Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power meter)
Sam Goldwasser
first thing that popped up when I hit the Net Search button, entered:
'kwh true power factor'
as the search criteria.
(Note: the search engine is apparently based on the OR of these keywords
with a weighted score based on how many appeared.)
Of the 30 or so entries (and possible links from those), I got the
following which actually talked about electric rates in various locations:
http://www.ci.zeeland.mi.us/ele7.htm
http://www.ceu.edu/price/utility/Elerates.htm
http://www.tctc.com/~gfrench/appendix.htm
http://www.snopud.com/finance/adjustmts.htm
http://www.kuenergy.com/ratesked.html
http://www.blackhillspower.com/rates.htm
http://www.mge.com/home/you/electric_rates.html
http://www.pea.or.th/ratee1.htm
http://www.siloamsprings.com/elecrat.htm
http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/accounts/rates/ac5_rt98.htm
http://www.burbank-utilities.com/rr316.html
http://www.amaze.net/~phartung/fme/smallgenservice.htm
Without exception, residential rates have NO mention of power factor or KVA
in the billing calculation and are ALWAYS listed in terms of KWH used. (There
may be other surcharges applied that are indirectly affected by the overall
transmission costs but not specifically to that customer.) Some of these sites
do list power factor or KVA (rather than KWH) for industrial and commercial
customers but never for residential customers. Clearly, I could have spent
more time and collected more links but this was at random and in no case did
I NOT include one that had any relevance to power factor correction or
electric rates.
I tried and failed to get anything for Illinois Power.
Except for killing the cookies, this was sort of a fun exercise. :-).
--- 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
John R. Hepburn
Sam Goldwasser wrote in message ...
Well I did my homework as asked (Find a website which clearly supports our
position). I found two, both creditable source (not some unknowns opinion on
his little web page) One clearly spells out what reactive power is(and
isn't) and the other is from an industrial standpoint but in the process of
explaining what p.f. correction is all about it clearly states that only
resistive power is measured by a kwh meter.
It is on the home machine and of course I'm just taking a lunch break at the
shop, so I will post tonight. It should end this debate.
Drum roll anyone?
John R. Hepburn
John's Electronic Services
jhep...@recorder.ca
John R. Hepburn
I apologize to those who encountered browser problems, the urls are
http://www.microconsultants.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/lmphotonics/pwrfact.htm
John
RalphWM
With respect, I am confused by the two www sites you posted, which are in
disagreement with each other. Tthe first URL, below, which claims that
improving pf will not reduce electric bills, reads a bit like a "elvis is still
alive" story.
http://www.microconsultants.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm
On the other hand, a fast read of the second URL, is suportive of what I have
said all along, i.e, improving the pf of inductive loads will result in reduced
electric bills.
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/lmphotonics/pwrfact.htm
Some profesional electrical engineering URL that directly applies to power
factor, and REACTIVE KWH meters:
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out23.shtml
The above USA www site describes REACTIVE KWH meters, and why REACTIVE KWH
metering is perferable, and widely used in the USA.
http://www.capacitor.com/power2.htm
The above URL discusses power factor correction, and why it is benefical.
http://www.delta-systems.co.uk/delta-systems/jp.html
The above URL discusses how improving prower factor can reduce the overall
electric bill up to 20% in the UK. Please note that Tony would have "us"
believe, that KWH meters in the UK measure True Power, and if his assertion
were true, would prevent the 20% reduction in electric bills in the UK in
regard to reduced KWH consumption by way of increasing power factor.
Ralph
>>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: "John R. Hepburn" <jhep...@recorder.ca>
>Date: 8/10/98 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <pKMz1.366$kE5.5...@198.235.216.4>
John R. Hepburn
RalphWM wrote in message
<199808110623...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
HHmm, I was told by a few, afterwards, that last portion of the second post
could be taken the wrong way. I thought it put the issue to rest, but I
guess I made the classic mistake of thinking other people think the same way
I do.
