know everything about everything. Their refusal to do any
> research, their refusal to read the reports and the papers and the RESULT
> of real time installation, their failure to make a few calls, shows them
> for what they are - pompous asses who bray and kick and call names. But
> they do not research. They are unwilling to educate themselves.After all,
> if they were to do so, they might learn something. They might realize they
> are wrong about something. they might have to admit that they don't know
> everything.
>
> There IS science behind this. Do your research and check references and
> see for your self. But stop pretending you know everything. Stop
> pretending that you are the be all and end all of science. You're
> woefully lacking.
>
>
>

Politically Incorrect

2007-09-28, 9:25 am

found another one, morons. why dont you all spend some time educating
yourselves before you start accusing opther people of being scammers.
http://www.lmphotonics.com/pwrfact.htm

you're the kind of people who used to claim that the earth is the center of
the universe and by the way, it's flat.

heaven forbid that you should ever spend any time learning anything new.

the technology is based in SCIENCE, and it WORKS

END OF STORY

"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
news:k_SdnaNBPJwLZmHbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> found another refernece for you experts to look at
>
> http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/HBD853-D.PDF
>
>
> my own research continues to show a whole science of power factor
> correction, along with a whole industry. Study after study, business after
> business, all point to the same conclusion - placing capacitors into the
> electrrical system, WORKS
>
> well, I'm tired of dealing with people who think they know everything when
> the fact is they have done no research whatsover. the only scammers on
> this newsgroup are those who proclaim their expertise, even though they
> have done no research and and dont know what they are talking about.
>
> hasta la vista, babies
>
>
>
> "Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
> news:tZCdna5xaOAfzWbbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>

billb@abc.net

2007-09-28, 5:25 pm

Hi Guys

I have been reading your posting since they started and agree that for
household use power factor correction will NOT reduce costs.
In industry you have a totally different situation, in the UK most factories
running large inductive loads have automatic power correction systems
fitted.
With these, the system switches capacitors in and out of circuit to give the
best power factory possible, as in industry power fact does effect the
costs.
So, yes power factor correction does work if applied where it will make a
difference to running costs, i.e. in industry.
In the home do not waste your money on it as the electricity supply will not
measure the difference.

In a past job I used to design mains frequency inductive heating systems and
always recommend my customers to use power factor correction in their
factories.

BillB

Stuart

2007-09-28, 5:25 pm

In article <kucLi.80544$1G1.34612@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
<billb@abc.net> wrote:
> In the home do not waste your money on it as the electricity supply will
> not measure the difference.

With the UK government's determination to force everyone to use "energy
saving" light bulbs and ban filament bulbs we'll soon need to apply PFC
the other way. Whilst they may use less watts, the PF is poor and although
it may not affect the householders bills it's going to reflect back to the
generators in a detrimental fashion.

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

daestrom

2007-09-28, 8:25 pm

"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
news:kqydnea704jAnGDbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> found another one, morons. why dont you all spend some time educating
> yourselves before you start accusing opther people of being scammers.
> http://www.lmphotonics.com/pwrfact.htm
>
> you're the kind of people who used to claim that the earth is the center
> of the universe and by the way, it's flat.
>
> heaven forbid that you should ever spend any time learning anything new.
>
> the technology is based in SCIENCE, and it WORKS
>

You spend so much time trying to prove your point, you don't even read (or
understand) the references you come up with.

In the case of the first one (DOE and Alcoa), if you *READ* it, you'll see
that correcting the power factor saved Alcoa from the 'severe power factor
penalties' they were paying. Tell me, do you know of any residential
service where the resident pays 'severe power factor penalties'?? No,
because there is no such penalties in residential service tariffs.

So installing capacitors on a residential system will *not* save them from
'severe power factor penalties' simply because the homeowner isn't paying
any such penalty in the first place.

As its been pointed out innumerable times, the residential kwh meter is
*not* affected by low pf current. The meter always registers just the
*real* power component of the current. Reducing current while raising the
power factor does *not* change the rate the disk rotates.

