Devices to fool the Power Meter
VPR
Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
less power..
anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
--
remove no_spam_ when replying
Pete Peterson
VPR <no_spam_...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in article
<35881ABD...@tampabay.rr.com>...
That could cost you a few years in the big house if it works. I doubt that
its possible for something like that to work.
Pete
Tom MacIntyre
Take a windmill, hook it up to back-feed power into the power grid.
This only works in some systems.
Tom
Boggs
I don't personally, but I could go visit some of the inmates at our
federal prison nearby that are there for what you are asking
about...I'm sure they'd be glad to tell you how to do it!
Jim Lagerkvist
VPR wrote:
> Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
> your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
> less power..
Yes and they work great! Pieces of wire that blow the breakers.
The meter then shows zero power used. I wish I'd thought of it!!
Getting more serious...
Here's two true stories regarding 'metering discounts' that I know
firsthand:
Part One: electrical-
A friend installed a modification kit to his outside electric meter
while drinking too much beer. The following month he received a bill
for several times his normal amount. The power company simply warned
him and agreed not to press charges.
Part Two: natural gas-
This is a rather sad story. The guy decided to save money by running a
seperate gas line out to the street from his furnace and bypass the gas
meter. Unfortunately he hooked into the hi-pressure side of the
regulator instead of low pressure. Turning on the valve blew out the
regulator in his basement furnace which flooded with gas. The explosion
blew off most of his roof and the fire did the rest. He didn't have any
homeowners insurance. The gas company felt sorry for him and dropped
charges, but not the city fire department.
Vince (AA9TL)
How much power do you use? Is it worth some jail time?
VPR wrote in message <35881ABD...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
>your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
>less power..
>
>
Robert Blackshaw
Vince (AA9TL) wrote:
>
> How much power do you use? Is it worth some jail time?
I had the devil's own time getting our local bandits to come
and seal the meter. I could have opened it any time and slowed
it down a bit at a time, but as you note, that's a criminal
offence. Wonder why their prices are considered legal?
> VPR wrote in message <35881ABD...@tampabay.rr.com>...
> >Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
> >your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
> >less power..
> >
> >anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
> >
> >--
> >remove no_spam_ when replying
> >
> >
Bob
--
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
VPR
Yes, Yes, your replys are valid........if i tap the meter.........i dont
plan on opening the meter, and what i do within the confines of my house
are my business...........if i use a device to fool the power meter, its
a technicality.....they should of built em better.........
jail time........... wrong, im not breaking any seals.............
Peter Chrisbacher
I suspect you may find that it's your _intent_ that is key. If it is your
intent to defraud the Electric co, and this intent can be established (beyond a
reasonable doubt), then you may be getting free electricity (and even cable TV!)
for some time.
-Pete
VPR wrote:
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Chrisbacher
mailto:pxba...@netaxs.com
DGArgue
In article <35881ABD...@tampabay.rr.com>, VPR
<no_spam_...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
>your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
>less power..
>
>anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
>
>
Oh boy!! I had a mate (now sadly dead so I can tell the story) who lost a leg
when they were digging the tunnels for the Hydro-Electric here in Scotland. He
was one of those likeable rogues and there are a thousand stories about his
doings.
Anyway, one day in mid summer on a boiling hot day he turns up asking if I have
any electric fires I could lend him! Note: fires -- plural!
I found him a couple and he went away happy but would not tell me what he
wanted them for! Later I learnt he had got one of these things which send the
meter backwards but had forgotten about it and turned the meter back so far the
Hydro Electric owed HIM money!! He had to borrow electric appliances from all
over the place to restore the balance.
Yes, these things work but I am equally sure the electricity suppliers are up
to the trick and can easily install a detector. I think the device is just a
large electro magnet. A guy over here was recently very heavily fined and
jailed for stealing power from a street lamp. It was headlines in a lot of
newspapers. So I have no doubt they would be graterful for the opportunity to
make an example of a few more.
Derry Argue
Firth Productions
Scotland, U.K.
Stuart Taylor
On the Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:34:30 GMT , VPR wrote...
> Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
> your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
> less power..
>
> anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
>
> --
> remove no_spam_ when replying
>
>
>
There are instance were by fitting line conditioning capacitors you can
stop the meter revolving (if its of the electro mechanical type).
A word of caution here. I had some of these, they are big buggers about
the size of a 1 gallon paint can, and can store a nasty charge!
When I got them (they fell off the back of a lorry), they had no markings
except for a GEC part#. I called GEC and immediately got the Spanish
inquisition <gulp!>
I was using them for some old clay packy lighting effects which use a
large ballast to power the lamp but don't have any capacitors?? Needless
to say the line feeding them got incredibly hot very quickly. I kept
adding the capacitors at the fuse board until the lines ran cool (hey, I
had no idea of the value of these things, other than there were used in
sports stadium flood lighting).
Using this system will only cancel out the effect of inductive loads on
your house hold wiring, not the resistive loads.
Stuart.
Disclaimer: all of the above is intended for entertainment purposes only.
Guarantees that the above method will not harm, mane, seriously endanger
life or limb, damage property, cause fire, injure, can not be issued.
--
My views are my own and nobody else's, so there.
--
use 'Reply To' address if you reply by email.
IQC: 3060772
WWW Pager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3060772
Robert Blackshaw
Stuart Taylor wrote:
>
> On the Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:34:30 GMT , VPR wrote...
>
> > Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
> > your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
> > less power..
> >
> > anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
> >
> > --
> > remove no_spam_ when replying
> >
> >
> >
>
> There are instance were by fitting line conditioning capacitors you can
> stop the meter revolving (if its of the electro mechanical type).
>
> A word of caution here. I had some of these, they are big buggers about
> the size of a 1 gallon paint can, and can store a nasty charge!
>
> When I got them (they fell off the back of a lorry), they had no markings
> except for a GEC part#. I called GEC and immediately got the Spanish
> inquisition <gulp!>
>
> I was using them for some old clay packy lighting effects which use a
> large ballast to power the lamp but don't have any capacitors?? Needless
> to say the line feeding them got incredibly hot very quickly. I kept
> adding the capacitors at the fuse board until the lines ran cool (hey, I
> had no idea of the value of these things, other than there were used in
> sports stadium flood lighting).
>
> Using this system will only cancel out the effect of inductive loads on
> your house hold wiring, not the resistive loads.
>
was supposedly to correct the power factor as we had three large
compound wound motor generator sets running. They said without it
we would have been charged less than was due. They were big.
Tom MacIntyre
Two points....the same argument is used with cable systems, and they
don't have the power of the power people.....
second...an amusing story...
A young lady goes away to school and takes an apartment with 3 other
young ladies. The first call home, the girl is upset, because the
apartment is too cold, and the landlord has encapsulated the
thermostat. Dad says he'll go down and get things straight as soon as
possible. The daughter phones back later, and tells Dad it's no longer
necessary for him to make the trip, because they have surrounded the
thermostat with icecubes!!
On one level it's ingenuity, on the other, it's fraud/theft/jail.
Think about it.....it's okay to screw a building super for some
joules, but, when you take on the big guys, you're a
jailbird!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's all think about this!!!!
Tom
VPR <no_spam_...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Yes, Yes, your replys are valid........if i tap the meter.........i dont
>plan on opening the meter, and what i do within the confines of my house
>are my business...........if i use a device to fool the power meter, its
>a technicality.....they should of built em better.........
>
>jail time........... wrong, im not breaking any seals.............
>
>
>
>VPR wrote:
>
Bill Rothanburg
First the bad news: The device you describe is another 'urban
legend'. It isn't as popular as the choking dog, the little boy dying
of cancer, or the dialysis machines for pull tabs. It is just as
mythical, however.
Now the good news: It is possible to build a device that will
"decalibrate" the power meter. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how,
but if you study the design of the meter, it should be very obvious.
Now, more bad news - Unless you do this gradually, they will notice
the drop in power consumption, and will investigate. Neither they,
nor the local prosecutor will be amused. On the other hand, you might
get the chance to make a new 'special friend'.
Bill
Vince (AA9TL)
What you are contemplating is similar to making a cable tv descrambler. I
believe the legal term is "theft of service".
VPR wrote in message <35891A68...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>Yes, Yes, your replys are valid........if i tap the meter.........i dont
>plan on opening the meter, and what i do within the confines of my house
>are my business...........if i use a device to fool the power meter, its
>a technicality.....they should of built em better.........
>
>jail time........... wrong, im not breaking any seals.............
>
>
>
>
>> Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
>> your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
>> less power..
>>
>> anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
>>
Robert Blackshaw
Vince (AA9TL) wrote:
>
> What you are contemplating is similar to making a cable tv descrambler. I
> believe the legal term is "theft of service".
One reason why the Cable Guy was given 30 seconds to get his
a** off the property is their lousy service record and their
arrogance in saying they have to run all the interior cable.
The house is pre-wired for attic antennae if necessary, but
they charge by the outlet. Seems like we went round this
one with the telcos a while back.
Asimov
Bill Rothanburg said the following to All on the subject of
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (18 Jun 98 23:53:03)
BR> First the bad news: The device you describe is another 'urban
BR> legend'.
I'm guessing if one could draw instantaneous power faster than the
spinning disk can respond then perhaps there's something to it.
BR> Now the good news: It is possible to build a device that will
BR> "decalibrate" the power meter. Sorry, I'm not going to tell you how,
BR> but if you study the design of the meter, it should be very obvious.
Ah, yes, when I first learned about eddy currents I had a brainstorm
and tried it out immediately: it worked too and slowed the wheel
noticeably. It was just an experiment so I didn't proceed on to a
permanent installation. My curiosity was satisfied and furthermore I
didn't really want to meet that "special" friend.
BR> Now, more bad news - Unless you do this gradually, they will notice
BR> the drop in power consumption, and will investigate. Neither they,
BR> nor the local prosecutor will be amused. On the other hand, you might
BR> get the chance to make a new 'special friend'.
BR> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:34:30 GMT, VPR
BR> <no_spam_...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
>your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
>less power..
>
>anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
--
| Return Address: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly her/his own.
| From addresses mangled solely to block spamming.
| Apologies to those wishing to respond, correct suffix with .net
| Signature auto-added at gateway.
Michael A. Covington
Peter Chrisbacher wrote in message <35891F0D...@netaxs.com>...
>I suspect you may find that it's your _intent_ that is key. If it is your
>intent to defraud the Electric co, and this intent can be established
(beyond a
>reasonable doubt), then you may be getting free electricity (and even cable
TV!)
>for some time.
>-Pete
Precisely. As computer security chairman for a university, I have to give
people this lesson all the time: If you intend to defraud others, you're
doing wrong, and the fact that you're using a complicated machine to do it,
or that you have demonstrated some technical cleverness, is no excuse!
The best lockpicker in town gets the same sentence for burglary as a
mediocre one.
Michael A. Covington
>A young lady goes away to school and takes an apartment with 3 other
>young ladies. The first call home, the girl is upset, because the
>apartment is too cold, and the landlord has encapsulated the
>thermostat. Dad says he'll go down and get things straight as soon as
>possible. The daughter phones back later, and tells Dad it's no longer
>necessary for him to make the trip, because they have surrounded the
>thermostat with icecubes!!
>
>On one level it's ingenuity, on the other, it's fraud/theft/jail.
>Think about it.....it's okay to screw a building super for some
>joules, but, when you take on the big guys, you're a
>jailbird!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's all think about this!!!!
That's not such a clear fraud. If the apartment was really too cold, then
it was a defective thermostat and she was working around its failure. With
the power meter scam, it's nothing of the sort.
Or was this England in the 1970s, where being cold was considered a virtue?
Asimov
loca...@dev.null said the following to All on the subject of
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (18 Jun 98 18:36:26)
lo> On the Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:34:30 GMT , VPR wrote...
> Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
> your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
> less power..
>
> anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
> remove no_spam_ when replying
lo> There are instance were by fitting line conditioning capacitors you
lo> can stop the meter revolving (if its of the electro mechanical type).
lo> A word of caution here. I had some of these, they are big buggers
lo> about the size of a 1 gallon paint can, and can store a nasty charge!
lo> When I got them (they fell off the back of a lorry), they had no
lo> markings except for a GEC part#. I called GEC and immediately got the
lo> Spanish inquisition <gulp!>
lo> I was using them for some old clay packy lighting effects which use a
lo> large ballast to power the lamp but don't have any capacitors??
lo> Needless to say the line feeding them got incredibly hot very quickly.
lo> I kept adding the capacitors at the fuse board until the lines ran
lo> cool (hey, I had no idea of the value of these things, other than
lo> there were used in sports stadium flood lighting).
lo> Using this system will only cancel out the effect of inductive loads
lo> on your house hold wiring, not the resistive loads.
lo> Stuart.
lo> Disclaimer: all of the above is intended for entertainment purposes
lo> only. Guarantees that the above method will not harm, mane, seriously
lo> endanger life or limb, damage property, cause fire, injure, can not be
lo> issued.
lo> --
lo> My views are my own and nobody else's, so there.
lo> use 'Reply To' address if you reply by email.
lo> IQC: 3060772
lo> WWW Pager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3060772
That's a good point because in fact the utility charges consumers for
apparent power not true power. We're charged for VAR's not Watt's.
If adding capacitance straightens out the power factor and in effect
decreases the consumption substantially, it's simply a more efficient
use of the current flow.
Industry does it all the time. In fact it's obliged to do so by the
electric utility, so power factor correction is therefore quite legal.
In conclusion, if the consumer does the same thing, it then clearly
isn't a theft of service since the intent is better efficiency.
... It's amazing what you can learn after you know it all!
Sam Goldwasser
Utilities charge consumers for true power.
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Robert Hancock
Asimov wrote in message <1a5_9806211051@mnet.pubnix.ten>...
(snip)
>That's a good point because in fact the utility charges consumers for
>apparent power not true power. We're charged for VAR's not Watt's.
If that's so, why is the power usage reading in kWh, not kVAh?
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from rhan...@nospamsk.sympatico.ca
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/9967
RalphWM
To all,
I have strong reservations regarding adding capacatance at either the power
meter, or the fuse panel, will do much of anything to reduce, let alone stop
power consumption. IF it does anything at all, it might correct for poor power
factor, and will NOT stop the power meter, but would slow it down.
Adding capacatance to cancel the inductive reactance to achieve "high power
factor" is nothing new, and NOT illegal. As another offered, correcting poor
power factor just allows the more effieient use of electricity.
I could be wrong, but I think you would have to do this inside the particular
appliance. The only thing in a residential application that lends itself to
easily improving the power factor is flouresant ballasts (if they are the very
simple choke variety). I've done it, and it works if you know what you are
doing; it reduces the power consumption of the lamp fixture roughly 50%.
Ralph
Onat Ahmet
In VPR's opinion;
: Ive seen somewhere before a simple device to plug into the outlets of
: your home that trick the Power Meter and make it look like youve used
: less power..
:
: anybody know where to get em or how to build it?
:
: --
: remove no_spam_ when replying
:
:
Hi;
The power meter measures the reactive power that you use too. This
reactive power might be "consumed"by inductive loads (motors, solenoids
etc.), or capacitive loads (none usually) in a normal household.
If you can fit every appliance such as a refrigerator or washing
machine with a matching capcitor, then you can cancel the reactive
poser "consumed" by them. However, other hungry power eaters
(heaters, lamps, electric ovens (don't know about microwaves) etc
act as pure resistive loads, and therefore consume the power that
the meter shows, so you cannot correct for those.
Also, AFAIK, ordinary power meters do not work backwards; so even if you can
put energy onto the grid, the meter is not going to record it...
As for illegal methods, I have no idea, but would appreciate a few
interesting ones.
Hope this helps;
| Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan |
| E-mail : on...@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp |
| WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html |
| My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page |
Land mines kill civilians in peacetime! Support total ban.
RalphWM
I would add, that the power meter simply measures ALL power consumed. As for
inductive loads; their "inductive loads" do not per say consume "more power",
as the fact that inductive loads UNNECESARILLY consume EXCESS power due to the
current consumption not in sync with the voltage phase angle. What is actually
occuring in simple PFC is that by adding capactance (reactance) to nunlify the
inductive (reactance), "you" bring the voltage and current in sync with each
other, thereby allowing for their more efficient use, so less overall
electricty is then used.