The way I interpreted it was that the first half of the second post was, for
all realistic purposes, what was happening.(Which does not support your
arguement to small degree ,even in theory) The second half was a theoretical
model and I felt was your 'ace of spades' for real world savings. I felt by
getting this issue addressed, no stone would be left unturned and nothing
mystical would be left to support anyones argument. (fair?). My feeling on
that portion is that it left your arguement , while not technically
incorrect, practically impotent. You know , if the mystery big guns are
unboxed and the turn out to be pea shooters.....well the war is over. On
that portion they were only going about saying that theory is not always
100% some times it is only 99.99%. It is standard practice in examining that
0.01 % (to see how it exists) that we blow up the catalyst out of proportion
in order to bring it into the real world for examination. After that is done
one must look at the magnitude of the results and then deflate them again to
there proper size and relevance. Which I felt hurt your position immensely.
Their point that they made required the harmonics to an infinite order just
to make that small point. How far removed from the real world is achieving a
square wave (or anything close to it) from a fundamental and its harmonics?
Remember, mathematically that was the most powerful position for your
argument, and it was weak even with totally unrealistic conditions given to
its position in order to make the point. The authors were quite happy with
their theoretical pea shooter , but you needed a real world gun and now that
the mystery vail of harmonics has been lifted , (an in such a manner that
was biased towards your position) you are left with no realistic way of
supporting your argument to a meaningful level.
I do not understand how shrinking your strong point to its proper
theoretical size, supported your real world position?.I do not remember
anyone saying that you did not have a theoretical point, not at all. All
they were saying is that it was not relevant in the real world,and could not
support your test results. By simple extrapolation from that model, that
position is fully supported.
Bill Coffel
>John,
>
>With respect, I am confused by the two www sites you posted, which are in
>disagreement with each other. Tthe first URL, below, which claims that
>improving pf will not reduce electric bills, reads a bit like a "elvis is still
>alive" story.
>
>http://www.microconsultants.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm
>
>On the other hand, a fast read of the second URL, is suportive of what I have
>said all along, i.e, improving the pf of inductive loads will result in reduced
>electric bills.
Quote from the first paragraph at
>http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/lmphotonics/pwrfact.htm
"Power Factor correction is applied to circuits which include
induction motors as a means of reducing the inductive component of the
current and thereby reduce the losses in the supply. There should be
no effect on the operation of the motor itself."
Note: it says losses in the supply .
It also states in the first large block of text
"Take for example a motor with a current draw of 100 Amps and a power
factor of 0.75 The resistive component of the current is 75 Amps and
this is what the KWh meter measures. "
Note: It clearly states that kWh meters measure only the resistive
component.
Further along it states:
"Some power retailers offer incentives for operating with a power
factor of better than 0.9, while others penalise consumers with a poor
power factor. There are many ways that this is metered, but the net
result is that in order to reduce wasted energy in the distribution
system, the consumer will be encouraged to apply power factor
correction."
OK I will concede that the first sentence could easily be construed to
mean that all utilities that don't offer incentives do penalize. I
feel the author meant to say "while some others".
I think this needs to be taken in the context of the examples which
are using 200kW and 375kW motors (roughly 250 and 500 horsepower)
clearly not residential devices.
>Some profesional electrical engineering URL that directly applies to power
>factor, and REACTIVE KWH meters:
>
>http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out23.shtml
>
>The above USA www site describes REACTIVE KWH meters, and why REACTIVE KWH
>metering is perferable, and widely used in the USA.
By my reading the page referenced above does not state or imply
reactive metering is widely used in the USA (or anywhere else).
It discusses how with TWO conventional three phase kWh meters reactive
power CAN be measured on a three phase electric service.
This is very, very, different from the norm.
Residential electric billing in the USA is by kwh.
Conventional kWh meters are just that " WATT meters".
My reference is a first year electrical engineering class, after 25
years I don't have the text book handy. Electric meters have not
changed in basic design. They have a voltage coil and a current coil
and measure the product (true power). Go out in your backyard and
read the words on the meter.
If any electric utility tries to change to some other type of meter
they will have a class action lawsuit to face and lose.
If a large commercial customer and the utility company agree on some
discount kWh rate and some charge for PF that is up to them.