In this latest reference of yours above, the discussion is about a poor
power factor increasing the losses *in the supply system*. Tell us, how
many residential customers pay for the losses their loads cause *in the
supply system* (i.e. the power companies equipment, not the homeowners)?

But you fail to notice (or chose to ignore) this reference's example of a
poor power factor and the increase of losses by 78% doesn't tell you how
many real watts of power are saved.

If an entire home runs with a pf of 0.75 (such as the motor in this
particular reference), and it uses about 15 kwh of energy per day, then the
*losses* of such a system are on the order of only 0.75 kwh of energy per
day or less. If we are *very* generous and assume that half of those losses
are in the motor itself and the other half are in house wiring (the real
split is much more in the motor and very little in the house wiring), then
the house wiring losses are 0.375 kwh of energy per day. Using this
reference's numbers for pf correction to 0.95, we could reduce the *house
wiring* losses down to about 0.211 kwh of energy per day. A savings of
0.184 kwh/day. That's less than two cents a day. After an entire year,
less than $8.

On the other hand, if we put the power factor correction equipment at the
service panel just downstream of the meter, then the only 'losses' that are
going to be affected are those in that very short length of wire between the
meter and the power factor correction equipment. With that setup, the
losses in the motor and all the wiring and equipment from the motor back to
the point where the power factor correction equipment attaches to the system
are still there. So a 'whole house' power factor correction will not change
the electric bill in any perceivable amount.

Large industrial users can benefit from pf correction because 1) they may be
subject to penalty fees if they don't correct their pf, so avoiding those
fees is worthwhile and 2) with in-factory distribution and transformers and
the large loads they have, the losses in the 'in-factory' distribution can
be large enough to make it worth while.

Another application that benefits from pf correction is when the *supply*
capabilities are limited. Off-grid folks that use inverters can see a
benefit. Not because pf correction reduces *energy* consumption very much,
but because it reduces the current load on the inverter. Inverters are
limited in how much *current* they can produce regardless of the power
factor of that current. So to maximize the real power available out of an
inverter, it is wise to make sure the load is as close to unity power factor
as possible. But if you don't understand the difference between the current
rating of an inverter and the power rating, that's a whole other problem.

Bottom line is *scammer*, that although power factor correction can reduce
the losses of any inductive system, the savings are so small for a
residential customer that they will probably *never* recover the cost of
installing such correction.

Promising to cut *electrical losses* by 50% without telling the homeowner
just how much those losses are is very misleading and bogus. It misleads
the consumer into thinking they're going to see a huge drop in their
electric bill. As if your *scam* is going to reduce their total energy
consumption by 50%. If instead you tell the homeowner you're going to save
them about 0.2 kwh /day, then you wouldn't be *scamming* people with this
nonsense.

And trotting out references about industrial customers that save huge sums
(by avoiding 'severe pf penalties') as 'proof' of your claims is just
further fraud.

daestrom

daestrom

2007-09-28, 8:25 pm

"Stuart" <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4f2995c6b0SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com...
> In article <kucLi.80544$1G1.34612@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
> <billb@abc.net> wrote:
>
> With the UK government's determination to force everyone to use "energy
> saving" light bulbs and ban filament bulbs we'll soon need to apply PFC
> the other way. Whilst they may use less watts, the PF is poor and although
> it may not affect the householders bills it's going to reflect back to the
> generators in a detrimental fashion.
>

Here in the states, a lot of CFL have power factor correction built right
into the electronic ballast. So they 'look' like something very close to a
resistor to the supply.

daestrom

Stuart

2007-09-29, 9:25 am

In article <46fd8ffc$0$11047$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Here in the states, a lot of CFL have power factor correction built
> right into the electronic ballast. So they 'look' like something very
> close to a resistor to the supply.

It is certainly possible and I am sure that better quality ones will have
but there is nothing on the packs to say yay or nay and keeping costs
down, shaving fractions of a penny off the price, particularly in the face
of cheap eastern imports, is the name of the game here.

There was recently a lot of complaints about them in the IET journal from
people who probably know more than I. Some of them clearly from a power
generation background.

