Dirty Electricity
TonyS
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential. Greg's very
optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
consuming the power", he said."
The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
(http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
Here the TT report link:
http://www.7perth.com.au/view/today-tonight-articles/today-tonight-power-device/
One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
correction device.
(somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
you money since the meter only counts real power?)
There is also a list of ailments linked to "dirty electricity" on the
Earthwise site:
* Autism
* Breast Cancer
* Headaches
* Ringing in the ears / Tinnitus
* Type 3 diabetes
* ADD/ADHD
* Multiple sclerosis
* Chronic fatigue
* Fibromyalgia
* Childhood Leukemia
* Asthma
* Skin irritations
* Mood's
* Depression
* Anxiety
* Body aches, and pains
* Dizziness
* Impaired sleep
* Memory loss
Your thoughts invited
Cheers
Tony
Trevor Wilson
> Today Tonight has done it again.
> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves
> up to 35% electricity:
> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
**It's from Queensland, right?
Kinda says it all really.
What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sylvia Else
> Today Tonight has done it again.
> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
> to 35% electricity:
> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase
transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
infrastructure, so it's understandable that the CSIRO and governments
would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying
for the devices themselves.
I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly
reduce electricity bills.
I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote
"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
billable in the U.S"
so its context is entirely unclear.
Greg's very
> optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
> Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
> consuming the power", he said."
>
> The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
> (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
>
> Here the TT report link:
> http://www.7perth.com.au/view/today-tonight-articles/today-tonight-power-device/
>
>
> One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
> correction device.
> (somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
> you money since the meter only counts real power?)
Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly
does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for sure.
On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your
electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more" mean?)
Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off
the output from the Earthwise device, with the result that the only
energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to
the device.
>
> There is also a list of ailments linked to "dirty electricity" on the
> Earthwise site:
>
> * Headaches
> * Body aches, and pains
Ah - finally an explanation. If only I'd been using clean power all
these years.
> * Memory loss
Er, what?
Sylvia.
terryc
> The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
> (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
Very credible NOT. Real universities have a url ending in .edu*USA( or
.edu.(country code).
> Here the TT report link:
Another mates product being promoted.
Sylvia Else
> TonyS wrote:
>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves
>> up to 35% electricity:
>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>
>
> **It's from Queensland, right?
>
> Kinda says it all really.
>
> What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
>
>
I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical
statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the
claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.
Sylvia.
David L. Jones
> Today Tonight has done it again.
> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
> to 35% electricity:http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential. Greg's very
> optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
> Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
> consuming the power", he said."
>
> The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
> (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
Quote:
"Welcome to Panacea University and the faculty section of the main
Panacea-BOCAF website. Here you will find, via free access, the most
current versions of educational semi-textbooks and reports of
experiments having to do with alternative engineering that are not
currently taught in the accepted universities. Our aims are to protect
and provide studies and archives of information dealing with, for
instance, free energy technology, suppressed energy technology,
mileage boosting, lowering emissions, alternative fuels, interesting
motor modifications and studies in rotors and magnets—sometimes called
experimental magnetic motors or experimental magnetic generators."
It's just a PF correction cap in a fancy case for $1300
What a hoot.
Dave.
www.eevblog.com
Tom
...
> It's just a PF correction cap in a fancy case for $1300
> What a hoot.
You can buy them on Ebay from $30 (in fancy case), no need to spend
$1300-1700.
Tom
k...@kymhorsell.com
>[get rid of headaches and save 35% of your electricity with a magic box]
I was suspicious the minute I saw the mains input. For a second
there I thought it might be a solar panel/wind generator controller. :)
"Panacea university". LOL.
--
[the diff between proving a positive and negative:]
> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
[...]
You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" -
the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the
scientific method.
-- Peter Webb <webbf...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
John Tserkezis
> Very credible NOT. Real universities have a url ending in .edu*USA( or
> .edu.(country code).
Have you seen their web site? Kook central. No really, it's one thing
to say it, and another to see there's that large a collection of nutjobs
who actually believe it.
--
There's no future in time travel
TonyS
>
> I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote
>
> "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
> billable in the U.S"
I googled the above expression and found more such devices, like:
http://www.greenteamplus.com/
http://www.amerigreencorps.com/testimonials.html
http://glennbolton.com/2010/12/18/instantly-save-35-on-your-electricity-power-bills/
lol
TonyS
Yep, just checked that out.
Also, there was already such a device reported to the ACCC:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/952221/fromItemId/142
"Federal Court declares consumers misled over Power Saver device
Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd and its former marketing manager Nagarajah
Rajkumar made misleading claims about the power-saving ability of its
Enersonic Power Saver device, the Federal Court has found.
In 2008 and 2009, Auscha marketed and sold the Power Saver, a device
which plugs into a standard electricity outlet and which was purportedly
designed to reduce the user's electricity consumption.
In court proceedings instituted in July 2010, the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission alleged that Auscha had made a number of false
or misleading representations about the Power Saver in breach of the
Trade Practices Act 1974.
The ACCC's case centred on the fact that the Power Saver, a power factor
correction capacitor, does not actually reduce the real electrical power
consumed by a domestic user. Retail electricity suppliers generally only
charge domestic consumers for their use of real electrical power (also
known as active power), as recorded by domestic electricity meters. As
the Power Saver is not capable of reducing the amount of real electrical
power consumed by domestic consumers, domestic consumers cannot save
money by using the Power Saver.
The court declared by consent that Auscha contravened sections 52 and
53(c) of the Act, by representing in promotional material to customers
that :
* by using the Power Saver, domestic consumers could save up to 24%
on their electrical power consumption
* by using the Power Saver and saving on their electrical power
consumption, domestic consumers would thereby save money, and
* the Power Saver was designed and engineered in Australia,
when in fact:
* the Power Saver was not capable of reducing the amount of
electrical power consumed by domestic consumers as measured by retail
electricity suppliers, and therefore domestic consumers could not save
up to 24% on their electrical power consumption by using the Power Saver
* use of the Power Saver could not lead to domestic consumers
saving on their electrical power consumption as measured by retail
electricity suppliers, and therefore domestic consumers could not save
money by using the Power Saver, and
* the Power Saver was not designed and engineered in Australia.
The court also declared by consent that Mr Rajkumar was knowingly
concerned in each of the contraventions.
Furthermore, the court issued injunctions restraining Auscha and Mr
Rajkumar from engaging in similar conduct in the future and made orders
that Auscha:
* publish a corrective notice on its website (www.auscha.com.au)
* send a letter to customers affected by the conduct, and
* pay a contribution towards the ACCC's court costs.
Earlier this month the ACCC accepted a court enforceable undertaking
from Bronze Swan Pty Ltd, a reseller of the Power Saver, in relation to
similar misrepresentations made by Bronze Swan about the Power Saver device.
ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel said today: "These actions demonstrate the
ACCC's concern to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing
that products will save them money on energy costs when this is untrue.
Suppliers of these types of devices are on notice that the ACCC is on
the look-out for those who want to make spurious energy saving claims
and should take immediate steps to review their marketing material or
they may face similar action."