They can also agree on dozens of other concepts such as peak shaving,
load shedding, or co-generation.
My office building has 6 three phase electric meters. None of them
have any readout except kWh and demand.
Demand is the highest kW used in a 1/2hour period since the demand
counter was reset. The meter reader breaks a seal and pushes the
demand reset button after reading the meter each month. demand is
billed as a line item on the bill, however as a compensation the kWh
rate is lower than residential customers pay. This penalizes
commercial users who use lots of power for a short period. It would
cost a more to come in at 8 am and turn on all the lights, computers,
and air conditioners which would run constantly for those 30 minutes
than if the air conditioners were started at 6 am (via timer) then
they would be cycling by the time the workforce arrived.
There is NO readout of PF or any other reactive component.
The only cost to residential and small to medium commercial users
associated with power factor is the additional heating of THEIR wiring
and the associated wattage used. This is going to be fractions of a
percent and only on low PF loads.
Uncorrected PF can be very costly if the increased current flow causes
you to buy a larger standby generator, buy a larger power inverter,
buy a larger UPS, add new circuits, or add a larger electric service.
The utility company does not like a PF less than 1. Low PF causes
losses in the utility's wires (including transformers and generator
windings). The inductive PF of motors is often canceled by the
capacitive PF of switching power supplies and light dimmers. When
necessary utility companies will add PF correction capacitors (look
around utility poles for rectangular metal cans with 2 terminals
usually in groups of three for three phase).
If anyone of you truly believes they are being billed for reactive
power, please provide the manufacturer and model number of your
electric meter and quote the description of the charge on your
electric bill also the name and address of your utility company.
>http://www.capacitor.com/power2.htm
>
>The above URL discusses power factor correction, and why it is benefical.
to a PAPER MILL!
>
>http://www.delta-systems.co.uk/delta-systems/jp.html
>
>The above URL discusses how improving prower factor can reduce the overall
>electric bill up to 20% in the UK. Please note that Tony would have "us"
>believe, that KWH meters in the UK measure True Power, and if his assertion
>were true, would prevent the 20% reduction in electric bills in the UK in
>regard to reduced KWH consumption by way of increasing power factor.
This is also aimed at large commercial users!
RalphWM
The crux of your reply, and everyone else's for that matter, is that KWH
meters, aledgedly, measure true Power. That is simply not so in the vast
majority of the time, at least in the USA. KWH meter in the USA measure
Reactive power.
To the people who assert a simple inspection into the glass of a KWH should
convince me that it would be impossible for it to measure anything except True
Power. FYI, a simple phase shifting transformer is incorportated within the
Reactive KWH, and therby allows it to detect and measure Reactive power
consumption.
As for the web site, where it states that the KWH meter only measures the
resitive component; this statement is predicated on the misguided belief that
the KWH meter to be a True Power KWH. In the USA, the predominat meter in use
is a Reactive KWH. Tony can fabricate laws that True Power KWH is mandatory in
the UK, Peter can make inflamatory remarks that it would be a crime if anything
except a True Power KWH was used; all these things are misguided opinion and
conjecture, BUT these people incorrectly state it as fact.
Regardless the pro or con to Reactive KWH vs True Power KWH meters, the simple
fact remains, regardless the "fariness" is that Reactive meters are used the
vast majority of the time in the USA.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: b...@datamix.com (Bill Coffel)
>Date: 8/12/98 3:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35d72e36....@news.supernews.com>
Tom MacIntyre
>Regardless the pro or con to Reactive KWH vs True Power KWH meters, the simple
>fact remains, regardless the "fariness" is that Reactive meters are used the
>vast majority of the time in the USA.
There is no such thing as "reactive kWH"...reactive power is measured
in vars. The term (which I believe Peter pointed out as being an SI
term) watt is reserved for describing true power.
Tom
>
>Ralph
Robert Blackshaw
>
> ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
> >Regardless the pro or con to Reactive KWH vs True Power KWH meters, the simple
> >fact remains, regardless the "fariness" is that Reactive meters are used the
> >vast majority of the time in the USA.