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

ChairmanOfTheBored

2007-09-29, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:35:00 -0400, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Politically Incorrect" <billmaher@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message
>news:kqydnea704jAnGDbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>You spend so much time trying to prove your point, you don't even read (or
>understand) the references you come up with.
>
>In the case of the first one (DOE and Alcoa), if you *READ* it, you'll see
>that correcting the power factor saved Alcoa from the 'severe power factor
>penalties' they were paying. Tell me, do you know of any residential
>service where the resident pays 'severe power factor penalties'?? No,
>because there is no such penalties in residential service tariffs.
>
>So installing capacitors on a residential system will *not* save them from
>'severe power factor penalties' simply because the homeowner isn't paying
>any such penalty in the first place.
>
>As its been pointed out innumerable times, the residential kwh meter is
>*not* affected by low pf current. The meter always registers just the
>*real* power component of the current. Reducing current while raising the
>power factor does *not* change the rate the disk rotates.
>
>In this latest reference of yours above, the discussion is about a poor
>power factor increasing the losses *in the supply system*. Tell us, how
>many residential customers pay for the losses their loads cause *in the
>supply system* (i.e. the power companies equipment, not the homeowners)?
>
>But you fail to notice (or chose to ignore) this reference's example of a
>poor power factor and the increase of losses by 78% doesn't tell you how
>many real watts of power are saved.
>
>If an entire home runs with a pf of 0.75 (such as the motor in this
>particular reference), and it uses about 15 kwh of energy per day, then the
>*losses* of such a system are on the order of only 0.75 kwh of energy per
>day or less. If we are *very* generous and assume that half of those losses
>are in the motor itself and the other half are in house wiring (the real
>split is much more in the motor and very little in the house wiring), then
>the house wiring losses are 0.375 kwh of energy per day. Using this
>reference's numbers for pf correction to 0.95, we could reduce the *house
>wiring* losses down to about 0.211 kwh of energy per day. A savings of
>0.184 kwh/day. That's less than two cents a day. After an entire year,
>less than $8.
>
>On the other hand, if we put the power factor correction equipment at the
>service panel just downstream of the meter, then the only 'losses' that are
>going to be affected are those in that very short length of wire between the
>meter and the power factor correction equipment. With that setup, the
>losses in the motor and all the wiring and equipment from the motor back to
>the point where the power factor correction equipment attaches to the system
>are still there. So a 'whole house' power factor correction will not change
>the electric bill in any perceivable amount.
>
>Large industrial users can benefit from pf correction because 1) they may be
>subject to penalty fees if they don't correct their pf, so avoiding those
>fees is worthwhile and 2) with in-factory distribution and transformers and
>the large loads they have, the losses in the 'in-factory' distribution can
>be large enough to make it worth while.
>
>Another application that benefits from pf correction is when the *supply*
>capabilities are limited. Off-grid folks that use inverters can see a
>benefit. Not because pf correction reduces *energy* consumption very much,
>but because it reduces the current load on the inverter. Inverters are
>limited in how much *current* they can produce regardless of the power
>factor of that current. So to maximize the real power available out of an
>inverter, it is wise to make sure the load is as close to unity power factor
>as possible. But if you don't understand the difference between the current
>rating of an inverter and the power rating, that's a whole other problem.
>
>Bottom line is *scammer*, that although power factor correction can reduce
>the losses of any inductive system, the savings are so small for a
>residential customer that they will probably *never* recover the cost of
>installing such correction.
>
>Promising to cut *electrical losses* by 50% without telling the homeowner
>just how much those losses are is very misleading and bogus. It misleads
>the consumer into thinking they're going to see a huge drop in their
>electric bill. As if your *scam* is going to reduce their total energy
>consumption by 50%. If instead you tell the homeowner you're going to save
>them about 0.2 kwh /day, then you wouldn't be *scamming* people with this
>nonsense.
>
>And trotting out references about industrial customers that save huge sums
>(by avoiding 'severe pf penalties') as 'proof' of your claims is just
>further fraud.
>
>daestrom

Very well said... and true.

PF simply is not, nor should not be a concern at the consumer/home
level.

LinkBot