Again, reducing power consumption by correcting for poor Power Factor is very
much legal.
The voltage and current are always in sync in pure resistive loads.
It is very rare in a residential home to have a capacative load, (but is found
in an industrial user).
An industrial power user could add capacatance at a major power junction or the
"fuse box" to correct the poor PFC for his whole facility.
As for what started this thread where someone asked for information on a device
that could be plugged into an outlet to "trick" the electric power meter in
registering less power; this is certainly a "snake oil rememdy". I am sure
that something like this is sold, but it will not work. And in America, their
would be no way for "you" to register a complaint with authorities that you
paid money for such a thing and it did not work, because "you" were trying to
buy a "burgular tools".
Ralph
Sam Goldwasser
Power factor correction does nothing to decrease power consumption. It
reduces the VA but not the real power. Residential power meters read
real power. If you multiply your V and A readings taken separately, this
is not a valid measurement of power.
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Benoit Branciard
Let me place a word to the thread...
I don't know about other countries, but in France, regular home
electromechanical power counters measures the real power, not the VA.
Correcting a bad power factor with capacitors or other devices is not
needed.
But I've heard that recent digital power counter (with digital display)
are in fact counting the apparent power (in VA). In this case one may
improve the consumption by correcting the power factor.
Jim Yanik
In article <358A5E...@erols.com>, blac...@erols.com says...
WRT the cable co. wanting to run all the interior cable,the FCC has made the
cable company responsible for any leakage from cheap coax,or connectors
installed badly,or cheap connectors. This leakage can interfere with aviation
electronics.They consider cable leakage interference(CLI) important enough to
do flyovers with receivers to measure and locate leaks.They also can disconnect
you if they determine your house to be the source of a leak and you do not
allow them to correct it(at your cost). when digital TV arrives,this will be
even more critical,due to the wideband nature of DTV. This info is from
Communications Technology,a cable trade magazine.
Jim Yanik,NRA member.
Lee
RalphWM wrote:
> I would add, that the power meter simply measures ALL power consumed. As for
> inductive loads; their "inductive loads" do not per say consume "more power",
> as the fact that inductive loads UNNECESARILLY consume EXCESS power due to the
> current consumption not in sync with the voltage phase angle. What is actually
> occuring in simple PFC is that by adding capactance (reactance) to nunlify the
> inductive (reactance), "you" bring the voltage and current in sync with each
> other, thereby allowing for their more efficient use, so less overall
> electricty is then used.
>
> Again, reducing power consumption by correcting for poor Power Factor is very
> much legal.
>
<snip>
Hi All
Just an observation:
I am sure this is the same everywhere........but here in the UK industrial users
pay different rates for their electricity based not only on their consumption but
also on their peak instantaneous current requirement. Thus if they install a bank
of PFC correction capacitors on inductive/capacitive loads then they can cut
the maximum-Amps demand. I have seen such banks installed in places like
MacDonald's for this very reason. (_Lots_ of motors and Fluorescent lights:-))
The installation pays for itself very quickly as well............
Lee
BTW our domestic meter is a Digital one.
HA11747ANT
>
>That's a good point because in fact the utility charges consumers for
>apparent power not true power. We're charged for VAR's not Watt's.
>
>decreases the consumption substantially, it's simply a more efficient
>use of the current flow.
>
>Industry does it all the time. In fact it's obliged to do so by the
>electric utility, so power factor correction is therefore quite legal.
>
>In conclusion, if the consumer does the same thing, it then clearly
>isn't a theft of service since the intent is better efficiency.
>
>
You're right about the capacitors for power correction, I've seen the a lot on
the 13.2 KV primary lines, especially around industrial areas. You should see
when those things short out, before the primary fuses to them blow in a shower
of sparks, the capacitors themselves are quite spectacular when they short
out!:)
Joe
Multi-Volti Devices
Adding heavy capacitance is the easiest way. But there are many catches.
1) Power company can tell if you have a radically 'off' PF, as a result of
reactive loads. They may simply change your billing rate if they don't like
your load.
2) I don't know how much C you need, but a now deceased (no, that's not how
it happened) EE friend said they used to use dead car batteries to change
power line PF. You wont get me trying that! Apparently a car batter has
farads of capacitance. You also have usually 240 Vac to deal with, so the
cap has to be not only large but 240 V AC rated, and also
transient-tolerant, as it's a hostile place, as far as that goes. At your
outlets, the building wiring series impedance tames the power line
transients quite a bit.
Anyway, I think someone would have done it long ago if it were feasible.
Peter Duck
In message <199806220448...@ladder03.news.aol.com>> easily improving the power factor is flouresant ballasts ...
> the power consumption of the lamp fixture roughly 50%.
'Improving the power-factor' is not the same as 'reducing the power'.
It means only that the unchanged power in watts becomes a higher
proportion of the consumption in volt-amps
As the voltage is also unchanged, the current must be lower: this is
achieved by the reduction or elimination of the part that's out of
phase with the voltage.
That, appropriately, is also known as the 'imaginary' component of
the current, though it registers on an ammeter.
In the UK the power companies can't charge real money for the
imaginary power, and I'd suppose the situation is the same everywhere.
They don't like supplying much of this no-charge imaginary power,
'cos the resistive losses in transmission are real and they
themselves have to bear the cost.
Large/commercial customers are therefore penalised, in one way or
another, if they don't maintain a respectable power-factor.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
John R.Hepburn
Peter Duck wrote in message <199806230...@zetnet.co.uk>...
Very true, the are penalised heavily in Canada and the U.S. This makes for
one of the big selling points of inverter drives.
John R. Hepburn
John's Electronic Services
jhepburn@recorder,ca
Asimov
s...@stdavids.picker.com said the following to All on the subject of
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (21 Jun 98 13:30:00)
sa> Utilities charge consumers for true power.
sa> - sam
The old mechanical meter movement is driven by an eddy current disk.
The flux for which comes from the current flowing through the
powerline. Thus if there is a large reactive current flow the consumer
will be paying for the extra current flowing between his appliance and
the utility. Therefore he is metered for the apparent power.
... I'm working on my 2nd million. I gave up on the first...
Asimov
pd...@zetnet.co.uk said the following to All on the subject of
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (28 Jun 98 21:10:59)
pd> [That's in fact over-simplified: for 90-degree phase-shift, if you
pd> can be bothered to work it out, there would be equal and opposite
pd> movements that cancel out over a cycle]
Yes, cos 90 = 0, thanks.
Peter Duck
In message <4b3_9806271653@mnet.pubnix.ten>
mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten (Asimov) wrote:
> The old mechanical meter movement is driven by an eddy current disk.
> The flux for which comes from the current flowing through the
> powerline.
The current flows through one winding, but there's also a
high-impedance 'voltage' one across the supply: with *either*
disconnected, there's no movement.
> Thus if there is a large reactive current flow the consumer
> will be paying for the extra current flowing between his appliance and
> the utility.
No.
For simplicity, think of a square wave and nothing but reactive current.
What moves the disk is <current X voltage>: with the two out of
phase, when there's voltage there's no current and vice versa, therefore
<current X voltage> always equals zero.
[That's in fact over-simplified: for 90-degree phase-shift, if you
can be bothered to work it out, there would be equal and opposite
movements that cancel out over a cycle]
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If "you" improve the power factor on a
"normal" power factor flouresant ballast ("normal in this case is a misnomer,
because until recently, it was indeed normal, or rather typical would be a
better choice of words, to offer for sale floureasant ballasts with only 50%
power factor).
I have added capacatance to coil type ballasts, and have measured lower total
power consumption, on both a Hewlett Packard True RMS meter, and an surplus
analog power company meter. Additionally, the floureasant ballast now ran
much cooler. Improving power factor reduces total/overall/net electric power
consumption.
Improving power factor will also reduce peak power demand, as another stated
earlier, and as he also said, it is also done in commerical customers because
they get hit with a double whammy in that there are peak demad surcharges
levied based on the peak KW demand during each billing peroid.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 6/22/98 7:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Ju...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
>
>Power factor correction does nothing to decrease power consumption. It
>reduces the VA but not the real power. Residential power meters read
>real power. If you multiply your V and A readings taken separately, this
>is not a valid measurement of power.
>
>--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
> Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
> Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
> http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
>
>
>In article <199806220448...@ladder03.news.aol.com> ral...@aol.com
>(RalphWM) writes:
>
> I have strong reservations regarding adding capacatance at either the
>power
> meter, or the fuse panel, will do much of anything to reduce, let alone
>stop
> power consumption. IF it does anything at all, it might correct for poor
>power
> factor, and will NOT stop the power meter, but would slow it down.
>
> Adding capacatance to cancel the inductive reactance to achieve "high
>power
> factor" is nothing new, and NOT illegal. As another offered, correcting
>poor
> power factor just allows the more effieient use of electricity.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think you would have to do this inside the
>particular
> appliance. The only thing in a residential application that lends itself
>to
> easily improving the power factor is flouresant ballasts (if they are the
>very
> simple choke variety). I've done it, and it works if you know what you
>are
> doing; it reduces the power consumption of the lamp fixture roughly 50%.
>
> Ralph
>
>
Sam Goldwasser
the benefits of better power factor - only that it shouldn't affect the
power meter readings.
Sure, you can modify the designs of anything you want and improve their
performance - that wasn't the issue being addressed.
Where did you add the capacitor? Across the input to the ballast? If so,
whatever you did wasn't an effect of power factor as the load has no idea
of the power factor - it sees a voltage- period! So long as the voltage is
constant, the power factor doesn't affect it. Therefore, improving the
power factor alone CANNOT change its efficiency. What may have happened is
that you smoothed out the AC waveform or something like that. Improving power
factor would decrease transmission line losses and if anything, increase the
voltage to the ballast which I would expect to have the opposite effect on
ballast heating? (But might help an induction motor load).
I am not necessarily disputing your measurements but suggest that the actual
interpretation isn't what it appears. A fluorescent lamp isn't a simple
linear load so other effects are quite possible.
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
RalphWM
Sorry, but IMO, you may be equivocating.
Improving power factor, on a device that was originally manufactured with poor
power factor, WILL result in less NET BILLABLE ELECTRIC WATTAGE CONSUMED IN
ORDER FOR THE DEVICE TO DO THE SAME JOB/FUNCTION, in this case, a flouresant
light, that will generate the same amount of lumens.
No, this will not stop the operation of the power coampany meter, and if you
refer back, I very much pointed out it would NOT trick the power meter. But I
did say, and continue to say, that some residential electric devices lend
themselves to improving poor power factor, and if the power factor is improved,
the result will be a net reduction in the electric bill, (when compared to the
same device usage before the power factor improvement), and it is perfectly
legal
To re-iterate, and grossly oversimplified, if a residence is using flouresant
light "X" hours, (and "we" only examine this portion of the electric bill), and
it results in "Y" electric bill, then rasing the power factor from 50%, to
perhaps 90%, WILL result in approx a 40% reduction of "Y" in the electric
bill.
The only performace improvement in my example, i.e., the flouresant lamp
fixture, is the reduction of overall electric consumption. There is no
improvement in the gross lumens generated.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 7/16/98 8:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> I have added capacatance to coil type ballasts, and have measured lower
> total power consumption, on both a Hewlett Packard True RMS meter, and
> an surplus analog power company meter. Additionally, the floureasant
> ballast now ran much cooler.
It's possible to deploy capacitance to reduce power (and so also
light output), but capacitance across the supply affects *only*
power-factor, leaving power unchanged.
(A capacitor across the supply could be placed anywhere back towards
the power company, where your fluorescent would more obviously
know/care nothing about it)
A current-meter, not phase-sensitive, will show a reduction, but a
true power-meter, integrating the instantaneous <V multiplied by A>, won't.
As that's what you pay for (unless a large/commercial user), it's
probably of greater interest.
> Improving power factor reduces total/overall/net electric power
> consumption.
No, except that by reducing total current the attendant losses are reduced.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
Sam Goldwasser
power measured by the meter. Utility meters for residential customers are
designed to measure real power. Are they perfect? Probably not. Is this
imperfection enough to account for a significant effect of power factor?
The theory says that real power consumed is not affected by power factor.
Therefore, putting a capacitor across an inductive load should have no effect
except to reduce transmission line losses.
:-)
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Bob Cousins
>No, this will not stop the operation of the power company meter, and if you
>refer back, I very much pointed out it would NOT trick the power meter. But I
>did say, and continue to say, that some residential electric devices lend
>themselves to improving poor power factor, and if the power factor is improved,
>the result will be a net reduction in the electric bill, (when compared to the
>same device usage before the power factor improvement), and it is perfectly
>legal.
If its simple to do, why aren't appliances made like this anyway? Reducing your
bill would be a great selling point.
[large snips]
--
Bob Cousins, Software Engineer.
Home page at http://www.lintilla.demon.co.uk/
RalphWM
If you reduce total True RMS current, but the voltage has remained the same,
you HAVE also reduced total wattage, and HAVE also reduced ACTUAL power
consumption . Power = Voltage X Current. If the True RMS current was
reduced, but the voltage remaind the same, then the ACTUAL power is reduced.
Light output, i.e. the lumens, are NOT reduced by simply correcting poor power
factor.
The reason why actuall, total electric power consumption is reduced, is due to
the fact that you have reduced the losses within the ballast, and is evidensed
by the ballast now running cooler.
Inexplicably, you have ignored my using a electric coampany power meter that I
used to confirm my findings from my True RMS AC current meter. I would think
you would accept the results from a power coampany watt hour meter.
If total fixture efficiency is improved, as confirmed by the ballast now
running cooler, total power consuption has been reduced.
As for your statement that my using a True RMS meter that is not phase angle
sensitive, is somehow providing a false result is incorrect. In this
particular situation/example, I do not have to consider phase
angles/distortions, if the current and voltage are in phase. The current and
voltage ARE IN PHASE WHEN YOU ACHIEVE HIGH POWER FACTOR! I achieved high power
factor when I added the capacatance(i.e. capacatance reactance) to the
inductive reactance of the coil ballast. Poor power factor is the result of
the current not in phase with the voltage.
Peter, have you read anything I wrote? Peter, you say a lot of things, but
your assertions seem like they are largely based on your subjective
ASSUMPTIONS!
(Peter, are you trying to help Sam? Everything you wrote is extreemly similar,
in both content and tone, to what Sam has earlier written. I am still waiting
for Sam to post the response Sam recieved from his sweep design friend at
Philips, which Sam asserted would support his earlier disagreement he had with
myself that no more than 5 watts was dissipated within a horizontal output
transitor in a large screen TV)
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 7/16/98 8:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199807170...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> In message <199807160342...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
>> I have added capacatance to coil type ballasts, and have measured lower
>> total power consumption, on both a Hewlett Packard True RMS meter, and
>> an surplus analog power company meter. Additionally, the floureasant
>> ballast now ran much cooler.
>
>It's possible to deploy capacitance to reduce power (and so also
>light output), but capacitance across the supply affects *only*
>power-factor, leaving power unchanged.
>
>(A capacitor across the supply could be placed anywhere back towards
>the power company, where your fluorescent would more obviously
>know/care nothing about it)
>
>A current-meter, not phase-sensitive, will show a reduction, but a
>true power-meter, integrating the instantaneous <V multiplied by A>, won't.
>
>As that's what you pay for (unless a large/commercial user), it's
>probably of greater interest.
>
>> Improving power factor reduces total/overall/net electric power
>> consumption.
>
John R.Hepburn
Ralph, after reading this I am at a loss to see your point concerning the
light being more efficient. Power factor correction is a good thing, no
argument, but never has and never will have anything to do with the load
itself. Making this extremely simple , (as not to muddy it with mute
technobabble) the load sees exactly the same voltage applied and will draw
exactly the same current at the same time as it always has , so you have not
changed anything internal to the load. You have change the characteristics
of its feed lines which will make the utility want to give you a hug, but
the load remains the same. Whether it is drawing its current , when it wants
it (out of phase in this case) , directly from the line or partly from a
stored charge in a capacitor, is still meaningless to to the power
consumption of the load or any internal characteristics of it (Obviously,
since the actual load characteristics were never changed). Therefore the
load operates the same as it always has.