>
> in vars. The term (which I believe Peter pointed out as being an SI
> term) watt is reserved for describing true power.
>
the only ones who wear a mask and come armed. Our Son's home
in Ottawa (where it gets as hot as Maryland and he keeps it
really cool) is half the size of ours. Our house has 2 x 6
walls with R-19 and R-30 in the attic. He paid $60 for a
month of AC, our last bill was $260.
Bob (served by Better Gassed and Electrocuted)
--
"A little sunburnt by the glare of life."
E. B. Browning
John R. Grant
>Regardless of how they measure it, US electric companies are
>the only ones who wear a mask and come armed. Our Son's home
>in Ottawa (where it gets as hot as Maryland and he keeps it
>really cool) is half the size of ours. Our house has 2 x 6
>walls with R-19 and R-30 in the attic. He paid $60 for a
>month of AC, our last bill was $260.
>
>Bob (served by Better Gassed and Electrocuted)
I can't resist the temptation to reply here, even though I swore off after
some of the total absurdity I saw being bantied about by some of the
correspondents here.
PLEASE use dollars per kWh when making comparisons between various services!
It is completely non-productive to say "Joe had a bill of $xx and mine was
$yy" as a basis for any argument about rates. Compare the rates, not the
totals! In Bob's response, he roughly compares temperatures at his location
vs. his son's and makes a vague assertion that his home is well insulated.
Then he uses this to support a claim that a Canadian power company has rates
that are one-fourth of his US company. I believe this is what a friend of
mine would call a "straw man" argument!
RalphWM
Regardless your rebuttals, your rebuttal is based on opinion. You can pick
apart what you believe to be illogical regarding the particular name assignied
to the meter that quantifies how much billable power is consumed by the utility
customer; remember, exactly what is legally defined as billible, is determined
by each states Public Service Commision. I reiterate, if the particular states
PSC determines, for whatever reason, be it good, or bad, that in their opinion
it is desirable to measure the consumption of Reactive, (or the similar
Apparent power offered by one other), than that is what is done, and billed
peroid.
And please, do not respond to the preceeding, with something to the effect that
you would consider the preceeding real life fact, to be perhaps outrageous;
such a possible response, if expressed, would not address the reality of the
issue.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: tmac...@highlander.cbnet.ns.ca (Tom MacIntyre)
>Date: 8/13/98 7:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35d2cc24...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>
>
>ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>
>
>>Regardless the pro or con to Reactive KWH vs True Power KWH meters, the
>simple
>>fact remains, regardless the "fariness" is that Reactive meters are used the
>>vast majority of the time in the USA.
>
>There is no such thing as "reactive kWH"...reactive power is measured
>in vars. The term (which I believe Peter pointed out as being an SI
>term) watt is reserved for describing true power.
>
>Tom
>
>>
>>Ralph
>
Bill Coffel
On 13 Aug 1998 05:00:07 GMT, ral...@aol.com (RalphWM) wrote:
>Bill,
>
>The crux of your reply, and everyone else's for that matter, is that KWH
>meters, aledgedly, measure true Power. That is simply not so in the vast
>majority of the time, at least in the USA. KWH meter in the USA measure
>Reactive power.
>
>To the people who assert a simple inspection into the glass of a KWH should
>convince me that it would be impossible for it to measure anything except True
>Power. FYI, a simple phase shifting transformer is incorportated within the
>Reactive KWH, and therby allows it to detect and measure Reactive power
>consumption.
>
>As for the web site, where it states that the KWH meter only measures the
>resitive component; this statement is predicated on the misguided belief that
>the KWH meter to be a True Power KWH. In the USA, the predominat meter in use
>is a Reactive KWH. Tony can fabricate laws that True Power KWH is mandatory in
>the UK, Peter can make inflamatory remarks that it would be a crime if anything
>except a True Power KWH was used; all these things are misguided opinion and
>conjecture, BUT these people incorrectly state it as fact.