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive "
>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>> to 35% electricity:
>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission
> capacity, and the need to build power factor correction infrastructure,
** Absolute bollocks.
If applied to every house in Australia, the AC supply system would collapse
from all the extra ( reactive) current being drawn.
> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your
> electric bill each month".
** That is a massive lie.
> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off
> the output from the Earthwise device,
** No one cent in savings even then.
Cos domestic customers here are only charged for actual energy consumption -
and the devices offered do nothing to reduce that.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Tom"
>
> You can buy them on Ebay from $30 (in fancy case), no need to spend
> $1300-1700.
** No Australian approval for permanent connection to the AC supply - so no
electrician can install one legally nor you.
..... Phil
Sylvia Else
> "Stupider than Anyone Else Alive"
>
>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>>> to 35% electricity:
>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>
>> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission
>> capacity, and the need to build power factor correction infrastructure,
>
> ** Absolute bollocks.
>
> If applied to every house in Australia, the AC supply system would collapse
> from all the extra ( reactive) current being drawn.
Why would it increase the current. It's intended to do the opposite. I
doubt it's as simple as sticking a supercap across the mains.
>
>
>> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your
>> electric bill each month".
>
> ** That is a massive lie.
>
>
>> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off
>> the output from the Earthwise device,
>
> ** No one cent in savings even then.
If the device presents equal but opposite reactance to that of the load,
then it forms a parallel turned circuit, which presents infinite
impedance. So no current will pass through the meter, and there will be
no power bill.
Without the device, there is current passing through the meter, but it's
not exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage because of the
resistance of the meter winding. So power is dissipated in the meter
itself, and the meter measures it, thus creating a non-zero power bill.
Whether it amounts to a 1 cent saving over a billing period, I don't
know, but it would be some amount, which given that the bill would be
zero with the device present, represents a huge (indeed infinite)
proportional saving.
So their 35% claimed saving (on power charges, not the availability
charge) might be supportable, albeit in a totally unrealistic scenario.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
>
>> collapse
>> from all the extra ( reactive) current being drawn.
>
> Why would it increase the current.
** Learn some simple electrical theory - bitch face.
>>> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your
>>> electric bill each month".
>>
>> ** That is a massive lie.
>>
>>
>>> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off
>>> the output from the Earthwise device,
>>
>> ** No one cent in savings even then.
>
> If the device presents equal but opposite reactance to that of the load,
> then it forms a parallel turned circuit, which presents infinite
> impedance. So no current will pass through the meter, and there will be no
> power bill.
** There is no power bill for reactive current at all.
You fucking idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!
> Without the device, there is current passing through the meter, but it's
> not exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage because of the
> resistance of the meter winding. So power is dissipated in the meter
> itself, and the meter measures it, thus creating a non-zero power bill.
** My god - is there no limit this crazy bitch's insanity.
> So their 35% claimed saving (on power charges, not the availability
> charge) might be supportable,
** Complete bollocks.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
> "Stupider than Anyone Else Alive"
>>
>>> If applied to every house in Australia, the AC supply system would
>>> collapse
>>> from all the extra ( reactive) current being drawn.
>>
>> Why would it increase the current.
>
> ** Learn some simple electrical theory - bitch face.
I know enough theory to know that power factor correction will no
increase the current.
>
>
>>>> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your
>>>> electric bill each month".
>>>
>>> ** That is a massive lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off
>>>> the output from the Earthwise device,
>>>
>>> ** No one cent in savings even then.
>>
>> If the device presents equal but opposite reactance to that of the load,
>> then it forms a parallel turned circuit, which presents infinite
>> impedance. So no current will pass through the meter, and there will be no
>> power bill.
>
> ** There is no power bill for reactive current at all.
No there isn't, but you cannot succeed in drawing purely reactive
current because the meter windings have resistance. Not much, I'll grant
you, but some.
>
> You fucking idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>> Without the device, there is current passing through the meter, but it's
>> not exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage because of the
>> resistance of the meter winding. So power is dissipated in the meter
>> itself, and the meter measures it, thus creating a non-zero power bill.
>
> ** My god - is there no limit this crazy bitch's insanity.
Which specific point do you disagree with?
>
>
>> So their 35% claimed saving (on power charges, not the availability
>> charge) might be supportable,
Aren't you the one who gets upset by what you consider inappropriate
snipping, yet you feel able to dish it out.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive"
>>> Why would it increase the current.
>>
>> ** Learn some simple electrical theory - bitch face.
>
> I know enough theory to know that power factor correction will no increase
> the current.
** Wrong.
Applied in the absurd and crude way that the scam device is intended to -
it will.
>> ** There is no power bill for reactive current at all.
>
> No there isn't, but you cannot succeed in drawing purely reactive current
> because the meter windings have resistance.
** My god you are TOTALLY INSANE.
Should be put down like a mad dog.
..... Phil
kreed
> Today Tonight has done it again.
> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
> to 35% electricity:http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential. Greg's very
> optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
> Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
> consuming the power", he said."
>
If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also
reduce its efficiency at what it does,
and it will likely have to be used longer to get the same result,
negating any "savings".
(Ie if you reduce the energy available to your fridge, it will have to
run longer to maintain the same temperature.)
Excepting maybe incandescent bulbs - if you are happy to put up with
the reduced brightness - but it would be cheaper to use a dimmer, or a
lower wattage bulb.
>
> The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
> (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
>
> Here the TT report link:http://www.7perth.com.au/view/today-tonight-articles/today-tonight-po...
Many of which are caused by other factors - including ageing.
Would be easy enough to prove by testing for these things in countries
that have limited or
no electricity - though
under such conditions you would probably find other nastier diseases
and hunger related issues.
Sylvia Else
> On Feb 2, 10:01 am, TonyS<nos...@mymail.com> wrote:
>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>> to 35% electricity:http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>
>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential. Greg's very
>> optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
>> Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
>> consuming the power", he said."
>>
>
> If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also
> reduce its efficiency at what it does,
Well, it's not reducing the current used by the appliance, it's merely
correcting the power factor, which necessarily reduces the current
upstream of the correction circuit (otherwise energy would not be
conserved). That is, the currents upstream and downstream of the device
are different.
> and it will likely have to be used longer to get the same result,
> negating any "savings".
> (Ie if you reduce the energy available to your fridge, it will have to
> run longer to maintain the same temperature.)
>
> Excepting maybe incandescent bulbs - if you are happy to put up with
> the reduced brightness - but it would be cheaper to use a dimmer, or a
> lower wattage bulb.
It won't do anything when loads are resistive.
Power factor correction is worthwhile when considered from the
perspective of the overall system. But as things stand, a consumer who
installed one would pay the cost of the device, but the benefits would
accrue to the power supplier in the form of reduced infrastructure
requirement and lower resistive losses in supply cables.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Shame they didn't try this first
Phil Allison
"kreed"
If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also
reduce its efficiency at what it does,
** Simple capacitor based PFC correction has NO effect on the current
flowing in the actual device - how can it since the device is still
connected directly to the AC supply ??
Think about it.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Sylvia Else is a fucking Witch "
> Power factor correction is worthwhile when considered from the perspective
> of the overall system.