John R. Hepburn
John's Electronic Services
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> If you reduce total True RMS current, but the voltage has remained the
> same, you HAVE also reduced total wattage, and HAVE also reduced
> ACTUAL power consumption . Power = Voltage X Current.
This ignores the significance of phase: Volt-Amps equals watts
(power) only when the V is in phase with the A, and
measuring/expressing either/both as RMS values doesn't alter this.
To repeat part of my post of 29 Jun re 'you don't pay real money for
imaginary power' :-
"For simplicity, think of a square wave and nothing but reactive current.
What moves the disk [in a watt-hour meter] is <current X voltage>:
with the two out of phase, when there's voltage there's no current
and vice versa, therefore <current X voltage> always equals zero."
> The reason why actuall, total electric power consumption is reduced,
> is due to the fact that you have reduced the losses within the
> ballast, and is evidensed by the ballast now running cooler.
Frankly, I remain unconvinced that the fluorescent as a whole could
know or care whether there is a capacitor connected across its supply
somewhere 'upstream'.
All that it can ever 'feel' is the instantaneous voltage between the
two wires that are its only connection to the rest of the world, and
to a very low source-impedance.
(Capacitance internally, e.g. in series or parallel with the ballast,
would be a quite different matter, but risky if without enough thought)
> .. your assertions seem like they are largely based on your subjective
> ASSUMPTIONS!
Though now long retired, I'd prefer to think of them as faint
recollections from my early professional education/training as an
Electrical Engineer, but suggest you consult any relevant textbook.
However, a couple of 'assumptions', logical rather than technical,
would go a long way in this matter:-
- It would be difficult/impossible, looking towards the supply from the
fluorescent, to detect electrically whether or not the capacitor is
present.
- Connected only to those two wires, the behaviour of the fluorescent
can't therefore be detectably different with and without the capacitor.
Those are both 'two-terminal' situations, in which 'phase' has no
meaning (and the same is true of a current-meter).
The wattmeter, the only three-terminal device in the game, is the
only one where phase could, and would, play a part.
> .. Peter, are you trying to help Sam? Everything you wrote is extreemly
> similar, in both content and tone, to what Sam has earlier written.
I've no reason to help him, nor do I feel that he needs it, and I'd
happily argue against him if our opinions differed.
What I wrote last time is also very similar to what I wrote earlier
in this thread, so it's my own view that I'm defending.
The similarity to Sam's might simply be explained by our both (in
this case at least) being right ;-)
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
I understand your questions, but the fact remains, that correcting poor power
factor WILL result in LESS net power consumption, and will result in reducing
the electrictic bill too.
I will agree that correcting for poor power factor will in some ways please the
utility coampany by way of less reflected harmonics, and perhaps also relieve
the utility coampany of the expense of needing to install a larger system
transformer to supply the client(s) in some cases.
What occurs when "you" have poor power factor, is that the voltage and current
is out of phase, i.e., the voltage leads the current in an inductive load.
This is caused when the Xl of the load does not equal it's Xc. Adding
capacatance to an inductive load corrects the imbalance. Devices that have
poor power factor UNNECESARILLY CONSUME ADDITIONAL CURRENT, BECAUSE OF THE
EXCESSIVE LOSSES, ( in this case, the coil ballast), WHEN, THE CURRENT IS NOT
IN SYNC WITH THE VOLTAGE! (Oversimplified, after/if you have corrected for the
poor power factor, the ammount of current still wasted/consumed by the ballast,
which is manifested/dissipated by the heat the ballast gives off, is
dependant on it's "Q" (i.e., how much/little dc resistance it has); and the
ACTUALL TOTAL power consumed by the overall ( in this case, a flouresant
fixture), is basically the wattage of the flouresant lamp itself.
Stated differently, ANY devices with poor power factor are not using the
electricity efficiently, and therefore unnecesarilly consume additional
current, to perfor the same function, to compensatate.
The OVERALL light FIXTURE is more effiecent from the standpoint of how many
TOTAL watts is now consumed by the FIXTURE to produce the same "X" lumens as
before.
Adding the capacitor to the coil ballast, does not supply current to the
fixture/lamp, (although there are some small, and not significant, new losses
within the capacitor itself due to the dissipation factor inherent within all
capacitors, i.e., how much dc resistance it has). The purpose for adding the
capacitor, is to correct the inductive imbalance of the coil ballast load.
Yes, the load still "sees" the same voltage, what has changed, is the the load
is now consuming less current, to perform the same function.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: "John R.Hepburn" <jhep...@recorder.ca>
>Date: 7/17/98 8:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <D6Hr1.107$6v3.3...@198.235.216.79>
Sam Goldwasser
get down to basics:
True or false - aside from transmission line losses, the two circuits below
deliver the same power to the load, R, and consume (as well as read) the same
real power assuming a clean sinusoid input:
+-----------+ Load
o---| W-h meter |--------------+-----+
+-----------+ | |
| / )
AC | PF=.5 \ R ) L
| / )
| \ )
| | |
o--------+---------------------+-----+
+-----------+ Load
o---| W-h meter |------+-------+-----+
+-----------+ | | |
| | / )
AC | _|_ C \ R ) L
| PF=1 --- / )
| | \ )
| | | |
o--------+-------------+-------+-----+
If we agree on this, then the next question I ask would be: Where are you
putting this magic capacitor that is making your ballast consume less power
and run cooler?
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> ... but the fact remains, that correcting poor power factor WILL result
> in LESS net power consumption, and will result in reducing the
> electrictic bill too.
As technical arguments seem to be doing little to change your
misunderstanding of power-factor correction, here's an entirely
non-technical one:-
If PFC enables the customers to pay less money for any required
amount of light/heat/power, why are the companies selling electricity
so eager for their larger/commercial customers to install it that
they penalise them for failing to do so?
If you're tempted to say 'concern for the environment', I'll point
out that they've always done this, long before energy-conservation
became an issue.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
Before I respond to your post, I would like to ask you, (and everyone else who
maintain I am wrong), EXACTLY what is your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding
correcting for devices having power factor. Is is basic theory? Perhaps read a
few articles? Actually got your fingernails dirty working on devices that you
improved Poor Power Factor. Actually removed functioning devices in favour of
new equipment primarilly because you wanted/needed better Power Factor.
Everone who has posted that I am wrong, please respond with this information.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 7/26/98 7:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199807270...@zetnet.co.uk>
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> EXACTLY what is your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding correcting for
> devices having power factor. Is is basic theory? Perhaps read a
> few articles?
<snip>
> Everone who has posted that I am wrong, please respond with this
> information.
I've already suggested that you consult any relevant textbook :-(
However, for what it's worth, it required slightly more than 'reading
a few articles' to get an Honours degree and the further training and
experience to become a Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
A lifelong career in this field included being for many years Chief
Engineer of a major semiconductor, later 'microchip', plant with an
electrical load of megawatts.
Power factor correction on this scale was worth, and cost, serious
money *although it did not reduce the power consumed*.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
John R. Hepburn
RalphWM wrote in message
<199807292216...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Dear Peter (and all),
>
>Before I respond to your post, I would like to ask you, (and everyone else
who
>correcting for devices having power factor
Ralph, first off, I was objective. Without any information to modify what
was said I had to disagree with you ....thats all....reread my post.
As to, do I know what I am talking about? Well, I will leave that up to my
industrial clients who want me to jump on a plane A.S.A.P. to help them out.
My consumer electronics shop was created and is totally paid for( rent ,
shared ads and staff) by a seperate sales business who are just happy to to
be able to sell me as backing their products. If I leave the country for a
week or two , they cover it all (and they do not get a cut or receive a
penny from me in any way....gotta like that arrangement).
But then again this could be total internet B.S. , but I really do not care.
I only come in to this n.g. to gain information and to share it......and I
will admit I also enjoy meeting with my new friends and peers and sharing a
few technically related light moments.
I could say more....but why?
RalphWM
WOW, impressive credentials, really.
Com'on everybody, don't be shy. What's to be afriad of, after Peter told us
all his credentials, which should make him an absolute authorty on the subject.
Step forwarded and tell me your personal expertise regarding power factor and
energy efficiency (or lack therfore). There were more who also disagreed with
me.
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 7/29/98 8:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199807300...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> In message <199807292216...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
>> EXACTLY what is your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding correcting for
RalphWM
I asked everyonewho disagreed with me, to share their experience on the topic
of power factor correction, and whether or not achieving high power factor will
result in reduced electrical bills. To which you wrote:
>A lifelong career in this field included being for many years Chief
>Engineer of a major semiconductor, later 'microchip', plant with an
>electrical load of megawatts.
>
Com'on Peter, "...lifelong career...Chief engineer of a major semiconductor,
....with an electrical load of megawatts"? Is that assertion REALLY accurate,
or are you exagerating? Honestly, I'd suspect you to be a technical academic.
Com'on Peter, be honest/candid, god is watching.
Ralph
Janssen Erik
I'm certainly not an expert on power-factors, but I was interested
by this discussion. A short while ago ,I asked for a folder of our
electricity-distributor about cutting down your bill.
It was in fact meant for industrial users, but they discussed the
power-factor.
They trace the power-factor because there's a "penalty"-system
in their billing. If you have a bad power-factor... you will see
your bill increased by some percentage of thr real-used-power.
So by improving your power-factor..you can decrease your bill.
But I don't think you can decrease the used-power indicated on your
meter.
I don't think the used watt-meters indicate the "unreal"-part of
your power-usage. For normal users,the power factor will be acceptible.
Over here, you will find power-factor meters and tracers only at
places where they use heavy inductive machines, like motors etc...
Since I haven't seen the penalty mentioned in this discussion, it's
maybe there the reason of confusion. You can only reduce or get rid
of the penalty on your bill because of a bad power-factor.
At least, that's how it works over here in Belgium(europe).
Hoping to have contributed and contineous learning in the group..
kind regards
Erik
Robert Blackshaw
>
> Hi....society,
>
> I'm certainly not an expert on power-factors, but I was interested
> by this discussion. A short while ago ,I asked for a folder of our
> electricity-distributor about cutting down your bill.
> It was in fact meant for industrial users, but they discussed the
> power-factor.
> They trace the power-factor because there's a "penalty"-system
> in their billing. If you have a bad power-factor... you will see
> your bill increased by some percentage of thr real-used-power.
> So by improving your power-factor..you can decrease your bill.
> But I don't think you can decrease the used-power indicated on your
> meter.
> I don't think the used watt-meters indicate the "unreal"-part of
> your power-usage. For normal users,the power factor will be acceptible.
> Over here, you will find power-factor meters and tracers only at
> places where they use heavy inductive machines, like motors etc...
>
used in the telephone exchanges where I have worked. I would note
in passing that the power meters for 'industrial' buildings
are not the same as 'home' meters ( 3-phase vs single phase).
This might make a difference in how PF affects readings.
> Since I haven't seen the penalty mentioned in this discussion, it's
> maybe there the reason of confusion. You can only reduce or get rid
> of the penalty on your bill because of a bad power-factor.
> At least, that's how it works over here in Belgium(europe).
>
Well our home has several motors (refridgerator, heat pump, etc.)
but nothing like the large MG sets used in the telephone exchanges
although they are going the way of the dodo bird and being
replaced with solid state rectifiers.
> Hoping to have contributed and contineous learning in the group..
> kind regards
> Erik
Ditto.
Bob
--
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
Peter Duck
Janssen Erik <jans...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be> wrote:
> A short while ago ,I asked for a folder of our
> electricity-distributor about cutting down your bill.
> It was in fact meant for industrial users, but they discussed the
> power-factor.
> They trace the power-factor because there's a "penalty"-system
> in their billing. If you have a bad power-factor... you will see
> your bill increased by some percentage of thr real-used-power.
> So by improving your power-factor..you can decrease your bill.
> But I don't think you can decrease the used-power indicated on your
> meter.
That's correct, but, as you say, such penalties are applied only to
large/commercial users: the electricity companies don't like the real
losses in transmitting large amounts of 'imaginary' power, and for
which they don't otherwise get paid.
There's no benefit for a domestic consumer in correcting power-factor.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> Com'on Peter, "...lifelong career...Chief engineer of a major semiconductor [plant],
> ....with an electrical load of megawatts"? Is that assertion REALLY accurate, or are you exagerating?
It happens to be entirely true, but could, as John Hepburn has
pointed out, be no more than 'total internet B.S.': I've therefore
repeatedly suggested that you consult a textbook.
I'm certainly no authority on PFC: the need for it was a trivial
aspect of the equipment that *consumed* the megawatts, and my only
involvement with this lo-tech incidental was to approve the expenditure ;-)
Repeatedly re-building/re-equipping wafer-fabs, plus of course
assembly and test, was the interesting bit, especially in the
design-and-build days before there was an industry supplying such equipment.
And then there were the products themselves, starting with germanium
transistors and diodes in the '50s ...
This is making me feel *very* old ;-(
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
I asked eveyone the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Dear Peter (and all),
Before I respond to your post, I would like to ask you, (and everyone else who
maintain I am wrong), EXACTLY what is your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding
correcting for devices having power factor. Is is basic theory? Perhaps read a
few articles? Actually got your fingernails dirty working on devices that you
improved Poor Power Factor. Actually removed functioning devices in favour of
new equipment primarilly because you wanted/needed better Power Factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter, you responded with:
However, for what it's worth, it required slightly more than 'reading
a few articles' to get an Honours degree and the further training and
experience to become a Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers.
A lifelong career in this field included being for many years Chief
Engineer of a major semiconductor, later 'microchip', plant with an
electrical load of megawatts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Still latter, after some prodding from me, you now said:
>I'm certainly no authority on PFC: the need for it was a trivial
aspect of the equipment that *consumed* the megawatts, and my only
involvement with this lo-tech incidental was to approve the expenditure ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have no experience after all eh? So why did you write, after I
explicetedly asked you exactly what was your personal expertise regarding power
facotor, did you make the first claim? Doesn't strike me as very forthright.
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 7/31/98 8:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199807311...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
You've been very quite. My question to everyone where I asked anyone who
disagreed with me, to share their personal expertise regarding power factor
correction, applied to you also Sam. What exactly is your PERSONAL expertise
regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY get
your fingernal dirty?
Steve Helling
>regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY get
>your fingernal dirty?
>
>
>>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power
I've been following this thread for a while now. Can't say that I have an
engineering level knowledge of the subject either. But for what it's worth,
I remember seeing an article and project in an electronic magazine back
around 1980 that explained how to build a little power factor correction
device for use on a home refrigerator. I think the design called for a
triac and some kind of IC, and was supposed to save some electrical energy
and maybe reduce heating in the compressor motor. Don't remember many other
specifics, just that the theory of operation given seemed logical and
scientific at the time. It was probably more of an exercise in applied
theory than a practical money saving device.
Hope no one thinks I'm trying to revive this weary old thread.
Steve
A & S Electronic Repair
Peter Duck
"Steve Helling" <@snowhill.com> wrote:
> I remember seeing an article and project in an electronic magazine back
> around 1980 that explained how to build a little power factor correction
> device for use on a home refrigerator. I think the design called for a
> triac and some kind of IC, and was supposed to save some electrical
> energy and maybe reduce heating in the compressor motor.
There are such 'black boxes': there's one sold here in the UK as
'SavaPlug' and recommended by Energy Advice Centres.
How effective they are I don't know, though on that basis I've fitted
them to fridge and freezer.
The unit would be difficult to examine internally without destroying it, but
- it's too small to contain any any substantial non-electrolytic
capacitance.
- the leaflets make no mention of 'power-factor' (I wouldn't have bought
them if they had!)
- the nearest to an explanation given is that once an [induction] motor
has been run up to speed the input power can be reduced, which from my
recollection of how they work seemed plausible.
I note that you also make no mention of capacitance, and that the 'target'
equipment was fridges: I think, therefore, that it was the same sort
of thing and that power-factor is not involved.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> So, you have no experience after all eh? So why did you write, after I
> explicetedly asked you exactly what was your personal expertise
> regarding power facotor, did you make the first claim? Doesn't strike
> me as very forthright.