>
>Regardless the pro or con to Reactive KWH vs True Power KWH meters, the simple
>fact remains, regardless the "fariness" is that Reactive meters are used the
>vast majority of the time in the USA.
Please cite the source of this information.
What brands and models of kWh meters do you believe measure reactive
power?
If they are sold to utility companies based on this benefit the
manufacturers must have literature touting this feature.
Please explain how a simple device can measure true power and reactive
power simultaneously.
Tom MacIntyre
>Tom,
>
>Regardless your rebuttals, your rebuttal is based on opinion. You can pick
>apart what you believe to be illogical regarding the particular name assignied
>to the meter that quantifies how much billable power is consumed by the utility
>customer; remember, exactly what is legally defined as billible, is determined
>by each states Public Service Commision. I reiterate, if the particular states
>PSC determines, for whatever reason, be it good, or bad, that in their opinion
>it is desirable to measure the consumption of Reactive, (or the similar
>Apparent power offered by one other), than that is what is done, and billed
>peroid.
I suspect that the power factor in my home is well over 50%...I'd
WELCOME the power company to bill me for reactive power ONLY, under
those circumstances...the "similar Apparent power"...similar?? That's
like saying my leg is similar to me!!
Will you now please state, for all who are interested in this thread,
a rough definition for true power, reactive power, apparent power, and
the relationship between them...simple terms? When this thread
started, I was very rusty on all of it, but I looked it up in an
electronics circuits textbook (which surprisingly enough, contains
more fact than opinion), and I think I have a pretty good rudimentary
understanding of it now...I just want to see how your opinion stacks
up against the facts that are easily verifiable.
Tom
Tony Duell
: I suspect that the power factor in my home is well over 50%...I'd
: WELCOME the power company to bill me for reactive power ONLY, under
Considering I can trivially make my power factor close to 1 if I don't
care about true power consumption (and thus make my reactive power
consumption as small as I like), I also wish I was charged for reactive
power only!
For example, I could use the electical energy to boil water. I can make a
non-inductive heating element, which a power factor very close to 1. No
matter what the real power it consumes is, the reactive power is close to
0. As close to 0 as I like.
I then use the steam to run a steam engine which turns a generator and
use that to run all my other loads.
Inefficient. Sure!. But it also takes next-to-0 reactive power. So
presumably I don't pay much to run this setup, right?
: those circumstances...the "similar Apparent power"...similar?? That's
: like saying my leg is similar to me!!
Agreed. Reactive power and apparent power have accepted definitions in
electrical engineering. Definitions which are given in over a dozen books
on my bookshelves alone. And they are not defined as the same thing in
any of them. They're not even similar.
: Will you now please state, for all who are interested in this thread,
: a rough definition for true power, reactive power, apparent power, and
I've yet to see Ralph answer a single question on electical engineering.
Quite amazing, really.
: the relationship between them...simple terms? When this thread
Not really definitions, but with linear loads, sinusoidal supply, etc :
Apparent power = V * I
True power = Apparent power * cos (\phi)
Reactive power = Apparent power * sin (\phi)
Apparent power ^2 = True power ^2 + Reactive power ^2
-tony
RalphWM
It may surpise you Tony, that I will not dance to your tune. BTW, this is
called sci.electronics.repair. If you want to discuss the minutae of
technobabble, find a suitable newsgroug. But more to the point, I ignore you,
because your statemets repeatedly lack credibility. For example, you flatly
assert it is mandated by law in the UK that requires KWH consumption to be in
True Power. But when I asked you to identify the law, you get fuzzy on the
details.
As for your statement about that you'd increase your power factor, then boil
water, then...whatever; is in characther with everything else you say, and not
worth my time. But I will say this, that no one, not even myself, have ever
said that high power factor would reduce billable electric consumption to zero.
Either you missed that or you just wanted to waste everyone's time with your
drivel about using free power if Reactive KWH were the case.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: a...@p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
>Date: 8/15/98 5:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6r4ug3$1...@p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
RalphWM
I never said the KWH meter measured both Reactive and True Power. But I am sure
that while the typical KWH meter is optimized to respond/detect Reactive (or
perhaps Apparent Power as Prof Fergurson offered), that True power is still a
component of the KWH readings.