** The scam device does not perform PFC - you raving nut case.
> But as things stand, a consumer who installed one would pay the cost of
> the device, but the benefits would accrue to the power supplier in the
> form of reduced infrastructure
** There are no benefits - only draw backs.
You need to be burned to death on a pyre.
.... Phil
TonyS
lol
They'd have no more stories:)
Phil Allison
"TonyS"
>> Shame they didn't try this first
>>
>> http://www.google.com.au/#q=power+saving+scam
>
> lol
>
> They'd have no more stories:)
** Have a look at the ACA web site - they did a very similar story on the
same night.
Wonder how THAT happens so often ....
Anyhow, the feedback is almost all VERY NEGATIVE and even abusive.
Not happy Jan .....
..... Phil
fritz
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfm...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>> to 35% electricity:
>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>
>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
>
> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
> infrastructure,
PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.
You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.
This article explains it well...
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
>
> so it's understandable that the CSIRO and governments would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying for
> the devices themselves.
> I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly reduce electricity bills.
They are probably just having a good laugh, and getting paid for it.
> I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote
>
> "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but billable in the U.S"
Sounds like a load of bullshit invented by the scammers.
>> One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
>> correction device.
>> (somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
>> you money since the meter only counts real power?)
>
> Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for
> sure.
>
> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more"
> mean?)
>
> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off the output from the Earthwise device, with the result
> that the only energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to the device.
If you have nothing but pure reactive loads you will not be doing anything
useful, so what is the point of connecting them to the supply anyway ?
Sylvia Else
>
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfm...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>>> to 35% electricity:
>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>>
>>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>>> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
>>
>> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
>> infrastructure,
>
> PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
> capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
> one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
> from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
> domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.
My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor, and it's not as
if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.
>
> You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
> PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
> motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
> spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
> rip-off box at the power point.
Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
>> I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote
>>
>> "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but billable in the U.S"
>
> Sounds like a load of bullshit invented by the scammers.
The more so when one notes that the same phrase appears in web sites for
multiple "power saving" devices, except that there seems disagreement
about whether the number is $80 or $16.
But more than likely, if such a comment was made at all, it was made in
a context that is not relevant to the claims made for the device.
>
>>> One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
>>> correction device.
>>> (somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
>>> you money since the meter only counts real power?)
>>
>> Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for
>> sure.
>>
>> On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more"
>> mean?)
>>
>> Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off the output from the Earthwise device, with the result
>> that the only energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to the device.
>
> If you have nothing but pure reactive loads you will not be doing anything
> useful, so what is the point of connecting them to the supply anyway ?
>
Dunno - to justify a 35% saving claim, perhaps. I did suggest it was an
unrealistic scenario.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
"Stupider than anyone ELSE on earth "
>
> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
** ROTFLMAO !!!
This lunatic, ASD fucked itch needs burning at the stake.
.... Phil
fritz
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qstbu...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfm...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
>>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>>>> to 35% electricity:
>>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>>>
>>>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>>>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>>>> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
>>>
>>> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor
>>> correction
>>> infrastructure,
>>
>> PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
>> capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
>> one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
>> from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
>> domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.
>
> My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor,
Have you actually measured the PF of your A/C ? How did you do it ? What was it ?
READ THE LINK
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
> and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.
You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.
>> You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
>> PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
>> motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
>> spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
>> rip-off box at the power point.
>
> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
# This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
# This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
# Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...
Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.
It looks a more expensively packaged version of the boxes described in Silicon Chip Nov. 2007 and May 2008.
TonyS
> This article explains it well...
> http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
>
Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it
talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are, even at 110V,
ridiculously low.
This could give a slither of dignity and credibility to the claims of
the tricksters, to a numerically challenged reader.
gcd
there is already power factor correction "infrastructure" or capital works
in every terminal station. These are capacitor banks used to correct for the
mainly inductive loads of industry. The caps are switched in as needed.
From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC device,
it's the only consclusion I could come to and on that basis saw the
following outcomes for people using the device.
1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most likely
actually increase as these meters do not measure reactive (imaginary) power
only real power, so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power
consumption observed by the meter. So all those people with older CF globes
that consume a lot of reactive power and don't have much of a PFC in them
will see their power bills go back up.
2) If the user has a new "smart" meter, they will observe no change in their
power bill as these meters charge for the reactive power.
Most if not all devices these days are equired to have PFC built in now
anyway to get the PF to at least 80% (think that's the number, it may be
higher) or more. I'm sure there is legislation or australian standards such
as AS/NZ 3823.2.2009 (that one covers air con ) that cover most appliance
types these days. So even less requirment for a consumer PFC.
The claims on EMI...hmmmm... not sure I got that at all, made no sense
Of course it may just be a box of nothing but a few pass through copper buss
bars
Greg
Sylvia Else
I question that they do not add significantly. They are not a large
proportion, but they still have to be handled. Do power factor
correction in the home, and you can delay the next transmission line,
switching station and transformer upgrade. Delaying an upgrade is worth
money.
>
>
>>> You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
>>> PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
>>> motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
>>> spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
>>> rip-off box at the power point.
>>
>> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
>
> Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
> # This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
> # This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
> # Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...
They can still be switched in and out.
>
> Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
> all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.
I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being
a lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power consumption (i.e.
it saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't
seem overly bothered by such things. The box looks like it's designed to
enhance heat dissipation.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
>
> From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC
> device, it's the only consclusion I could come to and on that basis saw
> the following outcomes for people using the device.
>
> 1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most
> likely actually increase as these meters do not measure reactive
> (imaginary) power only real power,
** Modern electronic meters do exactly the same - far as any domestic
consumer in Aussie in concerned.
In any case, another company ( Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd ) selling a near
identical thing with the same claims has recently been successfully
prosecuted by the ACCC for breaches of the TPA.
> so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power consumption
> observed by the meter.
** Really ? How ??
Since they do not measure the effect of a capacitor of any value across the
line.
> So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive
> power ..
** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
Where do idiots like "gcd" get this fucking SHIT from ??
Must be from brain dead Green zombies ?
> 2) If the user has a new "smart" meter, they will observe no change in
> their power bill as these meters charge for the reactive power.
** Strewth - it just keeps getting WORSE & WORSE ...
Words like " retard ", "fuckwit" and "imbecile" are just no strong
enough.
How about " anencephalic zombie " ??
Got a bit of a ring to it ......
> Most if not all devices these days are equired to have PFC built in now
> anyway to get the PF to at least 80% (think that's the number, it may be
> higher) or more.
** Absolute bollocks.
> The claims on EMI...hmmmm... not sure I got that at all, made no sense
>
> Of course it may just be a box of nothing but a few pass through copper
> buss bars
** My god you are a fucking moron.
Piss off to hell.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stupider than anyone ELSE on earth "
> I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being a
> lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power consumption (i.e. it
> saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't seem
> overly bothered by such things. The box looks like it's designed to
> enhance heat dissipation.
>
** ROTFLMAO !!!
This lunatic, ASD fucked bitch needs burning at the stake.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
>
>> This article explains it well...
>> http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it
> talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are, even at 110V,
> ridiculously low.
