Energy saver circuit

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by apogeusistemas@gmail.com, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. Guest

    , Nov 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GregS Guest

    GregS, Nov 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer Guest

    wrote:

    > Hi:
    > Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    > http://www.electric-saver.com/
    >
    > Thank you

    ????? "use a *capacitor* ?????
    Lemme see...
    1) Waste power to convert AC to DC.
    2) Use capacitor to filter these spikes (some power wasted here as well).
    3) Waste more energy to convert the DC back to AC.
    Did i miss something??
    BW, nice looking vacuum cleaner...
    Robert Baer, Nov 20, 2007
    #3
  4. Robert Baer wrote:

    > ????? "use a *capacitor* ?????


    Yep.

    > Lemme see...
    > 1) Waste power to convert AC to DC.


    Yep.

    > 2) Use capacitor to filter these spikes (some power wasted here as well).


    Yep.

    > 3) Waste more energy to convert the DC back to AC.


    Don't need to do that, in fact it DOESN'T do that anyway. (because that
    would mean it actually DID something).

    > Did i miss something??


    Yes, you forgot to mention the obvious, and say the magic word "scam".

    > BW, nice looking vacuum cleaner...


    Too small, it's slightly smaller than a pack of cigarettes.

    That said, one box will cause you to (eventually) die of lung cancer, the
    other will cause suicide when you realise you've been scammed.

    --
    Linux Registered User # 302622
    <http://counter.li.org>
    John Tserkezis, Nov 20, 2007
    #4
  5. D from BC Guest

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0800 (PST),
    wrote:

    >Hi:
    >Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    >http://www.electric-saver.com/
    >
    >Thank you


    I don't know too much about PF correction but I do know:

    Stove: Doesn't need power factor correction.
    Incandescent lights: Doesn't need PF correction.
    Vacuum: Who cares..not on long enough
    Computer: Already has PF correction.

    Ballast for tube lights: ??
    Let's say a ballast has a PF of 0.5.
    So 200Watts billed to supply 100Watts.
    (If I got that right..)

    Does a 90% efficient converter doing power factor correction that
    burns 10Watts to deliver 100watts to a ballast result in a power
    reduction of 90 watts?

    Fridge?


    D from BC
    D from BC, Nov 20, 2007
    #5
  6. In article <>, D from BC wrote:
    >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0800 (PST),
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Hi:
    >>Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    >>http://www.electric-saver.com/
    >>
    >>Thank you

    >
    >I don't know too much about PF correction but I do know:
    >
    >Stove: Doesn't need power factor correction.
    >Incandescent lights: Doesn't need PF correction.
    >Vacuum: Who cares..not on long enough
    >Computer: Already has PF correction.
    >
    >Ballast for tube lights: ??
    >Let's say a ballast has a PF of 0.5.
    >So 200Watts billed to supply 100Watts.
    >(If I got that right..)
    >
    >Does a 90% efficient converter doing power factor correction that
    >burns 10Watts to deliver 100watts to a ballast result in a power
    >reduction of 90 watts?


    Electric meters only bill for "real" watts, so one does not pay for
    extra amps due to poor power factor. Actually, one pays for watts lost in
    wiring downstream of the electric meter, but correcting power factor is
    unlikely to save more than a couple to occaisionally a few percent there.

    Power factor is mainly of concern to commercial and industrial
    customers, since power companies do not want to install or add capacity to
    carry current that does not translate to billable watts.

    Also, most fluorescent fixtures 32 watts or more already have high power
    factor.

    >Fridge?


    Power factor of most induction motors is said to be about .8.

    - Don Klipstein ()
    Don Klipstein, Nov 20, 2007
    #6
  7. D from BC Guest

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:03:37 +0000 (UTC), (Don
    Klipstein) wrote:

    >In article <>, D from BC wrote:
    >>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0800 (PST),
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hi:
    >>>Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    >>>http://www.electric-saver.com/
    >>>
    >>>Thank you

    >>
    >>I don't know too much about PF correction but I do know:
    >>
    >>Stove: Doesn't need power factor correction.
    >>Incandescent lights: Doesn't need PF correction.
    >>Vacuum: Who cares..not on long enough
    >>Computer: Already has PF correction.
    >>
    >>Ballast for tube lights: ??
    >>Let's say a ballast has a PF of 0.5.
    >>So 200Watts billed to supply 100Watts.
    >>(If I got that right..)
    >>
    >>Does a 90% efficient converter doing power factor correction that
    >>burns 10Watts to deliver 100watts to a ballast result in a power
    >>reduction of 90 watts?

    >
    > Electric meters only bill for "real" watts, so one does not pay for
    >extra amps due to poor power factor. Actually, one pays for watts lost in
    >wiring downstream of the electric meter, but correcting power factor is
    >unlikely to save more than a couple to occaisionally a few percent there.
    >
    > Power factor is mainly of concern to commercial and industrial
    >customers, since power companies do not want to install or add capacity to
    >carry current that does not translate to billable watts.
    >
    > Also, most fluorescent fixtures 32 watts or more already have high power
    >factor.
    >
    >>Fridge?