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out23.shtml
Some quotes from the above electrical technical school web site
"This unit uses the power triangle to illustrate the relationships between
active power, apparent power, and reactive power. The concept of metering
reactive power is explained. In addition, this unit explains how a phase
shifting device can be used to produce the phase relationships needed to meter
reactive power with conventional KWH meters. "
"Power Relationships
"Define reactive power and explain why reactive power consumption is measured.
Using phasor diagrams, explain the relationship between active power and
reactive power. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reactive metering is discussed further
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out24.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Different types of meters are discussed here
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out25.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of possible interest is the following which deals with demand metering
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out21.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
other web site pages dealing with electrical issues:
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out10.shtml
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out1.shtml
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out12.shtml
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out13.shtml
http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out14.shtml
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: b...@datamix.com (Bill Coffel)
>Date: 8/15/98 5:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35d85368...@news.supernews.com>
Tony Duell
: Tony,
: It may surpise you Tony, that I will not dance to your tune. BTW, this is
I thought you weren't going to read my replies any more...
: called sci.electronics.repair. If you want to discuss the minutae of
: technobabble, find a suitable newsgroug. But more to the point, I ignore you,
Supprising enough, sci.electronics.repair is a technical newsgroup.
That's why I (and many others) have been posting electrical engineering
here.
: because your statemets repeatedly lack credibility. For example, you flatly
: assert it is mandated by law in the UK that requires KWH consumption to be in
: True Power. But when I asked you to identify the law, you get fuzzy on the
: details.
Fine. Look up British Standard B.S.37 (or whatever has now replaced it,
if it has been replaced) and the Electricity Supply (Meters) Act. Those
are the laws to which I refer.
: As for your statement about that you'd increase your power factor, then boil
: water, then...whatever; is in characther with everything else you say, and not
: worth my time. But I will say this, that no one, not even myself, have ever
: said that high power factor would reduce billable electric consumption to zero.
By claiming that elecrtricity meters measure reactive power _only_,
that's exactly what you have said. It's high time you post _your_ definitions
of true power, reactive power and apparent power. I've posted mine
several times, and have given plenty of references where they can be found
To spell it out simply. A pure reactance (perfect inductor or capacitor)
'consumes' reactive power _only_, but you can get no useful work out of
it. The true power consumption is 0.
A pure resistor, including a heating element, consumes true power only.
The reactive power consumption is 0. And I can get useful work out of that.
So if I am billed for reactive power _only_, I can run a heating element.
And use that to produce mechanical work, etc.
: Either you missed that or you just wanted to waste everyone's time with your
: drivel about using free power if Reactive KWH were the case.
I _know_ you can't get free power like that. And the reason I can't is
that my electricity meter doesn't read reactive power.
: Ralph
-tony
Sam Goldwasser
claiming that the information needed to resolve this disagreement is in these
documents as I don't have them at my disposal. However, someone with a
subscription to the IEEE standards might want to specifically check out
C12.10-1987 since this deals directly with mechanical W-h meters and may
refer to or reference regulatory requirements for when and where they are used.
Electricity Metering Standards Collection, 1993 Edition * 448 pages *
[1-55937-364-4], [SH16733-NYF] * $108.00 * IEEE Mbr: $81.00.
The most relevant standards would appear to be:
(There are many more on things like demand metering, phase shift networks,
solid state and thermal meters, sockets, and switches, etc.)
C12.1-1988 American National Standard Code for Electricity Metering [1-55937-004-1]
C12.10-1987 American National Standard for Electromechanical Watthour Meters
Found at: http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/metering.html
Thanks.
Bill Coffel
>Bill,
>
>I never said the KWH meter measured both Reactive and True Power. But I am sure
>that while the typical KWH meter is optimized to respond/detect Reactive (or
>perhaps Apparent Power as Prof Fergurson offered), that True power is still a
>component of the KWH readings.