It won't even save those if it's mounted at the switch board. To provide
saving in the domestic wiring any PFC correction has to be done at the
appliance, which implies multiple devices.
I note that the suppliers of these devices have not done the obvious and
potentially convincing, test - power meter -> device -> another power
meter -> domestic wiring. Presumably they know that the result wouldn't
be advantageous to them.
Sylvia.
fritz
"TonyS" <nos...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:nfmdnc-adtOP0dTQ...@westnet.com.au...
>
>> This article explains it well...
>> http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
>>
>
> Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are,
> even at 110V, ridiculously low.
For the numerically-challenged, TonyS is saying that while the losses at 110V are ridiculously low,
the losses at 220/240V are even lower ! (coz the current is halved)
> This could give a slither of dignity and credibility to the claims of the tricksters, to a numerically challenged reader.
If someone reads that info and still goes and buys a scam-box, then they deserve to be ripped off.
kreed
> On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
>
> > Today Tonight has done it again.
> > Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
> > to 35% electricity:
> >http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> > "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
> > Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
> > which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
>
> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase
> transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
> would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying
> for the devices themselves.
>
> I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly
> reduce electricity bills.
>
>
> "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
> billable in the U.S"
>
>
If you take 80 billion dollars, and to make it easy assume 3 people
per billed premises,
with a population of 300 million (USA) then that means $800 per billed
premises
(per year? - it does not specify)
The only places that I can think of that they could be talking about
would be distribution losses
such as resistance in power lines, arcing from HT lines into the air
and across dirty insulators, transformer losses etc.
Unused off peak power etc.
This all has to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher
cost per KWH as it is an actual cost, even though it is "unusable
power"
You could also talk about standby power - but this is still being used
for a purpose and can be stopped by turning off the device when not in
use (if possible).
HiramHackenbacker
>
> Today Tonight has done it again.
> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
> to 35% electricity:
> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
It is bollocks. Where I live, domestic users are billed for real watts
used.
The power factor doesn't cost you more. However, industrial users do get
penalties for low power factors.
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Phil Allison
"kreed"
> "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
> billable in the U.S"
If you take 80 billion dollars, and to make it easy assume 3 people
per billed premises,
** That is way high.
The correct figure is more like 1.5 persons.
The only places that I can think of that they could be talking about
would be distribution losses
such as resistance in power lines, arcing from HT lines into the air
and across dirty insulators, transformer losses etc.
Unused off peak power etc.
** Ditto.
The figure is an absurd fiction derived very likely by subtracting the total
kWh estimated to be generated by all the alternators connected to the grid
in the USA and subtracting from that the billed kWh for the whole country -
and THEN applying the domestic kWh rate to the difference.
Only a brain dead, Green retard would even bother.
Fraid there are far too many of them.
.... Phil
fritz
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qt1j4...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2/02/2011 11:08 PM, fritz wrote:
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qstbu...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfm...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
>>>>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>>>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>>>>>> to 35% electricity:
>>>>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>>>>>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>>>>>> which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor
>>>>> correction
>>>>> infrastructure,
>>>>
>>>> PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
>>>> capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
>>>> one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
>>>> from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
>>>> domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.
>>>
>>> My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor,
>>
>> Have you actually measured the PF of your A/C ? How did you do it ? What was it ?
I notice you have not answered this question, now have you measured the PF of
your A/C or not ?
Check out the savings for an A/C with perfect PF correction (not the hit-or-miss scam box)
>>> and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.
>>
>> You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
>> current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
>> the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.
>
> I question that they do not add significantly. They are not a large proportion, but they still have to be handled. Do power factor
> correction in the home, and you can delay the next transmission line, switching station and transformer upgrade. Delaying an
> upgrade is worth money.
Bullshit.
There is no need for PF correction in the home. Transmission lines terminate in sub-stations that have
PF correction anyway.
PF correction is best done at each load anyway, designed for the impedance of that load, not with
a scam box that cannot possibly cope with a range of reactive loads.
>
>>
>>
>>>> You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
>>>> PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
>>>> motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
>>>> spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
>>>> rip-off box at the power point.
>>>
>>> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
>>
>> Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
>> # This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
>> # This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
>> # Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...
>
> They can still be switched in and out.
FFS
Then why did they say CAPACITOR not CAPACITORS, Einstein ? These scammers wouldn't miss a chance to
claim the expensive box had MULTIPLE capacitors if it really did, would they ?
>>
>> Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
>> all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.
>
> I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being a lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power
> consumption (i.e. it saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't seem overly bothered by such things.
> The box looks like it's designed to enhance heat dissipation.
For fucks sake Sylvia, if the pricks are going to lie about something as basic as power consumption they are going to
lie about everything else - if they are not lying outright, then they are just completely technically ignorant and/or STUPID -
either way
THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY !
Oh - did it ever occur to you that they build the box to look expensive - looks like a car-amp case to me - so the suckers might
think it
actually works ?
no one
that device , has any one actually tried it ?? any body knows that what
happens in THEORY DOESNT ALWAYS HAPPEN AS ITS SUPPOSED TO..
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8qsng1...@mid.individual.net...
fritz
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:8qt1ld...@mid.individual.net...
> "gcd" = wot ??
>
>>
>> From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC device, it's the only consclusion I could come to and on
>> that basis saw the following outcomes for people using the device.
>>
>> 1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most likely actually increase as these meters do not measure
>> reactive (imaginary) power only real power,
>
> ** Modern electronic meters do exactly the same - far as any domestic consumer in Aussie in concerned.
>
> In any case, another company ( Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd ) selling a near identical thing with the same claims has recently been
> successfully prosecuted by the ACCC for breaches of the TPA.
>
>
>
>> so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power consumption observed by the meter.
>
> ** Really ? How ??
>
> Since they do not measure the effect of a capacitor of any value across the line.
>
>
>> So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive power ..
>
> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
Actually they do. I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
And here the subject is mentioned in Mailbag, Silicon Chip Issue 226
Extract:
"One point you do not mention – as far as I can work out, CFLs typically have a power factor
of about 0.5 compared with a PF of 1.0 for incandescents."
SC replied:
"We did not mention power factor because we erroneously thought that this was no longer
a problem in more recent CFLs. This is quite wrong and it can be a serious problem if large
numbers of CFLs are used on one phase of the 240VAC mains supply."
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_109012/article.html
Phil Allison
"fritz"
"Phil Allison"
>
>>> So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive
>>> power ..
>>
>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>
>
> Actually they do.
** Fraid you are wrong.
> I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
> CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
> Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>
** Got nothing to do with the fact there is no REACTIVE component in the
load presented by modern CFLs.
The item you quoted actually CONTRADICTS you.
The poor PF of typical CFLs is not due to any phase angle existing between
the AC supply voltage and current and as a result cannot be helped by adding
a capacitor across the AC supply.
..... Phil
fritz
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:8qu3eh...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "fritz"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>>> So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive power ..
>>>
>>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>>
>>
>> Actually they do.
>
> ** Fraid you are wrong.
>
>> I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
>> CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>> Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
>> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>>
>
> ** Got nothing to do with the fact there is no REACTIVE component in the load presented by modern CFLs.