    >
    > Power factor of most induction motors is said to be about .8.
    >
    > - Don Klipstein ()


    Gee...so much for trying to defend a PF correction feature. :)
    Now that gizmo just looks like a glorified surge suppressor.
    I'll take a flying guess at under $5.00 in parts.. :p


    D from BC
    D from BC, Nov 20, 2007
    #7
  8. ehsjr Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi:
    > Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    > http://www.electric-saver.com/
    >
    > Thank you


    Yes. Here's a schematic showing a circuit that, unlike
    the thing shown at the url, _will_ save energy, when
    properly used:

    /
    AC ----o o----+
    |
    [Appliance]
    |
    AC ------------+

    It works for any AC mains powered electrical device.
    ehsjr, Nov 21, 2007
    #8
  9. Traver Guest

    On Nov 20, 6:03 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
    > In article <>, D from BC wrote:
    > >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0800 (PST),
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >>Hi:
    > >>Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    > >>http://www.electric-saver.com/

    >
    > >>Thank you

    >
    > >I don't know too much about PF correction but I do know:

    >
    > >Stove: Doesn't need power factor correction.
    > >Incandescent lights: Doesn't need PF correction.
    > >Vacuum: Who cares..not on long enough
    > >Computer: Already has PF correction.

    >
    > >Ballast for tube lights: ??
    > >Let's say a ballast has a PF of 0.5.
    > >So 200Watts billed to supply 100Watts.
    > >(If I got that right..)

    >
    > >Does a 90% efficient converter doing power factor correction that
    > >burns 10Watts to deliver 100watts to a ballast result in a power
    > >reduction of 90 watts?

    >
    > Electric meters only bill for "real" watts, so one does not pay for
    > extra amps due to poor power factor. Actually, one pays for watts lost in
    > wiring downstream of the electric meter, but correcting power factor is
    > unlikely to save more than a couple to occaisionally a few percent there.
    >
    > Power factor is mainly of concern to commercial and industrial
    > customers, since power companies do not want to install or add capacity to
    > carry current that does not translate to billable watts.
    >
    > Also, most fluorescent fixtures 32 watts or more already have high power
    > factor.
    >
    > >Fridge?

    >
    > Power factor of most induction motors is said to be about .8.
    >
    > - Don Klipstein ()- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I second this response. PFC does not magically save power, it only
    smooths out high peak currents to make the load look more resistive
    from the power comany's perspective. The power company only cares
    about power factor when the customer is drawing huge peak currents.
    Peak currents cause loss in their supply wires which is a loss to
    their bottom line. That's why power from the power company is supplied
    in such high voltages, it reduces the current and therefore the
    resistive loss in the wires.

    This box is a scam. Passive or active PFCs with any decent power
    output have huge components. You would waste more power in the PFC
    than you would save in the supply wires in a normal house and like I
    said, the power company does not monitor residential customers for bad
    power factor.

    Traver
    Traver, Nov 21, 2007
    #9
  10. LVMarc Guest

    Traver wrote:
    > On Nov 20, 6:03 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, D from BC wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:57 -0800 (PST),
    >>>wrote:

    >>
    >>>>Hi:
    >>>>Can you tell me how create an energy saver like this:
    >>>>http://www.electric-saver.com/

    >>
    >>>>Thank you

    >>
    >>>I don't know too much about PF correction but I do know:

    >>
    >>>Stove: Doesn't need power factor correction.
    >>>Incandescent lights: Doesn't need PF correction.
    >>>Vacuum: Who cares..not on long enough
    >>>Computer: Already has PF correction.

    >>
    >>>Ballast for tube lights: ??
    >>>Let's say a ballast has a PF of 0.5.
    >>>So 200Watts billed to supply 100Watts.
    >>>(If I got that right..)

    >>
    >>>Does a 90% efficient converter doing power factor correction that
    >>>burns 10Watts to deliver 100watts to a ballast result in a power
    >>>reduction of 90 watts?

    >>
    >> Electric meters only bill for "real" watts, so one does not pay for
    >>extra amps due to poor power factor. Actually, one pays for watts lost in
    >>wiring downstream of the electric meter, but correcting power factor is
    >>unlikely to save more than a couple to occaisionally a few percent there.
    >>
    >> Power factor is mainly of concern to commercial and industrial
    >>customers, since power companies do not want to install or add capacity to
    >>carry current that does not translate to billable watts.
    >>
    >> Also, most fluorescent fixtures 32 watts or more already have high power
    >>factor.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Fridge?