>
>http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out23.shtml
>
>Some quotes from the above electrical technical school web site
>
>"This unit uses the power triangle to illustrate the relationships between
>active power, apparent power, and reactive power. The concept of metering
>reactive power is explained. In addition, this unit explains how a phase
>shifting device can be used to produce the phase relationships needed to meter
>reactive power with conventional KWH meters. "
Thank You, you have just proven our point!
The last sentence says conventional KWH meters do NOT measure reactive
power, but can be adapted to measure reactive power (not apparent
power) with the assistance of a phase shifting device. Why would you
add a phase shifting device if they already have one as you claim?
>
>"Power Relationships
>
>"Define reactive power and explain why reactive power consumption is measured.
>Using phasor diagrams, explain the relationship between active power and
>reactive power. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Reactive metering is discussed further
>
>http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out24.shtml
Quotes from your reference:
Identify and describe the accuracy tests normally performed on a
kilovarhour meter.
Describe how series element tests are performed on a three-phase,
three-wire, two-stator kilovarhour meter.
END quote
CLEARLY STATES TWO STATOR METER !!
One for true power and one for reactive power!
Find ONE on a residence !
Also they correctly call a kilovarhour meter a "kilovarhour meter".
if kilowatthour meters measure apparent power (reactive and true power
simultaneously) why would apparent power meters have a different name
"kilovarhour meter"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Different types of meters are discussed here
>
>http://www.willearn.com/products/title_lists/outlines/elecmeter_vid_out25.shtml
Ralph, thank you for more evidence of our position and your
misunderstanding.
DIRECT QUOTE of the "overview" paragraph of YOUR reference:
In this unit, trainees are introduced to the concept and theory of "Q"
meters. The power factor range associated with "Q" meters is compared
to KWH and KVARH meters. Also included in this unit is an explanation
of how "Q" relates to active power, reactive power, and apparent
power.
END of quote
Ralph, please notice the distinction between KWH and KVARH meters.
You claim the former do not exist and the latter are always labeled as
the former.
RalphWM
Same old stuff with you eh?
You have selective "reading" handicap, i.e., your predjuidce let's you see what
you want to see. All that pasage states, that you cropped to skew it to
support your argument, is that phase shifting is incorporated within the basic
KWH meter in order to create the TYPICAL Reactive KWH meter.
Stated a different way, the untrained eye would not know which one they were
looking at from a simple visual inspection through the glass. It does not
state, as you would argue, that the phase shift transformer is unusuall. At
many other paragraphs and pages on the same web site, it repeatedly refers to
Reactive KWH meters being in widespread use.
You go on to slectively pick apart others pages where at one point they discuss
SPECIAL COMMERICAL POLYPHASE VARRIANTS, but of course your tunnel vision only
lets you see what you want. It's sad how you think you found the pot of gold
when you write:
"CLEARLY STATES TWO STATOR METER !! One for true power and one for reactive
power!"
You'll have to do much better than that Bill, if you want to convince me, to my
satisfaction, that you're right.
Ralph
>Subject: Re: Residential Electric Rates (Was: Devices to fool the power
>meter)
>From: b...@datamix.com (Bill Coffel)
>Date: 8/18/98 11:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35de234e....@news.supernews.com>
Bill Coffel
>Bill,
>
>Same old stuff with you eh?
>
>You have selective "reading" handicap, i.e., your predjuidce let's you see what
>you want to see. All that pasage states, that you cropped to skew it to
>support your argument, is that phase shifting is incorporated within the basic
>KWH meter in order to create the TYPICAL Reactive KWH meter.
>
>Stated a different way, the untrained eye would not know which one they were
>looking at from a simple visual inspection through the glass. It does not
>state, as you would argue, that the phase shift transformer is unusuall. At
>many other paragraphs and pages on the same web site, it repeatedly refers to
>Reactive KWH meters being in widespread use.
OK Ralph Here is a simple one, since you claim your source repeatedly
refers to "Reactive KWH meters" being in widespread use, please tell
us which line on which page uses the phrase "Reactive KWH meters".
I await your apology!
I'll save everyone some time. A search of all 686 documents on this
site finds "reactive kwh" 0 times.