>
> The item you quoted actually CONTRADICTS you.
I don't think so. Read it again and please quote the parts from the link that contradict me.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
Are you trying to claim that 'harmonic reactive power' is not 'reactive power' ?
Apparent power is the vector sum of real power and reactive power.
If the PF is not unity, there must be a reactive power component, by definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
> The poor PF of typical CFLs is not due to any phase angle existing between the AC supply voltage and current and as a result
> cannot be helped by adding a capacitor across the AC supply.
If the PF is not unity a phase angle MUST exist between V and I, by definition of PF.
fritz
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:8qu3eh...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "fritz"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>>> So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive power ..
>>>
>>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>>
>>
>> Actually they do.
>
> ** Fraid you are wrong.
Check this link....
http://cemalighting.com/contents/view/learning/lighting_technology/compact_fluorescent_lamps/high_power_factor_cfl
Sylvia Else
The figures for continuous (not startup) current and power on the label
attached to it imply a non-unity PF.
>
> READ THE LINK
> http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
> Check out the savings for an A/C with perfect PF correction (not the hit-or-miss scam box)
>
>>>> and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.
>>>
>>> You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
>>> current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
>>> the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.
>>
>> I question that they do not add significantly. They are not a large proportion, but they still have to be handled. Do power factor
>> correction in the home, and you can delay the next transmission line, switching station and transformer upgrade. Delaying an
>> upgrade is worth money.
>
> Bullshit.
> There is no need for PF correction in the home. Transmission lines terminate in sub-stations that have
> PF correction anyway.
I visited one of the snowy mountain hydroelectric stations once (can't
remember which one). They run, or ran, public tours. As we were looking
at the turbine hall, the guide commented that one of the turbines had
just been switched from generating to power-factor correction.
> PF correction is best done at each load anyway, designed for the impedance of that load, not with
> a scam box that cannot possibly cope with a range of reactive loads.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
>>>>> PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
>>>>> motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
>>>>> spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
>>>>> rip-off box at the power point.
>>>>
>>>> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
>>>
>>> Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
>>> # This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
>>> # This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
>>> # Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...
>>
>> They can still be switched in and out.
>
> FFS
> Then why did they say CAPACITOR not CAPACITORS, Einstein ? These scammers wouldn't miss a chance to
> claim the expensive box had MULTIPLE capacitors if it really did, would they ?
Who knows how a scammer reasons?
>
>>>
>>> Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
>>> all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.
>>
>> I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being a lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power
>> consumption (i.e. it saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't seem overly bothered by such things.
>> The box looks like it's designed to enhance heat dissipation.
>
> For fucks sake Sylvia, if the pricks are going to lie about something as basic as power consumption they are going to
> lie about everything else - if they are not lying outright, then they are just completely technically ignorant and/or STUPID -
> either way
> THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY !
> Oh - did it ever occur to you that they build the box to look expensive - looks like a car-amp case to me - so the suckers might
> think it
> actually works ?
It would be nice to see inside one. But unlike many other things claimed
by scammers, power factor correction is at least possible, and it's
notable that their demonstration video concentrates on current, which
power factor correction would reduce, not on power, which it doesn't,
even though power saving is the claim they're trying to support.
Whether this box actually does power factor correction is ultimately not
something that can be determined by discussion in a newsgroup.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> ummmmmmmm theres a afwul lot of THEORY,, floating around here on
> that device , has any one actually tried it ?? any body knows that what
> happens in THEORY DOESNT ALWAYS HAPPEN AS ITS SUPPOSED TO..
>
It's true that sometimes factors that one had overlooked, or considered
negligible, turn out to impact on the outcome. In that sense the
particular theoretical model applied didn't predict the outcome as it
was expected.
Very occasionally, the laws of physics as presently understood turn out
to be not quite right, and have to be tweaked. It's been a while since
that happened, and it would be truly amazing if the tweaking had any
measurable effect in a domestic environment.
It's also true that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we
know that there are any number of people out there who are willing to
relieve naive consumers off their hard earned money in exchange for
misrepresented junk. Absent a theoretical model (which the purveyors of
this device haven't provided) which predicts a power saving, there's
really little point in putting it to the test, because we know what the
outcome will be.
Sylvia.
fritz
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qu7fd...@mid.individual.net...
Really ? So you haven't actually measured it all, have you ?
What is the brand and model ? What are the figures on the label, perhaps you have
misinterpreted them ?
This might interest you.
"The manufacturers of power factor devices frequently claim that air conditioners have
low power factors. During development we measured the power factor of some units.
At least the ones we have tested were already compensated internally very well.
So no improvement potential here. Even our cheap Hitachi window unit has a power
factor of 1.0 with maximum deviations to 0.99 inductive and 0.99 capactitive."
http://www.aircosaver.com/support_techniques.php
Phil Allison
"fritz"
** Oh dear - here we go again for what must be the hundredth time -
explaining what PF is to someone who damn well ought to know already.
>>>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>>
>>> Actually they do.
>>
>> ** Fraid you are wrong.
>>
>>> I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
>>> CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>>> Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
>>> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>>>
>>
>> ** Got nothing to do with the fact there is no REACTIVE component in the
>> load presented by modern CFLs.
>>
>> The item you quoted actually CONTRADICTS you.
>
> I don't think so.
** It does all over the place - but you are too blind to see it.
> Are you trying to claim that 'harmonic reactive power' is not 'reactive
> power' ?
>
** Fraid there is no such animal as "harmonic reactive power".
> Apparent power is the vector sum of real power and reactive power.
> If the PF is not unity, there must be a reactive power component, by
> definition.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
** The definition of PF given in that article is:
"The ratio between real power and apparent power in a circuit is called the
power factor."
The definition of "apparent power" is:
" Apparent power is conventionally expressed in volt-amperes (VA) since it
is the product of rms voltage and rms current."
So, the definition of PF is:
Real power / VA ( where V and A are both in rms values. )
Notice - there is no sign of " cos phi " in sight !!!!
Means there is no need for a phase angle to exist for the PF to be low.
All it takes is that the current wave have a higher ratio of RMS to average
( rectified ) value than a sine wave does.
For a sine wave, the RMS to average ratio is 1.11 - this is the correction
factor built into most AC volt meters so they show the RMS value for sine
waves accurately ( but nothing else ).
For the sort of spiky wave a CFL draws, the ratio is about 2.0.
Hence the PF is around 0.55.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Stupider than Anyone ELSE on the Planet"
** Burn the Witch !!
> Whether this box actually does power factor correction is ultimately not
> something that can be determined by discussion in a newsgroup.
** But is shown in the damn video !!!!
The display on the meter shows PF in the corner - it changes from 0.68 to
0.97.
The voice over describes the unit as:
"... a capacitor based, residential power conditioner. "
It could not be any CLEARER - you fucking mad Witch !!
BTW:
To get the PF of that ( unloaded ) motor up to 0.97 is not possible without
prior knowledge of exactly what capacitance is needed and then using that
exact amount for the test.
The test is a complete crock.
.... Phil
fritz
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:8qu8ou...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "fritz"
>
> ** Oh dear - here we go again for what must be the hundredth time - explaining what PF is to someone who damn well ought to
> know already.