You're clearly having difficulty in justifying your beliefs, even to
yourself ;-)
You're welcome to believe what you choose: I'm quite willing to
accept that the earth isn't flat without personally sailing round it.
However, your accusation that I haven't been 'forthright' is absurd
as well as offensive.
I've from the beginning said that my view is based on recollections
from early professional education, *and advised you to consult textbooks*.
When you asked for evidence of 'expertise', I overcame natural
modesty to the extent of setting out quite a lot of 'background'
(about which you then felt free to express disbelief) :-(
> EXACTLY what is your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding
> correcting for devices having power factor. Is is basic theory?
> Perhaps read a few articles? Actually got your fingernails dirty
> working on devices that you improved Poor Power Factor.
> Actually removed functioning devices in favour of
> new equipment primarilly because you wanted/needed better Power
> Factor. Actually removed functioning devices in favour of
> new equipment primarilly because you wanted/needed better Power Factor.
> Still latter, after some prodding from me, you now said:
> > I'm certainly no authority on PFC: the need for it was a trivial
> > aspect of the equipment that *consumed* the megawatts, and my only
> > involvement with this lo-tech incidental was to approve the
> > expenditure ;-)
I freely admit that I didn't drive the fork-lifts to actually 'remove
functioning devices in favour of new equipment', or install the
busbars, etc. with my own fair hands.
However, whenever I changed the power-consuming equipment
substantially I had to spend significant amounts of (other people's)
money on replacing/augmenting PFC equipment, and no-one ever
suggested that my professional judgement (in this regard, at least
<g>) was at fault.
It's evidently become a 'big deal' in your life, but PFC really is a
*very* basic, lo-tech, aspect of power-distribution, to which only
those in the business of supplying the equipment need ever give much thought.
Designing, or even selecting, power-hungry equipment so as not to
have poor power-factor in the first place is quite another matter.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
Tom MacIntyre
>I've been following this thread for a while now. Can't say that I have an
>engineering level knowledge of the subject either. But for what it's worth,
>I remember seeing an article and project in an electronic magazine back
>around 1980 that explained how to build a little power factor correction
>device for use on a home refrigerator. I think the design called for a
>triac and some kind of IC, and was supposed to save some electrical energy
>and maybe reduce heating in the compressor motor. Don't remember many other
>specifics, just that the theory of operation given seemed logical and
>scientific at the time. It was probably more of an exercise in applied
>theory than a practical money saving device.
>
>Hope no one thinks I'm trying to revive this weary old thread.
I just consulted Jackson's Introduction to Electric Circuits. I can't
answer the question, but from what it said in Jackson...
If you are billed for apparant power, PFC is beneficial to the
end-user.
If you are billed for true power, PFC is beneficial to the utility
company.
PFC affects the source, but has no affect on the load, from what I
just read.
I have no particular expertise...I just decided to consult one of my
old textbooks. The book makes no reference to billing, but emphasizes
the effect of PFC on reducing the power-delivery infrastructure. It
also indicates that the true power does not change as a result of PFC.
The meaning of this I don't know...it depends upon what the meter on
your house measures.
Tom
Sam Goldwasser
a reply to this post :-). In case you missed it:
True or false - aside from transmission line losses, the two circuits below
deliver the same power to the load, R, and consume (as well as read) the same
real power assuming a clean sinusoid input?
+-----------+ Load
o---| W-h meter |--------------+-----+
+-----------+ | |
| / )
AC | PF=.5 \ R ) L
| / )
| \ )
| | |
o--------+---------------------+-----+
+-----------+ Load
o---| W-h meter |------+-------+-----+
+-----------+ | | |
| | / )
AC | _|_ C \ R ) L
| PF=1 --- / )
| | \ )
| | | |
o--------+-------------+-------+-----+
If we agree on this, then the next question I ask would be: Where are you
putting this magic capacitor that is making your ballast consume less power
and run cooler?
(I will only reply on this newsgroup for the remainder of this thread).
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
In article <199808010325...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) writes:
Sam,
You've been very quite. My question to everyone where I asked anyone who
disagreed with me, to share their personal expertise regarding power factor
correction, applied to you also Sam. What exactly is your PERSONAL expertise
regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY get
your fingernal dirty?
Ralph
Asimov
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (01 Aug 98 09:32:00)
tm> "Steve Helling" <@snowhill.com> wrote:
tm> I just consulted Jackson's Introduction to Electric Circuits. I can't
tm> answer the question, but from what it said in Jackson...
tm> If you are billed for apparant power, PFC is beneficial to the
tm> end-user.
tm> If you are billed for true power, PFC is beneficial to the utility
tm> company.
tm> PFC affects the source, but has no affect on the load, from what I
tm> just read.
tm> I have no particular expertise...I just decided to consult one of my
tm> old textbooks. The book makes no reference to billing, but emphasizes
tm> the effect of PFC on reducing the power-delivery infrastructure. It
tm> also indicates that the true power does not change as a result of PFC.
tm> The meaning of this I don't know...it depends upon what the meter on
tm> your house measures.
I think PFC reduces the power used by a typical inductive motor load
because, since there are less IR losses in the wire cables, the load
sees a higher voltage.
As a consequence of the higher voltage, to produce the same output
torque, the windings need draw less current resulting in lower
resistive copper losses in both the field coils and rotor cage. The
motor runs cooler because PFC improves its total power efficiency.
Remember the motor current drawn increases as the input voltage drops.
The reason a small percentage drop of the motor's applied terminal
voltage is murder on efficiency, is because all the motor losses
increase as the square of the current draw.
... Email returned to sender -- insufficient voltage.
--
| Return Address: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly her/his own.
| From addresses mangled solely to block spamming.
| Apologies to those wishing to respond, correct suffix with .net
| Signature auto-added at gateway.
Tom MacIntyre
>I think PFC reduces the power used by a typical inductive motor load
>because, since there are less IR losses in the wire cables, the load
>sees a higher voltage.
Since IR losses don't include reactive power, how does PFC apply here?
>
>As a consequence of the higher voltage, to produce the same output
>torque, the windings need draw less current resulting in lower
>resistive copper losses in both the field coils and rotor cage. The
>motor runs cooler because PFC improves its total power efficiency.
See above.
>
>Remember the motor current drawn increases as the input voltage drops.
>The reason a small percentage drop of the motor's applied terminal
>voltage is murder on efficiency, is because all the motor losses
>increase as the square of the current draw.
P=VI=(E^2)/R=(I^2)R
The 3 factors are all interrelated...and have no connection with PFC,
since it deals with reactive elements only. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Tom
>
Sam Goldwasser
the wiring are reduced. Lower IR losses translate into higher voltage at
the load. Constant power loads like compressors do like higher voltage (to
a point).
IMO, for a typical refrigerator or other home appliance, the differnce would
be small unless the wiring were really marginal.
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Peter Duck
tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca (Tom MacIntyre) wrote:
> Since IR losses don't include reactive power, ...
Resistive losses are dependent on current irrespective of phase.
That's the main reason why suppliers don't like supplying large
amounts of reactive/'imaginary' current: they themselves have to pay
for the real losses in transmission, and/or provide 'heavier' plant
to minimise these losses.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
Tom MacIntyre
That's one of the fun things about this group...there's always someone
to correct you when you get off the path. Thanks Peter and Sam...I
guess I need a bit of review in some of this stuff. To the books!!....
Tom
>
>--
>Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
RalphWM
>IMO,[i.e., pfc] for a typical refrigerator or other home appliance, the
differnce would
>be small unless the wiring were really >marginal.
Sam, in the opinion of the USA government, they would disagree with you.
Typically, the residential refrigerator in the single largest yearly KWH
demand, (the sole exception, is electric HVAC, which is not typical
nationwide).
For another example, HID residential lighting is becomming accepted. I have
two Sodium HID light that runs on automatic for 4,000 hours yearly each. It
was sold with "Normal power Factor", i.e., low power factor, and I added a $5
capacitor to each one 10 years ago that made it high Power factor, and reduced
it's KWH power consumption by 50%! stated differently, the $5 cap's I
installed 10 years ago has saved me $720, and that is certainly significant!
So if someone can reduce the yearly KWH demand perhaps 20%, on a functioning
appliance that would not otherwise be replaced with a new energy efficient
replacement; IMO, that certainly is significant to me.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 8/2/98 8:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
RalphWM
I asked you personally, (after you were silent in response to my open
question), to which you posted the following, where you basically refused to
answer my question, until I answered yours first. It also seems you had your
refusal expunged from sci.electronics.
Sam, you got it backwards, again. You wrote me privately regarding PFC, and
summed up, I told you I would not answer you, for a few reasons, that you very
well know. But you persisted, and "promised" me, that if I did not answer you
privately, you would now post it publically. So, when you persisted, and kept
your "promise", and I then asked everyone to share their expertise, I certainly
expected you to respond also.
My biggest reason for not answering you, is from my prior experienvce with you
regarding the efficiency of flyback power supplies. Similarilly, you again
interjected your limited academic experience, to disagree with my personal
experience. When I offered countless reasons why I disagreed with you; you
responded with that you would get your friend, who designs deflection sweep
systems at Phillips, to answer. You said this on 6/16/98, and to date, I have
seen nothing of this expert opinion that you said would suport your opinion.
So Sam, if you answer me first, i.e., how much power is dissipated within
horizontal output tranistors; AND you share with everyone your personal
expertise, and I will THEN answer you.
Ralph
ISubject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Date: 1998/08/01
Message-ID: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.repair
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to sci.electronics.repair]
[promises, promises; I will hold you to your word, but I doubt if you will keep
it]
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
>Date: 7/31/98 11:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808010325...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>Sam,
>
>You've been very quite. My question to everyone where I asked anyone who
>disagreed with me, to share their personal expertise regarding power factor
>correction, applied to you also Sam. What exactly is your PERSONAL
>expertise
>regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY get
>your fingernal dirty?
>
RalphWM
To simplify, my answer to your post, follows latter on. But I did want to
acknowldge this statement of yours.
>As technical arguments seem to be doing little to change your
>misunderstanding of power-factor >correction, here's an entirely ...."
YOUR misapplied technical technobable arguments are certainly not disuading me
in the least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 7/26/98 7:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199807270...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> In message <199807261810...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
>> ... but the fact remains, that correcting poor power factor WILL result
>> in LESS net power consumption, and will result in reducing the
>> electrictic bill too.
>
>As technical arguments seem to be doing little to change your
>misunderstanding of power-factor correction, here's an entirely
>non-technical one:-
>
>If PFC enables the customers to pay less money for any required
>amount of light/heat/power, why are the companies selling electricity
>so eager for their larger/commercial customers to install it that
>they penalise them for failing to do so?
>
>If you're tempted to say 'concern for the environment', I'll point
>out that they've always done this, long before energy-conservation
>became an issue.
>
>--
>Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
Why? Because the utility coampany has no choice! Large industrial users, with
poor Power factor, and poor THD, can create havoc with the power grid! It is
FAR easier to cajole the industiral user, than it is to clean up/isolate the
problem otherwise
Ralph
RalphWM
You wanted my answer to the (technobable) issues you raised, well here it is:
Peter, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>That's correct, but, as you say, such penalties are applied only to
large/commercial users: the electricity companies don't like the real
losses in transmitting large amounts of 'imaginary' power, and for
which they don't otherwise get paid.
There's no benefit for a domestic consumer in correcting power-factor.
--
>Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter, there ARE benefits for residential users to correct for power factor.
Maybe for you, reducing your utility bill 10% or more a month is mundane, but
not to me. Furthermore, the threshold for penalties is much lower than it
used to be, i.e., the penalties for poor power factor/, penalties for poor THD;
largely due to poorly made electronic floureasant ballast's, and computer SMPS
with poor THD. The threshold for penalities are now applied to buisness like
supermarkets.
Peter, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm certainly no authority on PFC: the need for it was a trivial
aspect of the equipment that *consumed* the megawatts, and my only
involvement with this lo-tech incidental was to approve the expenditure ;-)
Repeatedly re-building/re-equipping wafer-fabs, plus of course
assembly and test, was the interesting bit, especially in the
design-and-build days before there was an industry supplying such equipment.
And then there were the products themselves, starting with germanium
transistors and diodes in the '50s ...
This is making me feel *very* old ;-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree Peter, your perception of your expertise in the matter of PFC was
limited even when you were current. And I am sorry if the mundane aspects of
life, like having to pay high electric utility bills for ordinary people, is
apparently boring to you. It would seem, that your expertise was being the
administrative bureaucrat in a semiconductor manufacturing facility, and your
sole involvement with power factor was approving expenditures, in both facility
design, and megawatt power costs. Too bad for the stock holders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You're clearly having difficulty in justifying your beliefs, even to
yourself ;-)
You're welcome to believe what you choose: I'm quite willing to
accept that the earth isn't flat without personally sailing round it.
However, your accusation that I haven't been 'forthright' is absurd
as well as offensive.
I've from the beginning said that my view is based on recollections
from early professional education, *and advised you to consult textbooks*.
When you asked for evidence of 'expertise', I overcame natural
modesty to the extent of setting out quite a lot of 'background'
(about which you then felt free to express disbelief) :-(
I freely admit that I didn't drive the fork-lifts to actually 'remove
functioning devices in favour of new equipment', or install the
busbars, etc. with my own fair hands.
However, whenever I changed the power-consuming equipment
substantially I had to spend significant amounts of (other people's)
money on replacing/augmenting PFC equipment, and no-one ever
suggested that my professional judgement (in this regard, at least
<g>) was at fault.
It's evidently become a 'big deal' in your life, but PFC really is a
*very* basic, lo-tech, aspect of power-distribution, to which only
those in the business of supplying the equipment need ever give much thought.
Designing, or even selecting, power-hungry equipment so as not to
have poor power-factor in the first place is quite another matter.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter, your cavalier attitude, and equivocations, is offensive to myself. You
should have either volunteered the above information, or not joined in a thread
on PFC in residential applications, or at least kept an open mind that just
perhaps, your knowledge on the topic was not germane to the particular aspect
of the topic being discussed. Yes, PFC is very basic, and low tech.
I very much think PFC is an important issue; most governments do! The
operation of devices with poor power factor causes a significant increase of
fossil fuel imports, which has a significant impact on the balance of trade,
interests rates, employment rates. And the coincident issue of air pollution
from burning those unnecessary additional fossil fuels is hardly trivial in my
view.
Peter, your expertise is sorely stale now, and furthermore misdirected. I was
responding to a electronic enthusiast who wanted to know about defeating the
operating of a residential KWH meter. I responded that what he sought, was
tantamount to buglers tools, and illegal, BUT it was possible to legally reduce
his electric bill with little effort on inexpensive flouresant ballast's.
I chose inexpensive flouresant ballast's because there are still a lot "out
there", either already owned, or still being offered for sale. Well, made,
high power factor flouresant, either magnetic, or electronic ballast's are very
expensive, and furthermore not easily found, at any price, for residential
consumers.
Peter, you wrote to Steve regarding his post asking about a PFC for a home
refrigerator:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are such 'black boxes': there's one sold here in the UK as
'SavaPlug' and recommended by Energy Advice Centres.
How effective they are I don't know, though on that basis I've fitted
them to fridge and freezer.
The unit would be difficult to examine internally without destroying it, but
- it's too small to contain any any substantial non-electrolytic
capacitance.
- the leaflets make no mention of 'power-factor' (I wouldn't have bought
them if they had!)
- the nearest to an explanation given is that once an [induction] motor
has been run up to speed the input power can be reduced, which from my
recollection of how they work seemed plausible.
I note that you also make no mention of capacitance, and that the 'target'
equipment was fridges: I think, therefore, that it was the same sort
of thing and that power-factor is not involved.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter,
The device was almost certainly an active PFC controller. A motor, like a
refrigerator compressor is very difficult to correct for power factor largely
due to the changes in loading, i.e., start, compared to run, and supply voltage
sags. And the lack of "substantial non-electrolytic capacitance," is not proof
of it not reducing power demands through PFC control. For example, an active
boost PFC controller would basically need a high power FET, and an inductor,
and a controlling IC, to modulate/changepower factor, and those parts could
certainly be put in a relatively "small box."