Or the other way round.
>
>>>>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>>>
>>>> Actually they do.
>>>
>>> ** Fraid you are wrong.
>>>
>>>> I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
>>>> CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>>>> Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
>>>> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Got nothing to do with the fact there is no REACTIVE component in the load presented by modern CFLs.
>>>
>>> The item you quoted actually CONTRADICTS you.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> ** It does all over the place - but you are too blind to see it.
Really ? Then perhaps you could actually quote something from the link
that contradicts me ?
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>
>
>> Are you trying to claim that 'harmonic reactive power' is not 'reactive power' ?
>>
>
> ** Fraid there is no such animal as "harmonic reactive power".
It is used in some circles to describe the effect harmonic currents
have on PF. Like the link which I am waiting for a quote that
contradicts me.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
Make it relevant to "** CFLs have NO no reactive power component"
>> Apparent power is the vector sum of real power and reactive power.
>> If the PF is not unity, there must be a reactive power component, by definition.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
>
> ** The definition of PF given in that article is:
>
> "The ratio between real power and apparent power in a circuit is called the power factor."
>
> The definition of "apparent power" is:
>
> " Apparent power is conventionally expressed in volt-amperes (VA) since it is the product of rms voltage and rms current."
>
> So, the definition of PF is:
>
> Real power / VA ( where V and A are both in rms values. )
>
> Notice - there is no sign of " cos phi " in sight !!!!
Yeah, so why do you bring it up ? I didn't.
But there are plenty of 'reactive power' mentions, remember what you said ;
"** CFLs have NO no reactive power component."
Now, getting back to the point, CFLs MUST have a reactive power component
because real power is less than VA.
> Means there is no need for a phase angle to exist for the PF to be low.
The instantaneous phase angle MUST be different or the PF would be unity.
Perhaps you don't know anything about calculus - when you deal with
complex waveforms you need to use higher mathematics -you calculate
the instantaneous values and sum them.
> All it takes is that the current wave have a higher ratio of RMS to average
> ( rectified ) value than a sine wave does.
It requires the current wave to have a different shape to the voltage wave.
It doesn't matter if it is a phase difference or an envelope difference or both
- the PF will not be unity unless the voltage and current are in phase and have
the same envelope.
kreed
> "kreed"
>
> > "Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
> > billable in the U.S"
>
> If you take 80 billion dollars, and to make it easy assume 3 people
> per billed premises,
>
> ** That is way high.
>
> The correct figure is more like 1.5 persons.
>
The nation must be dying out at that rate, but it is more accurate.
> The only places that I can think of that they could be talking about
> would be distribution losses
> such as resistance in power lines, arcing from HT lines into the air
> and across dirty insulators, transformer losses etc.
> Unused off peak power etc.
>
> ** Ditto.
>
> The figure is an absurd fiction derived very likely by subtracting the total
> kWh estimated to be generated by all the alternators connected to the grid
> in the USA and subtracting from that the billed kWh for the whole country -
> and THEN applying the domestic kWh rate to the difference.
>
That is the only way I can think of that they would come up with that
figure.
> Only a brain dead, Green retard would even bother.
>
> Fraid there are far too many of them.
>
True. Very true. I wish they would make the "ultimate sacrifice for
the planet" and leave the rest of us alone.
The brain dead things I hear about electricity on other forums with
non-technical people astound me, and
they refuse to listen to fact.
> .... Phil
Phil Allison
"fritz"
** Oh dear - here we go again for what must be the hundredth time -
explaining what PF is to someone who damn well ought to know already.
> Or the other way round.
** Fuck you - shithead.
>>>>>> ** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.
>>>>
>>>>> Actually they do.
>>>>
>>>> ** Fraid you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
>>>>> CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>>>>> Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
>>>>> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Got nothing to do with the fact there is no REACTIVE component in
>>>> the load presented by modern CFLs.
>>>>
>>>> The item you quoted actually CONTRADICTS you.
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> ** It does all over the place - but you are too blind to see it.
>
> Really ? Then perhaps you could actually quote something from the link
> that contradicts me ?
** The first lines of the first post do - but you are blind to it.
> http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting
>
>
>>> Are you trying to claim that 'harmonic reactive power' is not 'reactive
>>> power' ?
>>>
>>
>> ** Fraid there is no such animal as "harmonic reactive power".
>
> It is used in some circles..
** Fuckheads on web forums do not count.
>>> Apparent power is the vector sum of real power and reactive power.
>>> If the PF is not unity, there must be a reactive power component, by
>>> definition.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
>>
>> ** The definition of PF given in that article is:
>>
>> "The ratio between real power and apparent power in a circuit is called
>> the power factor."
>>
>> The definition of "apparent power" is:
>>
>> " Apparent power is conventionally expressed in volt-amperes (VA) since
>> it is the product of rms voltage and rms current."
>>
>> So, the definition of PF is:
>>
>> Real power / VA ( where V and A are both in rms values. )
>>
>> Notice - there is no sign of " cos phi " in sight !!!!
>
> Yeah, so why do you bring it up ?
** Cos it shows that phase angle is not part of the definition of PF.
Fuckhead.
>> Means there is no need for a phase angle to exist for the PF to be low.
>
> The instantaneous phase angle MUST be different or the PF would be unity.
** Another nonsense - phase angles are continuous things.
How about you FUCKING read the explanation I supplied ??
Fuckhead.
> > All it takes is that the current wave have a higher ratio of RMS to
> > average
>> ( rectified ) value than a sine wave does.
>
> It requires the current wave to have a different shape to the voltage
> wave.
> It doesn't matter if it is a phase difference or an envelope difference or
> both
> - the PF will not be unity unless the voltage and current are in phase and
> have
> the same envelope.
** So if the current wave is in-phase ( peak voltage and peak current are
virtually simultaneous ) but with a very different envelope, the PF is gonna
be lower than unity. See, that was not so hard was it ?
Having a true RMS current value is the crucial thing in coming up with
actual numbers - that is HOW one calculates VA !!
For a sine wave, the RMS to average ratio is 1.11 - this is the correction
factor built into most AC volt meters so they show the RMS value for sine
waves accurately ( but nothing else ).
For the sort of spiky wave a CFL draws, the ratio is about 2.0.
So the VA is almost double that for an in-phase, sine wave load of the same
real power.
Hence the PF is around 0.55.
Adding capacitance ( or inductance ) across the AC supply will have NO
effect on this figure.
..... Phil
Swanny
> On Feb 2, 11:01 am, TonyS <nos...@mymail.com> wrote:
>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
>> to 35% electricity:http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>
>> "Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
>> Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
>> optimistic. "I've seen the clear evidence that it actually does work.
>> Anyone can see that it reduces the current used by the apparatus that is
>> consuming the power", he said."
>>
>> The device is said to have the blessing of Panacea University
>> (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/index.htm)
>
> Quote:
> "Welcome to Panacea University and the faculty section of the main
> Panacea-BOCAF website. Here you will find, via free access, the most
> current versions of educational semi-textbooks and reports of
> experiments having to do with
"alternative engineering that are not currently taught in the accepted
universities. "
Oh no! They aren't letting on about those secret orgones are they! There
goes all the free energy :)
Our aims are to protect
> and provide studies and archives of information dealing with, for
> instance, free energy technology, suppressed energy technology,
> mileage boosting, lowering emissions, alternative fuels, interesting
> motor modifications and studies in rotors and magnets�sometimes called
> experimental magnetic motors or experimental magnetic generators."
>
> It's just a PF correction cap in a fancy case for $1300
> What a hoot.
>
> Dave.
> www.eevblog.com
kreed
I saw it on TT, after the missus brought it to my attention, but I
must have missed that part about the PF correction.
Also SC did a test on a domestic "power saver" device - that turned
out just to be a simple capacitor based PFC circuit and published
their results. While it did substantially improve the PF of the bar
fridge they tested it on, it actually increased the metered amount of
power - and while it did a "good" thing by correcting the PF, it
increased your bill in the process - based on the type of meter they
used.
As for the other poster, they do have PF correction caps at
substations anyway. I have pics of a bank of them in a 330kv
substation in QLD, (including a sign saying they are a capacitor bank,
and the discharging procedure).
and I have seen similar units in local 66kv - 11kv substations also
while driving past.
no one
think they are right ALL THE TIME .
YOU NEVER ADMIT YOUR WRONG , LOOK AT ALL YOUR POSTS , YOUR ALWAYS ABUSING
PEOPLE , CAUSE YOU ALWAYS WANT TO PUSH YOUR WRONG POINT OF VIEW ALL THE
TIME.
WE ALL KNOW THAT YOUR A FAN OF J EDGAR HOOVER YOU CROSS DRESSER.
HEY ALL YOUS IMAGINE THIS :"
PHIL IS A FAT BALDING TRANSVESTITE , SITTING AT HIS COMPUTER , WITH A
CIGARETT HANGING OUT HIS MOUTH , TROLLING THE NET TO ABUSE PEOPLE BESIDES
ABUSING HIMSELF, AND HE`S ALSO WEARING A FILTH DIRTY NEGLIGE HE STOLE
FROM HIS TRANSVESTIVE EX, ( JILTED ) LOVER ..
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8qstqr...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Stupider than anyone ELSE on earth "
>
>
>>
>> Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?
>
>
> ** ROTFLMAO !!!
>
> This lunatic, ASD fucked itch needs burning at the stake.
>
>
>
>
> .... Phil
>
>
>
John Tserkezis
> your just a faggot hilthy phil , your just one of these people that
> think they are right ALL THE TIME .
> YOU NEVER ADMIT YOUR WRONG , LOOK AT ALL YOUR POSTS , YOUR ALWAYS ABUSING
> PEOPLE , CAUSE YOU ALWAYS WANT TO PUSH YOUR WRONG POINT OF VIEW ALL THE
> TIME.
> WE ALL KNOW THAT YOUR A FAN OF J EDGAR HOOVER YOU CROSS DRESSER.
> HEY ALL YOUS IMAGINE THIS :"
> PHIL IS A FAT BALDING TRANSVESTITE , SITTING AT HIS COMPUTER , WITH A
> CIGARETT HANGING OUT HIS MOUTH , TROLLING THE NET TO ABUSE PEOPLE BESIDES
> ABUSING HIMSELF, AND HE`S ALSO WEARING A FILTH DIRTY NEGLIGE HE STOLE
> FROM HIS TRANSVESTIVE EX, ( JILTED ) LOVER ..
Although the accuracy of your claim is not disputed, I still think you
should lay off this much coffee this early in the morning...
--
ORG.ASM Not Found. Wife not happy!
Bruce Varley
"kreed" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:302e45d9-67f7-4b9b...@x13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Yep, PF correction is routinely practised with power networks, it's part of
ensuring stability of the network. Capacitors are one way, but large
synchronous drives, such as many industries operate, can also be set up to
run with a leading power factor, acting as a PF corrector.
Phil Allison
"fritz"
>
> # Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...
** Small point - but if the above is literally true, the device is
dangerous.
PF correction capacitors fitted to the incoming AC supply ( no matter which
side of the demarcation line) need to have a means of discharging the cap
if the supply becomes disconnected.
Usually, bleed resistors are fitted across the cap bank to discharge it to a
safe value in second or so at most. Means the box should dissipate about 5
to 10 watts continuously per phase or circuit.
Another issue is the large spike of current any bank of caps will draw when
switched onto the AC supply ( most times ) needs to be kept down to a value
that will not immediately trip a domestic breaker - even with a other loads
connected.
Probably means using no more than 30 to 40uF = enough to PF correct one
decent size fridge.
BTW:
WES will sell you a 40uF, mains rated polyprop cap for $12.50.
A nice metal box will cost more.
...... Phil
TonyS
> On 2/02/2011 11:54 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> TonyS wrote:
>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves
>>> up to 35% electricity:
>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Kinda says it all really.
>>
>> What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
>>
>>
> You may hope, but don't hold your breath. I've sent off a complaint, but
> I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical
> statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the
> claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.
>
> Sylvia.
Today I got a response for my complaint to the ACCC, not bad after 1
week. It goes like this:
(if you don't want to read through all of this, the essence is that my
complaint has been recorded and the details of my complaint will be used
in the context of the ACCC�s ongoing monitoring to determine whether
there is a pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern
within their industry that may raise broader concerns)
Tony
/*---------------------------
"Thank you for your email of 4 February 2011 to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding Earthwise PowerSaver.
The ACCC is responsible for administering the Competition and Consumer
Act 2010 which incorporates the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in
Schedule 2 of that Act. The ACL is a single national law which aims to
protect consumers and ensure fair trading in Australia. Under the ACL,
consumers have the same protections, and businesses have the same
obligations and responsibilities across Australia.
The ACL provides a range of provisions that protect consumers when they
purchase goods or services. Under section 29 of the ACL a person must
not, in trade or commerce, make false or misleading representations in
connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in
connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods
or services. This includes misrepresentations concerning representations
that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance
characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits. Additionally section 18
of the ACL prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, engaging in conduct
which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive.
As the conduct you have described may raise concerns under this
provision the details of your matter have been recorded in the ACCC�s
national database.
It should be noted that the ACCC cannot pursue all the complaints it
receives. While all complaints are carefully considered, the ACCC must
exercise its discretion to direct resources to the investigation and
resolution of matters that provide the greatest overall benefit for
consumers and businesses. The ACCC�s Compliance and Enforcement policy
describes in more detail how this discretion is exercised. This policy,
which is available on the ACCC�s website [www.accc.gov.au], lists a
number of factors that are weighed including whether conduct raises
national or international issues, involves significant consumer
detriment or a blatant disregard of the law.
In this instance the details of your complaint will be used in the
context of the ACCC�s ongoing monitoring to determine whether there is a
pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern within their
industry that may raise broader concerns.
It must be emphasised that, ultimately, it is a matter for the Courts to
determine whether the alleged conduct breaches the ACL and a private
right of action is available to anyone who suffers loss or damage as a
consequence of a contravention of this legislation. In any event, your
private rights of action will not be affected should the ACCC pursue
this matter.