Ralph
RalphWM
Peter, you wrote on 7/18/98:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>This ignores the significance of phase: Volt-Amps equals watts
(power) only when the V is in phase with the A, and
measuring/expressing either/both as RMS values doesn't alter this.
To repeat part of my post of 29 Jun re 'you don't pay real money for
imaginary power' :-
"For simplicity, think of a square wave and nothing but reactive current.
What moves the disk [in a watt-hour meter] is <current X voltage>:
with the two out of phase, when there's voltage there's no current
and vice versa, therefore <current X voltage> always equals zero."
Frankly, I remain unconvinced that the fluorescent as a whole could
know or care whether there is a capacitor connected across its supply
somewhere 'upstream'.
All that it can ever 'feel' is the instantaneous voltage between the
two wires that are its only connection to the rest of the world, and
to a very low source-impedance.
(Capacitance internally, e.g. in series or parallel with the ballast,
would be a quite different matter, but risky if without enough thought)
> .. your assertions seem like they are largely based on your subjective
> ASSUMPTIONS!
Though now long retired, I'd prefer to think of them as faint
recollections from my early professional education/training as an
Electrical Engineer, but suggest you consult any relevant textbook.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter,it is yourself who should refer to any RELEVANT TEXTBOOK ON THE TOPIC OF
POWER FACTOR AND ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION AND METERING. Peter, your
understanding of KWH meters is very simplistic, and wrong.
There are approx. six different types of KWH meters. The most common type of
KWH in residential meter seems to be the Reactive type which measures/detects
the difference between Real Power, and Apparent Fundamental Power. In a
commercial application, there are many different varieties of electric
metering. But basically, the power company selects and instalsl the proper
meter, in order to accurately measure usage, based on the type load the
customer will present to the system/grid.
Peter, (ignoring your one recent, and token, exception/equivocation to pfc),
you have consistently asserted, that there is no reduction in utility bills by
way of improving power factor. Since it is doubtful you would ever believe
anything I could say, (and you have a lot of Gaul to place the burden on me, to
prove you are wrong, to your pompous satisfaction, in the first place), I
direct you to the following professional articles on the topic of power factor
and electrical efficiency:
EC&M Sept 1994 written by Mr. Morgan "Improving Power factor for greater
efficiency Part I" " High Power Factor will enhance energy savings and reduce
costs"
"EC&M Nov 1994 written by Mr. Morgan "Improving Power factor for greater
efficiency Part II" "High Power Factor will enhance energy savings and reduce
costs"
EC&M Dec 1990 written by Mr. Novak "Energy management: motors & capacitors team
up to save energy." "Reduce load through .... and through increased power
factor"
I could say a lot more, but your arrogance has caused me to expend a great deal
of time to correct your misinformation, time I have little to spare. Peter,
you apparently have a great deal of time on your hands, what your being
retired. Perhaps your participation in this discussion group is an amusing
diversion for yourself. But IMO, the vast amount of people who come here, have
limited time; certainly not enough time to squander on your amusement.
Ralph
Asimov
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (02 Aug 98 09:27:56)
sa> Since PFC reduced the current flowing through the wiring, the IR
sa> losses in the wiring are reduced. Lower IR losses translate into
sa> higher voltage at the load. Constant power loads like compressors do
sa> like higher voltage (to a point).
sa> IMO, for a typical refrigerator or other home appliance, the differnce
sa> would be small unless the wiring were really marginal.
sa> -!- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
sa> Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
sa> Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
sa> http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
sa> In article <35c3a933...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>
sa> tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca (Tom MacIntyre) writes:
sa> mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten (Asimov) wrote:
>I think PFC reduces the power used by a typical inductive motor load
>because, since there are less IR losses in the wire cables, the load
>sees a higher voltage.
sa> Since IR losses don't include reactive power, how does PFC apply
sa> here?
sa> The 3 factors are all interrelated...and have no connection with
sa> PFC, since it deals with reactive elements only. Correct me if I'm
sa> wrong.
The motor current must still flow through the power cables. Typical
fridge motors are designed to produce a relatively constant output
torque within its operating range. The induction motor is in essence a
rotating transformer which converts electrical power to mechanical
torque due to the rotor emf lag or slip vs the winding's rotating emf.
Being a constant power device the main variable that will change when
the terminal voltage drops is an increase in winding current due to a
slight rise in slip. Thus the motor's IR losses increase with
increased winding current and it's efficiency drops. Motor efficiency
is therefore related to the terminal voltage.
Since there are additional IR losses in the power cables due to the
increased motor winding current this means that in total the motor
consumes more power at the power meter. Thus PFC does help efficiency.
... Of course I know what I'm doing! Now gimme that magnet...
RalphWM
To all,
There are indeed approx 6 different types of KWH meters, including, but not
limited to Reactive. But after thinking more about it, remembered latter a few
more of the others types. Active Power, Apparent Power, and Relative power.
I remebered the others, latter on, and thought everyone would like to know.
My belief that Reactive KWH meters are in use the meter residential power
consumption remains the same.
And to antcipate any questions that the above is not correct regarding the
different types of KWH meters; I also remembered latter on that phase shifting
is employed within the KWH meter in order to detect and meter whichever aspect
of power consumption (named above) deemed necessary in order to accurately
quantify the utility bill.
Peter, it is painful for me to just read, your simplisitc misconceptionss of
how electric power consumption is metered.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
>Date: 8/2/98 1:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808021752...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
RalphWM
Mike, nice to hear from you. Your opinion you offered on pfc is interesting,
and I will consider it further, maybe some investigating if I have some spare
time.
But it is my impression, (and I could be wrong), that pfc reduces KWH power
demands by way of putting the current and voltage demands in sync, at which
point less current is consumed, because it is now being used more efficiently.
Ralph
>bject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten (Asimov)
>Date: 8/1/98 11:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40e_9808011557@mnet.pubnix.ten>
>
>tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca said the following to All on the subject of
>Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (01 Aug 98 09:32:00)
>
> tm> "Steve Helling" <@snowhill.com> wrote:
>
> tm> I just consulted Jackson's Introduction to Electric Circuits. I can't
> tm> answer the question, but from what it said in Jackson...
>
> tm> If you are billed for apparant power, PFC is beneficial to the
> tm> end-user.
>
> tm> If you are billed for true power, PFC is beneficial to the utility
> tm> company.
>
> tm> PFC affects the source, but has no affect on the load, from what I
> tm> just read.
>
> tm> I have no particular expertise...I just decided to consult one of my
> tm> old textbooks. The book makes no reference to billing, but emphasizes
> tm> the effect of PFC on reducing the power-delivery infrastructure. It
> tm> also indicates that the true power does not change as a result of PFC.
> tm> The meaning of this I don't know...it depends upon what the meter on
> tm> your house measures.
>
>
>I think PFC reduces the power used by a typical inductive motor load
>because, since there are less IR losses in the wire cables, the load
>sees a higher voltage.
>
>As a consequence of the higher voltage, to produce the same output
>torque, the windings need draw less current resulting in lower
>resistive copper losses in both the field coils and rotor cage. The
>motor runs cooler because PFC improves its total power efficiency.
>
>Remember the motor current drawn increases as the input voltage drops.
>The reason a small percentage drop of the motor's applied terminal
>voltage is murder on efficiency, is because all the motor losses
>increase as the square of the current draw.
>
RalphWM
Simply said, thanks for your simple, yet eloquent description of the dynamics
of an electric motor. I could say more, but I do not want to take anything
away from either yourself, or the valuable information you've posted.
Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>ct: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten (Asimov)
>Date: 8/2/98 12:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <467_9808021643@mnet.pubnix.ten>
RalphWM
Penalities for bad power factor, in commerical applications, was breifly
mentioned early on. Little has been said about the penalities that large
commerical customers will indeed incur; because this thread is basically about
reducing the billable power in residential.
The topic under disscussion deals with power factor in anything but very large
commerical/factory. But thanks for your input.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Janssen Erik <jans...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be>
>Date: 7/31/98 11:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35C1E4...@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be>
>
>Hi....society,
>
>I'm certainly not an expert on power-factors, but I was interested
>by this discussion. A short while ago ,I asked for a folder of our
>electricity-distributor about cutting down your bill.
>It was in fact meant for industrial users, but they discussed the
>power-factor.
>They trace the power-factor because there's a "penalty"-system
>in their billing. If you have a bad power-factor... you will see
>your bill increased by some percentage of thr real-used-power.
>So by improving your power-factor..you can decrease your bill.
>But I don't think you can decrease the used-power indicated on your
>meter.
>I don't think the used watt-meters indicate the "unreal"-part of
>your power-usage. For normal users,the power factor will be acceptible.
>Over here, you will find power-factor meters and tracers only at
>places where they use heavy inductive machines, like motors etc...
>
>Since I haven't seen the penalty mentioned in this discussion, it's
>maybe there the reason of confusion. You can only reduce or get rid
>of the penalty on your bill because of a bad power-factor.
>At least, that's how it works over here in Belgium(europe).
>
alk...@mcs.com
> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If "you" improve the power factor on a
> "normal" power factor flouresant ballast ("normal in this case is a misnomer,
> because until recently, it was indeed normal, or rather typical would be a
> better choice of words, to offer for sale floureasant ballasts with only 50%
> power factor).
> I have added capacatance to coil type ballasts, and have measured lower total
> power consumption, on both a Hewlett Packard True RMS meter, and an surplus
> analog power company meter. Additionally, the floureasant ballast now ran
what values did you use?
I would like to try and duplicate it on this end..
Asimov
Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter (02 Aug 98 20:41:29)
ra> Simply said, thanks for your simple, yet eloquent description of the
ra> dynamics of an electric motor.
Thanks for the positive feedback but I did have a go at it twice
before I could make it clear enough not to be misunderstood. Being
mostly a lurker, communicating is harder than one imagines it to be.
... It said "Insert disk #3", but only two will fit!!!
--
| Return Address: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten
Asimov
ra> Mike,
ra> Mike, nice to hear from you. Your opinion you offered on pfc is
ra> interesting, and I will consider it further, maybe some investigating
ra> if I have some spare time.
ra> But it is my impression, (and I could be wrong), that pfc reduces KWH
ra> power demands by way of putting the current and voltage demands in
ra> sync, at which point less current is consumed, because it is now being
ra> used more efficiently.
ra> Ralph
The goal of PFC is to supply the load's reactive current locally
rather than letting the out-of-phase current flow through the power
line on to the source. When PFC is used the source supplies both
current and voltage in-phase meaning it sees a purely resistive load.
That goal is unrelated to efficiency in this sense though some
improvement results but for other reasons than of in-phase emf & I.
As you may remember from AC circuits in school, a resonnant tank has a
PF of unity. Similarly PFC consists of suppling the missing reactance
to complete a resonnant tank. And a pure resistance in parallel across
this resonnant tank represents the real power consumed by the load.
In an industrial setting PFC is intended to reduce the required
current carrying capacity of the utility's distribution system.
Conversely, since there are no reactive currents to deal with, this
allows using lower current rating transformers and similarly with all
its other equipments.
Having to supply reactive currents to a branch lowers the emf for
everybody else on that branch. This explains why utility companies
tend to not tolerate a PF less than unity of their industrial
customers.
At home the reason for PFC is much different. As I pointed out
previously the only good use for PFC is on individual motors in order
to improve their efficiency by simply raising their terminal voltage.
Not all home appliances having a motor can benefit. For example a
variable speed blender or ceiling fan is obviously not suitable.
However, a fridge or a/c compressor is a perfect candidate as these
generally work under a constant load. As these tend to use the
larger portion of KWh in the home, improving their efficiency by even
a fraction of 1% can make an appreciable difference over the longterm.
... Sped up my XT; ran it on 220v! Works great!
RalphWM
Ball park values seem to be 5uf per 15 watts of bulb capacity. But the best
achieveable power factor varries with the particular value of the ballast, and
requires you to measure the current draw with at least a True RMS meter. I
have double checked my results with a surplus KWH meter, and it confirms the
results I get from the True RMS.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: alk...@MCS.COM (alk...@mcs.com)
>Date: 8/3/98 2:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6q3l25$9tr$1...@Mercury.mcs.net>
Matthias Meerwein
Does anybody mind if we steer the discussion a little further back
to it's subject "Devices to fool the Power Meter"? None? OK, let's go.
The traditional type of power meters contains two iron cores and an
aluminum disc between them. One core carries a winding connected in
parallel with the incoming power line generating an ac field
proportional to the mains voltage. The other core carries a (rather
heavy wire) winding in series with the load thus creating a current-
proportional field.
The geometry of the whole assembly is designed in a clever way so
that the resulting net torque acting on the aluminum disc is
proportional to the mean value of the current-times-voltage product.
Combine this with a speed-proportional drag force (aka eddy current
brake) and - voila - get the disc spinning at a speed proportional
with the actual power drawn. Look Ma, no semiconductors :-)
OK, nuff theory, now let's read the subject line again:
"Devices to FOOL the Power Meter"
What would happen if we apply a strong DC magnetic field on one or
both of the iron cores mentioned above? If the field is really
strong, we would bias the iron into one of the regions where the
hysteresis loop flattens off to a nearly horizontal line. This core
saturation will bring the relative permeability of the iron back
from several thousands to almost one. Fine.
Now let's take a look at the "small signal transfer function", the
relation between the AC magnetic field in the air gap and the current
flowing throuh the corresponding coil:
Field = Current * No_of_windings * permeability
For a given current, the field will be weaker by the same factor
the permeability of the biased iron is lower compared with the one
of the unbiased material. Lower field means less torque acting on
the aluminum disc hence less rpm, lower electricity bill.
Well, now we have a theory on how to fool the power meter.
Now let's think about a device to apply this theory, i.e. do the
physics-to-engineering leap.
Don't know about the country of cheap gas and free guns, but here
in Germany virtually all power meters have a plastic enclosure.
As plastic doesn't shield magnetic fields at all, one could think
about a huge permanent magnet duct taped to the meters enclosure
providing the dc bias field to the iron cores.
Sam, maybe you want to add this to your FAQ chapter dealing with the
use of high-power magnets salvaged from dead hard disk drives :-)
Disclaimer: Application of the above thoughts is of course illegal
and therefore highly discouraged. Fooling the power meters is fraud
even if no seals are broken. The utility company's lawyers won't
appreciate this too much, neither will the DA.
A pile of magnets duct taped to your power meter will turn out to
be a sure ticket to jail if the utility worker comes by to read your
meter and notices them...
Comments are welcome.
Greetings
Matthias
RalphWM
WOW, glad to hear from someone who is well imformed.
I never investigated correction for power factor on compressors, or electric
motors. could you tell us more? Like Ball park capacatance for refrigerators
and AC compressors. Where to install them?
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: mike...@juxta.mnet.pubnix.ten (Asimov)
>Date: 8/3/98 12:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <498_9808030330@mnet.pubnix.ten>
Sam Goldwasser
> Sam, you wrote:
> >IMO,[i.e., pfc] for a typical refrigerator or other home appliance, the
> >differnce would be small unless the wiring were really marginal.
> Sam, in the opinion of the USA government, they would disagree with you.
> Typically, the residential refrigerator in the single largest yearly KWH
> demand, (the sole exception, is electric HVAC, which is not typical
> nationwide).
So? This says nothing about power factor!
> For another example, HID residential lighting is becomming accepted. I have
> two Sodium HID light that runs on automatic for 4,000 hours yearly each. It
> was sold with "Normal power Factor", i.e., low power factor, and I added a $5
> capacitor to each one 10 years ago that made it high Power factor, and reduced
> it's KWH power consumption by 50%! stated differently, the $5 cap's I
> installed 10 years ago has saved me $720, and that is certainly significant!
Respectfully, I simply do not believe you. Provide model numbers, tell us
where you put the capacitor and what type. Perhaps, your savings weren't so
spectacular after all.
If this will work on a fluorescent ballast, I will attempt to replicate your
results. But, I need to know what you were testing and how! I am not going
to buy an HID lamp for this :-).
> So if someone can reduce the yearly KWH demand perhaps 20%, on a functioning
> appliance that would not otherwise be replaced with a new energy efficient
> replacement; IMO, that certainly is significant to me.
20 percent would be way optimistic IMO for a typical appliance. I am not
talking about a 50 year old fridge.
How about some logic: If these devices were so effective in reducing
electricity bills, why aren't the shelves of Home Depot sagging with all
sorts of gadgets for this purpose? It is simple. For most purposes, their
effectiveness is marginal at best. In some cases they make the situation
worse. In some cases the appliances catch fire (I didn't make this up!).
Is the manufacturer of the "Green Plug" (not a true PF corrector but similar
claims) even still in business? FWIW, I have looked inside two of thsee
devices - the Green Plug and another one that claims to be a PF corrector.
The only part inside either of these that handle the power is a triac.
Nothing that could actually perform true PF correction (i.e., adjust phase
shift, emulate a cap or inductor, etc.).
Has anyone seen any independent tests on these? I thought Consumer Reports
did a while back but cannot locate the article.
If simple capacitors were as effective as you claim, it sounds like a good
opportunity for you. Offer them in small, medium, large sizes with model
compatibility charts. Why are you wasting your time fighting with 'textbook
theory Sam' when you could be sweeping the market!? "Cut your utility bills
in half for a $25 investment". (You can have a 400 percent markup!)
Or, why aren't appliance manufacturers either including PF correction caps
with their appliances (reducing power consuption would be a selling point)
and/or providing options like this???? OK, yes, they are or are forced to
in some cases but not for the reasons you claim. Suppose there were two
otherwise identical HID fixtures side-by-side at Home Depot - one twice as
efficient as the other.
Or, why aren't utilities recommending PF correction devices or even selling
them? Don't say they want to sell you more electricity since other products
they offer or subsidize like compact fluorescent lamps also reduce power
consumption.
I am still waiting for your reply to my two simple questions (posted twice).
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Sam Goldwasser
Sorry about resurrecting this thread but Ralph asked about what happened to it.
About hot HOTs - the response:
This is in reference the the discussion on Horizontal Output Transistor
heat dissipation on sci.electronics.repair a few weeks ago.
The following is the newsgroup posting I sent and the reply from my friend at
Philips.
Single > from: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
Double >> from: Sam Goldwasser wrote:
No > from Philips engineer:
>>2. Have you ever compared the heat output of a properly functioning TV's HOT
>> to, say, even a 25 W bulb? (The surface area of a 25 W bulb is about
>> equal to a typical HOT heat sink.) How long could you put your finger
>> on a 25 W bulb.
>
> Sam, I think your analogy is flawed.
I would have to agree here. For the same dissipation the heatsink would be
colder because it is a more efficient radiator. But most energy would be
dumped via convection, for which its shape and environment have to be adapted
too.
But you are right too, an HOT does not dissipate 25W, it's more like 2-10W
(depending on picture tube size and line frequency).
>>3. Power is dissipated in the HOT when it switches OFF and carriers are
>> being swept out of the junction (or some such - I don't recall all the
>> details). In a properly designed deflection system, there is virtually
>> no voltage across the HOT when it is being switched ON.
Not entirely true. There certainly are conduction losses (I*VCE,sat)
and in an optimum drive design they are balanced with switching losses.
Conduction losses are the main reason for not applying MOSFETs.
> Sam, in the real world, line operated SMPS have efficiencies of 70% to 80%.
> In the real world, BATTERY OPERATED equipment have SMPS that are 90%+
> efficient.> But Sam, we were talking about LINE OPERATED TV's that only
> have a flyback (converter). And additionally, this particular flyback
> converter has to do two things, convert voltages, AND deliver magnetic scans
> to give a distortion free picture, and efficiency is simply not a primary,
> nor even secondary design concern. Therefore, I would guess that a TV
> flyback converter operates at 50% efficiency.
He is totally wrong here. Efficiency is an important design because HOTs and
heatsinks are expensive. Also reliability is a big issue here.
But, what is efficiency ? There is a giant amount of blind power circulating
between the deflection coil and the flyback caps, but this does not contribute
to any output. In fact, at zero beam current, no output power is produced, so
efficiency = 0 ? Assume that 10 W is dissipated in the HOT and 10 W in the
line coil, would you say that efficiency is 50% ? You might indeed. Fact is,
efficiency is of no concern here, only absolute dissipation. The deflection
coil and the line output transformer both dissipate quite a bit (resistive,
skin effect, proximity effect = eddy current) and potential gain is usually
not worth the extra cost.
>> 4. I can put you in touch with a TV deflection system designer who has used
>> the
> Sam, I think you should get in touch with your friend, for yourself, and
> stop generalizing and comparing SMPS for battery operated equipment, to line
> operated TV flyback supplies.
The comparison is indeed tricky. BTW, our line circuits are generally NOT line
operated, if that refers to the mains line. There is always a mains-isolation
SMPS between them.
>> figure of 1 or 2 W as a design guideline. Many HOTs run COOL to the
>> touch with a minimal heat sink.
> Only one or two watts? Then explain to me why TV's typically have HOT's
> with 5 amp collectors (and monitors have HOT's with typically 10 amp
> collectors)? If there is so little power dissipated within the HOT itself;
> then why are the manufacturers wasting so much money with expensive,
> unnecessarilly large capacity HOT's, (if we are to believe what you've
> written)?
A normal TV runs at 4-5 A peak-peak, a 5 A HOT would seem to be intended for a
31 kHz TV then. There is of course no immediate relationship with dissipated
power. The HOT is physically large because of large current and high voltage,
not because of dissipation.
> I respectfully disagree. IMO, the vast amount of power in the majority of
> TV's (those without SMPS), passes through the horizontal output
> transistor. It is my opinion that the vast amount of power consumed
> EITHER occurs while generating the HV and Horiz sweep itself, OR while the
> Horizontal output is generating the secondary voltages to the Vertical,
> Sound, IF's etc, (i.e., performing the function of a SMPS).
Most power is of course delivered to the high voltage, about 40-60 W average.
70% of that is dissipated in the shadow mask.
> For argument sake, let's suppose the gross power consumption is perhaps 60W
> in a particular TV, I would suspect that a total of 50W is actually
> occuring/being disspiated in the horizontal output tranistor.
Not reall true for reasons mentioned above. Where does this fellow assume
that the energy for the light output comes from ? Oh, here it is:
> For another example, let's suppose you have a TV that generates 25,000
> volts HV @ 0.001 milliamps to just the CRT. If you calculate it out, that
> represents 25 watts all by itself.
I assume he meant 1 mA, not 1 uA. It's more like 30 kV and 1.5-1.8 mA.
> Continuing on, if a TV consumes 25W for just HV, and perhaps another 15W
> for other functions like Vertical, for a total of 40W; IMO, the horiz
> output would perhaps have an average power rating capacity of 70W.
HOTs do not even have a power rating because nobody cares...
> disagree and do so for the above reasons. It is certainly possible that I
> am wrong, and you are right.
And it is possible that on specific points both of you are wrong... As a
consolation: it is horribly difficult to know where all the power is going. A
measurement of voltage and current over the HOT can easily give an error in
Power of a factor of 2 or more. (Because each varies a factor 1000 or so, the
oscilloscope just doesn't have enough dynamic range to measure this.)
I hope it will make you all sleep better if you know that we've got some
experts working on this and that there are no immediate problems to worry
about.
>>FWIW, the actual power dissipated in an HOT in a properly designed circuit
>>is a couple of watts. The power dissipation rating of the HOT is one of
>>those specs that only really matters if there is a problem.
Correct.
The dissipation is rarely a problem, until you get thermal runaway on a
heatsink that was designed for typical dissipation. But before that you would
already have unacceptable distortion of the picture geometry (losses damping
linearity error). So nobody cares about a 125 W power rating (which is a
bullshit figure anyway because it assumes an infinite heatsink) if you would
never want to dissipate more than 10 W for other reasons. Ignore that rating!
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
Sam,
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
>Date: 7/31/98 11:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808010325...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>Sam,
>
>You've been very quite. My question to everyone where I asked anyone who
>disagreed with me, to share their personal expertise regarding power factor
>correction, applied to you also Sam. What exactly is your PERSONAL
>expertise
>regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY get
>your fingernal dirty?
>
Sam Goldwasser
>Ball park values seem to be 5uf per 15 watts of bulb capacity. But the best
>achieveable power factor varries with the particular value of the ballast, and
>requires you to measure the current draw with at least a True RMS meter. I
>have double checked my results with a surplus KWH meter, and it confirms the
>results I get from the True RMS.
Is this what you are basing your energy savings on? Was the reduction in
current equal to the reduction in KWH? Was the voltage at the fixture
the same?
Sam Goldwasser
> Sam, maybe you want to add this to your FAQ chapter dealing with the
> use of high-power magnets salvaged from dead hard disk drives :-)
> Disclaimer: Application of the above thoughts is of course illegal
> and therefore highly discouraged. Fooling the power meters is fraud
> even if no seals are broken. The utility company's lawyers won't
> appreciate this too much, neither will the DA.
> A pile of magnets duct taped to your power meter will turn out to
> be a sure ticket to jail if the utility worker comes by to read your
> meter and notices them...
> Comments are welcome.
HeHe.... High strength magnets have often been suggested as a way to change
the operation of the power meter (notice I am being careful not to use the
word 'fool'). I suspect (and have absolutely no interest in trying the
experiment!) that even the combined clump of all the magnets I have salvaged
from high performance disk drives (and this is considerable), would not affect
the meter significantly because they would not be close enough. Also, the
maximum field strength from these magnets is still only a fraction of the
saturation value for soft iron (3 or 4 KG vs. 20KG or so). So, you wouldn't be
moving the operating point very close to the highly non-linear part of
the B-H curve. Sucking all the steel shafts of the little gears to the inside
surface of the glass may be more likely :).
In any case, I don't believe this to be in the spirit of the original thread.
Any self respecting power meter would be aware of the porximity of the magnets
and object to such treatment! :-) However, if one could affect only the V-A
somehow, then this is allowed (but, of course fraud)!
Peter Duck
tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca (Tom MacIntyre) wrote:
> ..from what it said in Jackson...
> If you are billed for apparant power, PFC is beneficial to the
> end-user.
> If you are billed for true power, PFC is beneficial to the utility
> company.
> PFC affects the source, but has no affect on the load, from what I
> just read.
> It also indicates that the true power does not change as a result of
> PFC.
Very simple, concise, easy to remember, and I'm sure correct: thanks :-)
> The meaning of this I don't know...it depends upon what the meter on
> your house measures.
Large/commercial users billed on complicated tariffs need
correspondingly complicated/expensive metering-equipment.
The basic, low-cost, domestic single-phase meters installed in
hundreds of millions are as described by Matthias Meerwein, and
measure only 'true power' (KWh, not KVAh).
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
I would appreciate it if you would try to be professional, and for once, admit
you are wrong. Simply put, it is now beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are
indeed wrong.
BTW, I am still waiting with baited breath the 6 weeks delinquent information
from your sweep design engineer who you insisted would support your position
regarding how much power was dissipated with a horiz output tranistor.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 8/3/98 11:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
>
>In article <199808031143...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ral...@aol.com
>(RalphWM) writes:
>
>>Ball park values seem to be 5uf per 15 watts of bulb capacity. But the
>best
>>achieveable power factor varries with the particular value of the ballast,
>and
>>requires you to measure the current draw with at least a True RMS meter. I
>>have double checked my results with a surplus KWH meter, and it confirms the
>>results I get from the True RMS.
>
>Is this what you are basing your energy savings on? Was the reduction in
>current equal to the reduction in KWH? Was the voltage at the fixture
>the same?
>
Sam Goldwasser
> Sam,
> I would appreciate it if you would try to be professional, and for once, admit
> you are wrong. Simply put, it is now beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are
> indeed wrong.
Excuse me????
Respectfully (and I mean that in the most respectful way), balderdash! I
believe you can find ample evidence that I admit I am wrong when I am wrong.
In this case, at best, the facts only support some errors of omission with
respect to second order effects, not your claim that improving power factor
in itself reduces real power used.
I stand by my original statement: Improving power factor does not in itself
affect true power used assuming transmission line IR losses are negligible
(i.e, the incoming voltage doesn't change). With IR losses, improving PF
will result in the voltage increasing which may improve efficiency with respect
to constant power loads like induction motors (as someone else pointed out)
but will result in increased power usage by resistive loads. Therefore,
improving power factor may actually increase your utility bills if you are
charged for true power! There may be some other minor effects due to
non-ideal meters and non-linearity in some devices but these are not directly
related to the original premise.
A two terminal device like a fluorescent fixture or motor has no way
of even knowing what the power factor is of the incoming power based on its
input! If you don't believe this, please explain how it would be aware of it.
(However, the device could determine its own power factor and this could be
corrected individually but the statement above still stands.)
Discussions about induction motors running more efficiently due to increased
terminal voltage due to lower current with higher power factor are related
to transmission line IR drop, an effect I happily acknowledge.
Discussions about devices to reduce motor voltage with light load have no
direct relation to the PF though it may be sensed by the controller and used
as an indication of when to reduce voltage.
If you are actually putting you magic capacitor somewhere other than across
the line, then all bets are off. That is changing the design of the load
device itself and I will readily admit that improvements are very often
possible - and a side effect may be to reduce power factor.
> BTW, I am still waiting with baited breath the 6 weeks delinquent information
> from your sweep design engineer who you insisted would support your position
> regarding how much power was dissipated with a horiz output tranistor.
I posted it yesterday. In case you missed it, the posting showed up on
www.dejanews.com:
http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=378231950.1&CONTEXT=902362394.1715339300&hitnum=3
Perhaps you missed it because it didn't have the correct subject heading
but was rather posted under this thread....
As you can see, he did not entirely support my statements which is just
fine. I know it is still hard for you to believe, but the truth is
paramount and every effort is made to make sure the FAQs reflect that.
So, now, respectfully, I am waiting for your response to my very basic
questions on PF.....
> >(RalphWM) writes:
> >
> >>Ball park values seem to be 5uf per 15 watts of bulb capacity. But the
> >best
> >>achieveable power factor varries with the particular value of the ballast,
> >and
> >>requires you to measure the current draw with at least a True RMS meter. I
> >>have double checked my results with a surplus KWH meter, and it confirms the
> >>results I get from the True RMS.
> >Is this what you are basing your energy savings on? Was the reduction in
> >current equal to the reduction in KWH? Was the voltage at the fixture
> >the same?
In fact, the implication you make here is that your power savings is based
solely on the reduction in current. This is nonsense. Perhaps I
misinterpreted what you said but from what I deduce, you checked current
with a "True RMS meter" and then confirmed this with a KWH meter. This is
like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that you may have cut your
current in half doesn't imply in any way, shape, or form that your true
power or cost has been cut in half - or at all. In fact, it may have gone
up.....
To clear this up we need a clear schematic and description of your HID
or fluorescent fixture and instrumentation showing before and after.
RalphWM
Okay Sam, so this is how you want it eh? Just remember, it was you who
insisted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Date: 8/3/98 9:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
In article <199808021644...@ladder03.news.aol.com> ral...@aol.com
(RalphWM) writes:
> Sam, you wrote:
> >IMO,[i.e., pfc] for a typical refrigerator or other home appliance, the
> >differnce would be small unless the wiring were really marginal.
> Sam, in the opinion of the USA government, they would disagree with you.
> Typically, the residential refrigerator in the single largest yearly KWH
> demand, (the sole exception, is electric HVAC, which is not typical
> nationwide).
So? This says nothing about power factor!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay Sam, I'll say it clearer, even though you are snipping small fragments of
what I wrote. I was speaking of two things. First, that energy efficiency was
an important issue to the federal government, and that the federal government
has identified the ubiquitous refrigerator as the largest single yearly
consumption of kWh. Secondly, if a hobbyist, modified the power factor of an
older, ( i.e., maybe 20 years old), inefficient refrigerator, but still
perfectly serviceable, and more to the point, would not be replaced with an
energy efficient model until the existing one dropped dead, and improving the
power factor of the existing unit reduced it's yearly kWh consumption by 20%
(or more), that is certainly VERY significant!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> For another example, HID residential lighting is becomming accepted. I
have
> two Sodium HID light that runs on automatic for 4,000 hours yearly each.