Please note that your matter is important to the ACCC as it assists in
determining whether issues with national or wider public interest
implications exist. The ACCC closely studies the patterns of complaints
that it receives to ensure that its enforcement and education actions
are focused on the areas of greatest concern to Australian consumers.
Thank you for contacting the ACCC with your concerns. I hope this
information is of some assistance.
Yours sincerely"
---------------------------------*/
Sylvia Else
> On 2/02/2011 9:19 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 2/02/2011 11:54 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> TonyS wrote:
>>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
>>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves
>>>> up to 35% electricity:
>>>> http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>>>>
>>>
>>> **It's from Queensland, right?
>>>
>>> Kinda says it all really.
>>>
>>> What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
>>>
>>>
>> You may hope, but don't hold your breath. I've sent off a complaint, but
>> I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical
>> statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the
>> claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Today I got a response for my complaint to the ACCC, not bad after 1
> week. It goes like this:
>
> (if you don't want to read through all of this, the essence is that my
> complaint has been recorded and the details of my complaint will be used
> in the context of the ACCC�s ongoing monitoring to determine whether
> there is a pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern
> within their industry that may raise broader concerns)
It's identical to the one I just got, and is along the same lines as
replies I've received regarding other complaints. Essentially, it's a
statement that they're not actually going to do anything about it.
Sylvia.
kreed
> On 11/02/2011 5:24 PM, TonyS wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/02/2011 9:19 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 2/02/2011 11:54 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>> TonyS wrote:
> >>>> Today Tonight has done it again.
> >>>> Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves
> >>>> up to 35% electricity:
> >>>>http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/
>
> >>> **It's from Queensland, right?
>
> >>> Kinda says it all really.
>
> >>> What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
>
> >> You may hope, but don't hold your breath. I've sent off a complaint, but
> >> I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical
> >> statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the
> >> claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > Today I got a response for my complaint to the ACCC, not bad after 1
> > week. It goes like this:
>
> > (if you don't want to read through all of this, the essence is that my
> > complaint has been recorded and the details of my complaint will be used
> > there is a pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern
> > within their industry that may raise broader concerns)
>
> It's identical to the one I just got, and is along the same lines as
> replies I've received regarding other complaints. Essentially, it's a
> statement that they're not actually going to do anything about it.
>
> Sylvia.
Im with Sylvia on this one.
TonyS
>>
>>>>> What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.
>>
>>>> You may hope, but don't hold your breath. I've sent off a complaint, but
>>>> I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical
>>>> statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the
>>>> claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.
>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>> Today I got a response for my complaint to the ACCC, not bad after 1
>>> week. It goes like this:
>>
>>> (if you don't want to read through all of this, the essence is that my
>>> complaint has been recorded and the details of my complaint will be used
>>> in the context of the ACCC s ongoing monitoring to determine whether
>>> there is a pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern
>>> within their industry that may raise broader concerns)
>>
>> It's identical to the one I just got, and is along the same lines as
>> replies I've received regarding other complaints. Essentially, it's a
>> statement that they're not actually going to do anything about it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Im with Sylvia on this one.
Yea, it's obvious, one gets away with selling snake oil in this country,
at least until someone goes to court about it.
Tony
fritz
"TonyS" <nos...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:SIqdnYU0TeSkocjQ...@westnet.com.au...
If you are stupid enough to buy a 'Power/Energy Saver' after reading
all the posts here that have informed you - that it is a SCAM - then
you deserve to be ripped off.
The banks do a great job of ripping us all off - they basically use our
money to make profits which are never returned to us - they are in the
same league as the 'Earthwise PowerSaver', aren't they ? They take
your money for no return. Take those bastards to court instead.
TonyS
No one who reads this group would be "stupid" enough to fall for the
scam. It's the ones who have no technical knowledge I am worried about.
> The banks do a great job of ripping us all off - they basically use our
> money to make profits which are never returned to us - they are in the
> same league as the 'Earthwise PowerSaver', aren't they ? They take
> your money for no return. Take those bastards to court instead.
>
You can't compare them with Earthwise.
In general they provide a service. If you are talking about accounts
that give you 0.3% or so interest, just don't put much money on them.
If it's about a mortgage and the fees involved, there are non-bank lenders.
If you want to start a business try to get the best deal, there is
competition.
Banks are businesses and as such have to make money and they do it
within the framework of the law I believe. While Earthwise is selling a
device that promises to save you money but will never do so.
Some banks used to be government run services in Australia but now they
are all privatised. So blame the politicians who converted a public
service into a private business, which in the short term fixed the budget.
Accept the given reality and get bank shares, they pay good and regular
fully franked dividend:)
Tony
Phil Allison
"TonyS"
>
> Today I got a response for my complaint to the ACCC, not bad after 1 week.
** Dozens of people have complained and staff at the ACA have seen the TV
exposure too.
> It goes like this:
>
> (if you don't want to read through all of this, the essence is that my
> complaint has been recorded and the details of my complaint will be used
> in the context of the ACCC’s ongoing monitoring to determine whether there
> is a pattern of behaviour by Earthwise PowerSaver or a pattern within
> their industry that may raise broader concerns)
** The ACCC is a law enforcement body - much like the police.
They cannot reveal details of an on-going investigation or even say if one
is going on or not - to do so would alert the people being investigated,
plus allow any member of the public ( who knew one was going on ) to
publicly harass and defame a possibly innocent company about the simple FACT
they were being investigated by the ACCC.
Also, if you payed any attention - the offending product is only available
by getting it installed in one's home by one of their electricians. Far as I
can work out, this is not yet being carried out on people's homes -
excepting a few houses that are part of a free trial. So there is currently
nothing to investigate.
When someone who HAS had a unit installed complains to the ACCC and invites
one of their staff to come and see it - things may happen.
A far better option is to EXPOSE the scam on national TV and elsewhere as
often as possible - so it never takes off.
BTW:
One of the Earthwise dealers in Qld claims there is $10 million in stock
waiting to be installed - I reckon this figure is based on the installed
value of $ 1300 or more per unit.
... Phil
who where
>No one who reads this group would be "stupid" enough to fall for the
>scam. It's the ones who have no technical knowledge I am worried about.
You overlooked the fact that some who read this group are seemingly
devoid of technical knowledge.
fritz
"TonyS" <nos...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:P9adnRgjfpibW8jQ...@westnet.com.au...
Yes I can, they are in the same league, rip-off merchants are obvious, maybe
you are sucking up to them, eh ???
> In general they provide a service. If you are talking about accounts that give you 0.3% or so interest, just don't put much money
> on them.
> If it's about a mortgage and the fees involved, there are non-bank lenders.
> If you want to start a business try to get the best deal, there is competition.
> Banks are businesses and as such have to make money and they do it within the framework of the law I believe. While Earthwise is
> selling a device that promises to save you money but will never do so.
>
> Some banks used to be government run services in Australia but now they are all privatised. So blame the politicians who converted
> a public service into a private business, which in the short term fixed the budget.
>
> Accept the given reality and get bank shares, they pay good and regular fully franked dividend:)
They are always ripping you off; that is the nature of their bank business, you
are too stupid to realise that you are being screwed left right and centre.