It
> was sold with "Normal power Factor", i.e., low power factor, and I added a
$5
> capacitor to each one 10 years ago that made it high Power factor, and
reduced
> it's KWH power consumption by 50%! stated differently, the $5 cap's I
> installed 10 years ago has saved me $720, and that is certainly
significant!
Respectfully, I simply do not believe you. Provide model numbers, tell us
where you put the capacitor and what type. Perhaps, your savings weren't so
spectacular after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You don't believe me eh? "Perhaps, [my] savings weren't so spectacular after
all"? How about Sam is making wild arbitrary assumptions, i.e., sam wants to
make his square peg theory fit a very real round hole! What is your basis for
not believing me? What experience do you have regarding power factor
correction? My answer to your arbitrary disbelief follows.
I am sure it is quite apparent to anyone reading what you write, that you do
not believe me. Sam, I am giving you a homework assignment; YOU investigate,
and YOU prove me wrong. Only fair, considering the FACT that such reductions
are possible, and not difficult to research, and I am the one with experince,
while you are the one who is repeatedly silent when I ask you to share exactly
what expertise, if any, do you have regarding power factor correction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If this will work on a fluorescent ballast, I will attempt to replicate your
results. But, I need to know what you were testing and how! I am not going
to buy an HID lamp for this :-).
> So if someone can reduce the yearly KWH demand perhaps 20%, on a
functioning
> appliance that would not otherwise be replaced with a new energy efficient
> replacement; IMO, that certainly is significant to me.
20 percent would be way optimistic IMO for a typical appliance. I am not
talking about a 50 year old fridge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You think 20% to be way too optimistic eh? Oh well, I guess that is some
progress, when you have always said before, that there would be no reductions
whatsoever. Well, I was being realistic. How about up to 50% reductions? My
expert proof that it is easily possible to reduce power demands 50%, while the
device performs exactly the same function, follows.
Although I haven't done so myself, nevertheless I firmly believe that 20% is a
conservative reality by way of pf on a refrigerator. And the only person who
said 50 year old fridge, is YOU Sam. (Actually, there are other techniques I
have used on my serviceable self defrost 20 year old refrigerator that reduced
it's yearly kWh by over 200 kWh/yearly ). Unlike you Sam, I wouldn't
equivocate like that. I am speaking of refrigerators that are in actual use,
perhaps 20 years old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about some logic: If these devices were so effective in reducing
electricity bills, why aren't the shelves of Home Depot sagging with all
sorts of gadgets for this purpose? It is simple. For most purposes, their
effectiveness is marginal at best. In some cases they make the situation
worse. In some cases the appliances catch fire (I didn't make this up!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"How about some logic" you say? How about some common sense sam? The reasons
are simple, and oversimplified, basically two fold. First, in regard to
residential; consumer ignorance and apathy. (BTW Sam, do you know that , high
power factor ballast's are MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW FOR COMMERCIAL as of 1990?)
Second, well made high power factor are expensive, and 98% of consumers will
not buy high power factor, regardless the benefits, even if it was made
available to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is the manufacturer of the "Green Plug" (not a true PF corrector but similar
claims) even still in business? FWIW, I have looked inside two of thsee
devices - the Green Plug and another one that claims to be a PF corrector.
The only part inside either of these that handle the power is a triac.
Nothing that could actually perform true PF correction (i.e., adjust phase
shift, emulate a cap or inductor, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FYI, a traic, or a power FET are typically part of an active power factor
controller.
Has anyone seen any independent tests on these? I thought Consumer Reports
did a while back but cannot locate the article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Consumer reports did indeed do test on such devices for refrigerators, and
compact lights.
Consumer reports found that the "Green" refirgerator devices offered for sale
in the early 1990s were generally not effective. Make note, that just because
those devices, sold 5 years ago, not being effective, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that
any such device, especially one made now, would not be effective also.
Consumer Reports also examined electronic compact flurescants, but I found the
article seriously flawed. That is to say, that Consumer Reports only examined
the lumen output, Vs the wattage of the bulb, but ignored the losses of the
ballast.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If simple capacitors were as effective as you claim, it sounds like a good
opportunity for you. Offer them in small, medium, large sizes with model
compatibility charts. Why are you wasting your time fighting with 'textbook
theory Sam' when you could be sweeping the market!? "Cut your utility bills
in half for a $25 investment". (You can have a 400 percent markup!)
Such a snide statement Sam, but one I can answer. The reason "Why [I am ] ...
wasting [my] time fighting with 'textbook theory Sam' is because I care about
the misinformation you are hell bent on spreading here.
Why do people like yourself Sam do not know about the energy savings of high
power factor? Ignorance, and Consumer apathy. I did make the effort, for
free, as part of an environmental group. Very little interest. In fact, the
apathy I encountered during that effort, is not entirely unlike the attitude
from "textbook theory Sam ".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, why aren't appliance manufacturers either including PF correction caps
with their appliances (reducing power consuption would be a selling point)
and/or providing options like this???? OK, yes, they are or are forced to
in some cases but not for the reasons you claim. Suppose there were two
otherwise identical HID fixtures side-by-side at Home Depot - one twice as
efficient as the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okay Sam, you can knock yourself out on this. I am holding in my hand, a 1997
catalogue from Ruud'. You can find Ruud on the WWW, and order the catalogue on
line. Ruud sells a LOT of HID lighting, either high, or low power factor,
exact same fixture, invaribly exact same magnetic ballast, customers option if
they pay extra to add the optional capacitor. On page 160 of Ruud's 1997
catalogue they list 80 different magnetic ballast's for HID fixtures, from 35
watt, to 1500 watt, 120 volt up to 480 volt, that are sold with either normal,
or high power factor. For example:
HPS= high pressure sodium
MH= Metal halide
all examples 120 volt
bulb -W norm pf -norm pf current - W hpf - hpf current
35 W HPS 44w/ 0.39 amps 44w/ 0.85 A
50 watt HPS 62w/ 0.56 amps 62w/ 1.20 A
75 W HPS 86w/ 0.77 amps 86w/1.73A
100 W HPS 115w/1.07 amps 115w/ 2.14 A
50 W MH 72w/ 1.50 amps 72w/ 0.65 A
70 W MH 89w/ 2.10 amps 95w/ 0.85 A
100 W MH 130w/ 2.96 amps 130w/1.15A
Fluorescent
13 W 17 W/ 0.30 amps 17 W / 0.15 A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, why aren't utilities recommending PF correction devices or even selling
them? Don't say they want to sell you more electricity since other products
they offer or subsidize like compact fluorescent lamps also reduce power
consumption.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sam, you are either incredibly naieve, OR you will say anything, even things
you yourself don't believe, in order to win an disagreement. I can say Sam,
from first hand experience, from a meeting that was called for due to my
outrage over LILCO's seriously flawed energy conservation program, during 1987,
and attended by 3 LILCO program managers, and one LILCO vice President, and one
New York State Public Service Commissioner Mr. Williams. When I forced LILCO
to admit it, i.e., their energy conservation programs were either ineffective,
or actually something called "load building/load shifting," LILCO basically
said it was good enough; and the NY PS Commissioner agreed it met minimum
standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am still waiting for your reply to my two simple questions (posted twice).
Ralph
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 8/3/98 9:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
>
RalphWM
Okay Sam, you can't admit you are wrong, and this is the way you want it?
In the first place, (will be explained later on), you have repeatedly insisted
I answer your questions, on your terms, regarding power factor. You ignored my
responses when the format I chose wasn't to your satisfaction, you claimed my
responses were unresponsive, dismissed my personal first hand experience, and
then went on your merry way with your technobabble. When I was trying to
politely ignore you, you then pursued me in private. I told you privately my
reasons for not wanting to get dragged into a pointless disagreement with you.
I have come to suspect that it was your vanity, that you were pursuing the
power factor issue, after you did not emerge victorious regarding the
horizontal output transistor thread. I said to you, when you pursued me
privately, that I thought you were more interested in getting the last word, at
any costs. I said I thought you did not care whether or not you were right.
I said I thought you were willing to bully someone, if that was what it took to
win. I said I thought you had no reservations to have such a situation be
posted to sci.electronics, with no consideration to anyone reading/following
it, and getting the impression you were right, when in fact you were wrong.
You responded indignantly. You made a thinly veiled threat to me in private,
that if I did not respond in private, on your terms, you would resume in
public.
You made good on this threat; and I responded as politely as possible. I told
everyone, that I had no intention of responding to you, until two circumstances
were satisfied. First, you deliver on your statement on 6/16, when you refused
to even consider, let alone admit, that maybe you were mistaken about the power
dissipated within a horizontal output transistor. You said you would ask you
friend, who designed TV HV sweep circuits, to settle the issue, and you would
post HIS ANSWER, to sci.electronics.
Sam, you have not yet responed to the issue, i.e. tell me exactly what is your
personal expertise regarding power factor.
Sam, do you always insist you get your way, even when the only one who will
benefit, is your vain ego? Second, you, and your alleged expert, has chopped
up my posts, and thereby create confusion which only helps your position. I
will respond, and not edit anything from what you posted.
Going back, way, way back, you joined a discussion regarding servicing
horizontal output flyback circuits in TV's. It was your opinion, that the
current and wattage capacity of various replacement transistors was
substantially immaterial, because only 1 or 2 watts was dissipated within the
horizontal output transistor itself. Later, you backpedalled, and said that up
to 5 watts was dissipated. Later still, you equivocated, and said you were
actually quoting someone else who asserted only 2 watts. When I responded with
countless reasons why I disagreed with you, you copped out, and said you would
send all posts pertaining to the issue, to your friend, and have your friend
post his reply, regardless the possibility that he might disagree with you Sam.
During the private email you initiated regarding power factor, the last one on
7/26/98, I reminded you of this issue, and you (again) said he hadn't responded
yet. But lo and behold, when you have no choice but to respond, in order to
get something else you want far more; suddenly you excerpt this alleged expert
sweep designer. I find it curious, that you did not simply repost his message,
(as opposed to your editing), as you originally said you would.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In a message dated 8/5/98 7:08:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RalphWM writes:
<<
Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Date: 8/3/98 9:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
So, you won't answer a basic question because of this? Very well. Here goes:
Sorry about resurrecting this thread but Ralph asked about what happened to
it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sam, I doubt if you are sorry. I have reminded you a few times about it, in
both public, and private, generally in the perspective that everyone at
sci.electronics was entitled to learn, one way or the other the truth, and it
was you who said you could provide an expert sweep design engineer. Generally,
each time you would say he did not respond yet, but I should do as you expect,
and on your terms, and right now. You are very one sided Sam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
About hot HOTs - the response:
This is in reference the the discussion on Horizontal Output Transistor
heat dissipation on sci.electronics.repair a few weeks ago.
The following is the newsgroup posting I sent and the reply from my friend at
Philips.
Single > from: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
Double >> from: Sam Goldwasser wrote:
No > from Philips engineer:
>>2. Have you ever compared the heat output of a properly functioning TV's HOT
>> to, say, even a 25 W bulb? (The surface area of a 25 W bulb is about
>> equal to a typical HOT heat sink.) How long could you put your finger
>> on a 25 W bulb.
>
> Sam, I think your analogy is flawed.
I would have to agree here. For the same dissipation the heatsink would be
colder because it is a more efficient radiator. But most energy would be
dumped via convection, for which its shape and environment have to be adapted
too.
But you are right too, an HOT does not dissipate 25W, it's more like 2-10W
(depending on picture tube size and line frequency).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is also correct, that the 25 watt light bulb is out of context. It's
interesting to note, your alleged expert has said 2-10 watt; and Sam, you first
said only 1 or 2 watts, and then equivocated shortly thereafter, and said no
more that 5 watts for a large screen TV. So it seems your expert has
ssubstantial disagreements with you Sam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>3. Power is dissipated in the HOT when it switches OFF and carriers are
>> being swept out of the junction (or some such - I don't recall all the
>> details). In a properly designed deflection system, there is virtually
>> no voltage across the HOT when it is being switched ON.
Not entirely true. There certainly are conduction losses (I*VCE,sat)
and in an optimum drive design they are balanced with switching losses.
Conduction losses are the main reason for not applying MOSFETs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe there are a few obscure TV's that used MOSFET's in the horizontal
output. I KNOW first hand that there are SVGA and XGA computer monitors that
use MOSFET's in the horizontal output. Off the top of my head example, an IBM
model 6543 XGA made in 1995 has an horizontal output FET.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Sam, in the real world, line operated SMPS have efficiencies of 70% to 80%.
> In the real world, BATTERY OPERATED equipment have SMPS that are 90%+
> efficient.> But Sam, we were talking about LINE OPERATED TV's that only
> have a flyback (converter). And additionally, this particular flyback
> converter has to do two things, convert voltages, AND deliver magnetic scans
> to give a distortion free picture, and efficiency is simply not a primary,
> nor even secondary design concern. Therefore, I would guess that a TV
> flyback converter operates at 50% efficiency.
He is totally wrong here. Efficiency is an important design because HOTs and
heatsinks are expensive. Also reliability is a big issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I disagree with this anonomous, alleged sweep design engineer. Efficiency and
reliability are important, yes, BUT of paramount importance in the RETAIL
market is how cheaply/competive can it be made. From a manufacture
costs/sales standpoint, efficiency is of secondary importance at best.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, what is efficiency ? There is a giant amount of blind power circulating
between the deflection coil and the flyback caps, but this does not contribute
to any output. In fact, at zero beam current, no output power is produced, so
efficiency = 0 ? Assume that 10 W is dissipated in the HOT and 10 W in the
line coil, would you say that efficiency is 50% ? You might indeed. Fact is,
efficiency is of no concern here, only absolute dissipation. The deflection
coil and the line output transformer both dissipate quite a bit (resistive,
skin effect, proximity effect = eddy current) and potential gain is usually
not worth the extra cost.
>> 4. I can put you in touch with a TV deflection system designer who has used
>> the
> Sam, I think you should get in touch with your friend, for yourself, and
> stop generalizing and comparing SMPS for battery operated equipment, to line
> operated TV flyback supplies.
The comparison is indeed tricky. BTW, our line circuits are generally NOT line
operated, if that refers to the mains line. There is always a mains-isolation
SMPS between them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is a disingenuous distraction. I would think my point to be obvious. I
said that there are single purpose SMPS with efficiencies of 90%, but that
invariably, they are battery operated high tech expensive equipment, which
motivated the manufacture to spend a lot of extra money in order to achieve the
difficult 90% efficiencies. When I said "line operated," I thought it was
obvious my point was that it was plugged into AC, and did not operate on
batteries, and therefore the paramount issue to expend the effort of 90%
efficiency was necessary at almost any price because it would lengthen battery
lifetime/device operation; did not apply to a low tech TV that was plugged in.
I also said that a TV flyback supply had to do a lot of different things at
once, i.e., flyback (generate the HV), Buck (generate the low DC voltages, and
generate the horizontal deflection, generate the horizontal deflection with
good linearity. That is quite a lot to do, and as a general rule of thumb,
when multiple functions are performed, there are conflicting design demands,
and compromises are invariably necessary. Compromises that usually
impact/degrade pure efficiency.
>> figure of 1 or 2 W as a design guideline. Many HOTs run COOL to the
>> touch with a minimal heat sink.
> Only one or two watts? Then explain to me why TV's typically have HOT's
> with 5 amp collectors (and monitors have HOT's with typically 10 amp
> collectors)? If there is so little power dissipated within the HOT itself;
> then why are the manufacturers wasting so much money with expensive,
> unnecessarily large capacity HOT's, (if we are to believe what you've
> written)?
A normal TV runs at 4-5 A peak-peak, a 5 A HOT would seem to be intended for a
31 kHz TV then. There is of course no immediate relationship with dissipated
power. The HOT is physically large because of large current and high voltage,
not because of dissipation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First, I can EASILY cite THOUSANDS of manufactured 15khz TV's by model numbers
that have 5A horizontal output transistors. Actually, a 5A is the typical
median device that will be found in a 27" TV for the last 20 years; a FEW 13"
Color TV's will have as little as 3.5A, There are quite a few 27" TV's will
have a 7A hor out, (indeed Sony was having problems with MANY models of 27"
sets manufactured in the early 1990s with the same basic chassis, that were
born with a 7A, that frequently developed repeat/premature hor out failure, and
the Sony FACTORY modification was to use an 8A replacement/upgrade, to address
the problem of premature failures.
Second, I can easily cite HUNDREDS of model numbers of 15" computer monitors
that have 7A horizontal outputs as the median device; some 13" have 5A, many
15" have 10A, some 17" computer monitors have 12A hor outputs.
Sam, if your anonymous expert can assert that 5A hor outputs would only be
found in a 31khz monitor; I am left to seriously question his real world
expertise. Perhaps, for the sake of devils advocate argument, this alleged
expert might be an engineering head/administrator/breaucrat of some sort, who
might be only vaguely aware of what his (alleged) subordinates, who are really
the one's doing the design work, designing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I respectfully disagree. IMO, the vast amount of power in the majority of
> TV's (those without SMPS), passes through the horizontal output
> transistor. It is my opinion that the vast amount of power consumed
> EITHER occurs while generating the HV and Horiz sweep itself, OR while the
> Horizontal output is generating the secondary voltages to the Vertical,
> Sound, IF's etc, (i.e., performing the function of a SMPS).
Most power is of course delivered to the high voltage, about 40-60 W average.
70% of that is dissipated in the shadow mask.
> For argument sake, let's suppose the gross power consumption is perhaps 60W
> in a particular TV, I would suspect that a total of 50W is actually
occuring/being disspiated in the horizontal output tranistor.
Not reall true for reasons mentioned above. Where does this fellow assume
that the energy for the light output comes from ? Oh, here it is:
> For another example, let's suppose you have a TV that generates 25,000
> volts HV @ 0.001 milliamps to just the CRT. If you calculate it out, that
> represents 25 watts all by itself.
I assume he meant 1 mA, not 1 uA. It's more like 30 kV and 1.5-1.8 mA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I meant to say 25,000 volts, as a median value. Some color TV's have 20KV,
some have 32KV. But you are right, I meant to say 1ma. Also, I doubt if it is
1.5ma or greater, without it being either a projection, or a screen size of at
least 30", but even so, your vague statement, if accurate at all, might be
accurate on untypical esoteric top of the line model from a premium company
> Continuing on, if a TV consumes 25W for just HV, and perhaps another 15W
> for other functions like Vertical, for a total of 40W; IMO, the horiz
> output would perhaps have an average power rating capacity of 70W.
HOTs do not even have a power rating because nobody cares...
>>>>>>>>>>>
When was the last time you looked at the manufactures specifications for
horizontal output transistors. They certainly do have wattage power ratings.
Even Phillips publish this data. Do you still allege you work for Phillips????
> disagree and do so for the above reasons. It is certainly possible that I
> am wrong, and you are right.
And it is possible that on specific points both of you are wrong... As a
consolation: it is horribly difficult to know where all the power is going. A
measurement of voltage and current over the HOT can easily give an error in
Power of a factor of 2 or more. (Because each varies a factor 1000 or so, the
oscilloscope just doesn't have enough dynamic range to measure this.)
I hope it will make you all sleep better if you know that we've got some
experts working on this and that there are no immediate problems to worry
about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The substantial problem was A) Sam interjecting his lay opinion, and B) Sam's
closed mind. Furthermore, I am not losing any sleep on it. I am having no
problems repairing real life sweep failures. I would be in serious trouble, if
I embraced the theories of both you and Sam.
>>FWIW, the actual power dissipated in an HOT in a properly designed circuit
>>is a couple of watts. The power dissipation rating of the HOT is one of
>>those specs that only really matters if there is a problem.
Correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First, the statement "the actual power dissipated in an HOT in a properly
designed circuit is a couple of watts" is suspect on it's face. What the hell
does "properly designed" supposed to mean? How much is a couple of watts? Two
watts, or 20 watts? How many watts Vs what screen size? What meaning/value
does "properly designed" have to do in the real world? The discussion was
regarding repairing TV's that are sold, formerly worked, but are now broken,
i.e., you fix what was sold, i.e., the real world.
Simplified, the real world, where a manufacture MUST NEVER FORGET that if his
product is too expensive, it will not sell. I was speaking of my first hand
real world experience, of product actually sold. Sam would like to
steer/distract "us" with theoretical possibilities; but how much would this
ideal "properly designed' TV cost to buy? And how many would pay the premium
to but this speculated "properly made" TV? You repeatedly speak of only a
couple of watt's, and properly designed, but you have NEVER cited not one
specific example to support your claim.
Indeed, can Sam cite significant numbers of median of either 20" or 25" of so
called "properly designed" TV's that REALLY dissipate "only 1 or 2 watts"? But
even if Sam could CREDIBLY cite a few such sets, the simple fact remains I was
participating in a discussion of suggestions to help repair the typical TV, not
some ideal (and alleged) obscure extraordinary example.
To explain, the issue that started this, was Sam asserting the collector
wattage and current rating were immaterial in horizontal output circuits. I
disagreed with Sam, and CONTINUE to say unequivocally, that it does matter very
much I invite either you, whoever you may be, or Sam, to prove your
assertions. I invite you Sam to remove a 5A horizontal output from sampling of
27" color TV's, and install a 3.5A device, and see what WILL happen. Do it,
and report back how hot the hor out becomes.
The dissipation is rarely a problem, until you get thermal runaway on a
heatsink that was designed for typical dissipation. But before that you would
already have unacceptable distortion of the picture geometry (losses damping
linearity error). So nobody cares about a 125 W power rating (which is a
bullshit figure anyway because it assumes an infinite heatsink) if you would
never want to dissipate more than 10 W for other reasons. Ignore that rating!
Here's a 10 watt figure from your expert Sam. To remind you, you first said 1
or 2 watts, that you later equivocated and said no more than 5 watts; but your
anonymous alleged expert says it can be as much as 10 watts. 10 watts is 1000%
greater than 1 watts. 10 watts is 200% greater than your "no more than 5
watts" equivocation.
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Latest Sam stuff: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/
Lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
http://www.misty.com/~don/lasersam.html
In article <199808021735...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ral...@aol.com
(RalphWM) writes:
Sam,
Sam, I am still waiting to learn your personal experience with power factor.
But having said/reminded you of that, I will answer you.
ISubject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: ral...@aol.com (RalphWM)
>Date: 7/31/98 11:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808010325...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>Sam,
>
>You've been very quite. My question to everyone where I asked anyone who
>disagreed with me, to share their personal expertise regarding power
factor
>correction, applied to you also Sam. What exactly is your PERSONAL
>expertise
>regarding power factor correction. Pure theory? Or did you PERSONALLY
get
>your fingernal dirty?
>
>Ralph
>
>>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power
>
Sam,
My answer to you, is basically the same as my answer to Peter. I sincerely
doubt if you would ever be satisfied, of anything I could ever say to you. I
therefore direct you to refer to the countless of professional experts on the
topic, who actually work with power factor.
"EC&M" Sept 1994 written by Mr. Morgan"Improving Power Factor for greater
efficiency Part I." "High Power factor will enhance energy savings and reduce
costs."
"EC&M" Nov 1994 written by Mr. Morgan"Improving Power Factor for greater
efficiency Part II." "High Power factor will enhance energy savings and reduce
costs."
"EC&M" Dec 1990 written by Novak "energy Management; motors and capacitors team
up to save energy." "Reduce electrical loads through decreased Power
factor.....and through increased Power Factor."
I also will give you a homework assignment. Search around for older magnetic
ballast's for 2 40 W T12 bulbs, and make note of the current draw, AND
ADDITIONALLY, the marked power factor, i.e., is it "normal", or high power
factor. Then make a chart of two columns, on one side, put the current values
from the ballast's that had superior below average current consumption, and
enter an asterisk if it has high power factor. On the other side, enter the
magnetic ballast's that draw poor above average current, and enter an asterisk
IF it is high power factor. Then report back to sci.electronics, and let us
know the results. (I chose magnetic 40W T12 for a reason, it will be difficult
to find normal power factor ELECTRONIC ballast's to do the following comparison
against high power factor electronic; but will be comparatively easy to find
high and lower power factor magnetic 2 40W T12, the only catch will be you'll
probably have to do a "treasure hunt", and peak inside of existing fixtures.)
I will also remind you, that KWH in general residential use, for many decades,
I believe measure Reactive Power.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 8/5/98 9:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
>
Sam Goldwasser
> Sam, I am still waiting to learn your personal experience with power factor.
> But having said/reminded you of that, I will answer you.
But you have not - see below.
> ISubject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
> From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
> I posted a pair of basic questions. You answer them, and I will consider
> a reply to this post :-). In case you missed it:
> True or false - aside from transmission line losses, the two circuits below
> deliver the same power to the load, R, and consume (as well as read) the
> same real power assuming a clean sinusoid input?
> +-----------+ Load
> o---| W-h meter |--------------+-----+
> +-----------+ | |
> | / )
> AC | PF=.5 \ R ) L
> | / )
> | \ )
> | | |
> o--------+---------------------+-----+
> +-----------+ Load
> o---| W-h meter |------+-------+-----+
> +-----------+ | | |
> | | / )
> AC | _|_ C \ R ) L
> | PF=1 --- / )
> | | \ )
> | | | |
> o--------+-------------+-------+------+
> If we agree on this, then the next question I ask would be: Where are you
> putting this magic capacitor that is making your ballast consume less power
> and run cooler?
This was your reply:
(Ralph)
"My answer to you, is basically the same as my answer to Peter. I sincerely
doubt if you would ever be satisfied, of anything I could ever say to you. I
therefore direct you to refer to the countless of professional experts on the
topic, who actually work with power factor."
<Several references to what I assume are absolutely wonderful papers on
PF correction and the benefits.>
I'm still waiting for an answer. The set of references you produced is not
an answer. The questions above have a simple answer which anyone who has
taken Power Systems 101 would know in their sleep. Yes, I believe in basic
theory and that won't change. If that means I have a closed mind, so be it.
However, this gets back to the heart of the original thread. Which was my
statement that improving power factor does not change true power as measured
by a KWH meter which measures true power. Everything else in this thread has
been noise. From probably one of the earliest posts, I stated that improving
power factor was a good thing but that it didn't change real power used.
Everything you say still indicates that you base calculated savings entirely
on current consumption alone - which is approximately valid only if you are
charged for reactive power.
This seems to be the main statement of disagreement:
(Ralph):
"I will also remind you, that KWH in general residential use, for many
decades, I believe measure Reactive Power."
If that is true, then I humbly apologize for suggesting that improving
PF will not have a dramatic effect on utility bills. If it is not true,
you should do the same. If it is approximately equally divided among
various localities, then we call a truce :-).
Tom MacIntyre
10 watts is 200% greater than your "no more than 5
>watts" equivocation.
No...10W is 100% greater than 5W...the more verbose you become, the
more chance that you will be challenged. How would you calculate PS
regulation, using your above "calculation"? How about PFC? I'm no
expert, but when it comes to simple numbers....
Tom
Peter Duck
ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
> I will also remind you, that KWH in general residential use, for many
> decades, I believe measure Reactive Power.
This simple key sentence looms out of the fog of words, reminding us
of the basic error underlying these tedious diatribes :-(
If this belief were correct, PFC *would* reduce the consumers' bills, but
- Certainly in W. Europe, and I understand in N. America, the meters
of non-commercial customers do *not* respond to the reactive
(out-of-phase) part of the current: 'we're not charged real money for
imaginary power'.
- Any meter that didn't ignore reactive current should/would be marked
KVAh, not KWh: the definition of 'the watt', real/true power, excludes
any 'imaginary' part.
The VA is not an obscure, rarely-used unit: transformer ratings, for
example, are expressed in them.
Apart from seeing whether their meter is marked KWh or KVAh, anyone
could turn everything else off and confirm that the current drawn *by
a cpacitor alone* doesn't register on the power-meter (except for the
very small real losses).
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
RalphWM
It would normally be admirable to support a friend; but in this case,
supporting your friend would only promote incorrect information.
No one has to take my word for it, i.e., that high power factor can EASILY
reduce power consumption up to 50%. All "they" have to do is research the
topic. Or read the articles at "EC&M".
Or get the "Ruud" HID lighting catalouge, which I have excerpted and posted.
If there are teo 35W High Pressure sodium fixtures, bith with the exact same
ballast, by the "normal power Factor" version that does not have the ONE
additional part draws 0.85 amps, and the High Power factor version draws 0.39
amps; you calculate the math for everone here how much current consumption was
reduced. Looks to me to be a bit GREATER than a 50% reduction.
No one has to believe me. All the have to do is take their head out of the
sand, and reasearch the issue. I have spoon feed both Sam and Peter. It is
now up to Sam and Peter to chose to investigate, or remain ignorant. As for as
who is right; the people reading this can decide for themselves. I have
recieved quite a few private email on the thread, all supportive of myself.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca (Tom MacIntyre)
>Date: 8/7/98 6:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35cb8273...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>
RalphWM
Ah, you're back, but nothing has changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>Date: 8/7/98 7:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808080...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> In message <199808070348...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
>> I will also remind you, that KWH in general residential use, for many
>> decades, I believe measure Reactive Power.
>
>This simple key sentence looms out of the fog of words, reminding us
>of the basic error underlying these tedious diatribes :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
peter, the only thing tedious is your poor grip on reality. In spite of my
providing you with the sources of professional electrical engineers and
manufacturers, you still chose to cling to your incorrect postion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>If this belief were correct, PFC *would* reduce the consumers' bills, but
>
>- Certainly in W. Europe, and I understand in N. America, the meters
> of non-commercial customers do *not* respond to the reactive
> (out-of-phase) part of the current: 'we're not charged real money for
> imaginary power'.
>
>- Any meter that didn't ignore reactive current should/would be marked
> KVAh, not KWh: the definition of 'the watt', real/true power, excludes
> any 'imaginary' part.
>
>The VA is not an obscure, rarely-used unit: transformer ratings, for
>example, are expressed in them.
>
>Apart from seeing whether their meter is marked KWh or KVAh, anyone
>could turn everything else off and confirm that the current drawn *by
>a cpacitor alone* doesn't register on the power-meter (except for the
>very small real losses).
>
>--
>Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
peter, FYI, I spoke with the electric training specialistr for Illinois Power
and Light. he informed me that yes, there are different KWH meters, and yes,
they are slected depending on the load, for optium accuracy; BUT that it was
not a critical issue.
alas peter, it is you who continue the diatribes. nothing has changed, I
provide verifible proof and experts in the field of power factor, and you (and
sam) continue to spout the same technobable.
and now, I will leave you and sam to babble all you want. peter, I know you
are retired, and I suspect sam is largely retired also. I have a job, and a
life, and have better things to do that to waste my time trying to convince
people with closed minds that the "world is not flat". goodbye, enjoy talking
into your magic mirror peter.
Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RalphWM
Sam, if ignorance is bliss, you must be estatic! I will waste no more time
trying to save you from your own ignorance. Anyone reading this thread has
ample, unbiased, published independant expert information to make up their own
mind. Think about it Sam, the great Sam Wasserman, effectively trying to
argue that the world is flat, and proud to post it on the internet for all
eternity via Dejanews to boot! No one hase to believe me, not even you Sam.
All anyone has to do, is refer to the electrical experts on power factor I have
cited. Those experts are the tip of the iceberg; there are MANY more that can
be found with very little effort.
P.S. it was always very clear to me that you have no experience whatsoever
regarding power factor correction. I just wanted to see how long you would
refuse to admit it on the thread.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Devices to fool the Power Meter
>From: s...@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
>Date: 8/7/98 9:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SAM.98Au...@colossus.stdavids.picker.com>
>
>"I will also remind you, that KWH in general residential use, for many
> decades, I believe measure Reactive Power."
>