    >>
    >> Power factor of most induction motors is said to be about .8.
    >>
    >> - Don Klipstein ()- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >>- Show quoted text -

    >
    >
    > I second this response. PFC does not magically save power, it only
    > smooths out high peak currents to make the load look more resistive
    > from the power comany's perspective. The power company only cares
    > about power factor when the customer is drawing huge peak currents.
    > Peak currents cause loss in their supply wires which is a loss to
    > their bottom line. That's why power from the power company is supplied
    > in such high voltages, it reduces the current and therefore the
    > resistive loss in the wires.
    >
    > This box is a scam. Passive or active PFCs with any decent power
    > output have huge components. You would waste more power in the PFC
    > than you would save in the supply wires in a normal house and like I
    > said, the power company does not monitor residential customers for bad
    > power factor.
    >
    > Traver



    You are all right and there is some energy savings, too! The PF is a
    measure of the phase angle of the VI curves.they also provide "insight"
    int how much energy is being "wasted" by having a motor ..not operate at
    its maximum efficiency point/ as IT UNLIKELY TO HAVE A MATCH SYSTEM FOR
    A SINGLE "POINT", THEN you adjust the V I drive to make a system where
    the resultant drive waveform when combined with the motor response(s)
    offers optimal transducer for the given load"

    so it means that often motors are over specsed, compared to their
    nominal load, right. so you need right now 2 units of power asd you spec
    a motor with 100 units. this lets your mechanical system and some head
    room for dynamic effects, over coming startup conditions and extra for
    degradation over time, ,

    As it works out the PF is a measure of how lightly loaded the motor is,
    so you can tell by "looking at the PF" if a V I modfcation can MAKE the
    system to an optimum point.

    the final basis is now for a given nominal load without the "gadget" you
    get the over spedced motor and performance, by definition ...not
    optimimzed... then

    if you put in basically a "real-time" dynamic load matching device,
    obtained via waveform modification..then an optimal system, results by
    definition, and therefore for the same nominal load, the power consumed
    in an optimized system will be less than an open loop driven system...

    sO ITS NO FRAUD AND POSSIBLE. AND EASY TO GET CONFUSED BY DIFFERENT
    TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.

    fOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATING YOUR OWN CONTACT A CONSULTANT
    THAT KNOWS THIS BUSINESS AND CAN QUICKLY GE YOU WHAT YO NEED!

    bEST REGARSS,
    mARC pOPEK
    LVMarc, Nov 21, 2007
    #10
  11. Guy Macon Guest

    Traver wrote:

    >I second this response. PFC does not magically save power, it only
    >smooths out high peak currents to make the load look more resistive
    >from the power comany's perspective. The power company only cares
    >about power factor when the customer is drawing huge peak currents.
    >Peak currents cause loss in their supply wires which is a loss to
    >their bottom line. That's why power from the power company is supplied
    >in such high voltages, it reduces the current and therefore the
    >resistive loss in the wires.
    >
    >This box is a scam. Passive or active PFCs with any decent power
    >output have huge components. You would waste more power in the PFC
    >than you would save in the supply wires in a normal house and like I
    >said, the power company does not monitor residential customers for bad
    >power factor.


    While I share your doubts about the device described at
    electric-saver.com, it *is* possible to save energy in the case of
    lightly-loaded electric motors without huge components.
    For example, see this paper:

    The Science Behind the PEC Motor Efficiency Controller
    http://www.powerpulse.net/techPaper.php?paperID=142&print

    If you look at Figure 9, it becomes apparent that the Nola technique
    makes the power factor *worse* while saving energy. It would be
    interesting to do the same with a sine wave that changes amplitude,
    but it certianly wouldn't be as cheap as the technique described.

    Another thing that strikes me about Figure 9 is the fact that it
    requires something like a Gate Turn Off Thyristor. I suspect that
    pretty much the same effect could be had with the usual zero-
    crossing turn off devices.

    An escalator is a classic case of a lightly-loaded motor running
    many hour per day, which is, no doubt, why it was chosen for the
    test results in Figure 10. That being said, the numbers look
    about right.

    --
    Guy Macon
    <http://www.guymacon.com/>
    Guy Macon, Nov 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Guy Macon Guest

    LVMarc wrote:


    >so it means that often motors are over specsed, compared to their
    >nominal load, right.

    ....
    >the final basis is now for a given nominal load without the "gadget" you
    >get the over spedced motor and performance, by definition ...not
    >optimimzed... then
    >
    >if you put in basically a "real-time" dynamic load matching device,
    >obtained via waveform modification..then an optimal system, results by
    >definition, and therefore for the same nominal load, the power consumed
    >in an optimized system will be less than an open loop driven system...


    >sO ITS NO FRAUD AND POSSIBLE. AND EASY TO GET CONFUSED BY DIFFERENT
    >TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.
    >
    >fOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATING YOUR OWN CONTACT A CONSULTANT
    >THAT KNOWS THIS BUSINESS AND CAN QUICKLY GE YOU WHAT YO NEED!
    >
    >bEST REGARSS,
    >mARC pOPEK


    Patent for device described above:
    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5723966-description.html
    United States Patent 5723966
    System and method for increasing the efficiency of
    alternating current induction motors
    Issued on March 3, 1998
    Inventors:
    Richard Stephen Straka
    David Maxwell Coombs
    Assignee:
    Current Technology, Inc.

    Interesting information about Marc Popek:
    http://www.fwt.niat.net/Prolific.pdf
    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=LVMarc
    http://www.cer.unlv.edu/personnel.php?sn=popek
    http://www.fwt.niat.net/
    http://www.fwt.niat.net/AboutFWT.html


    --
    Guy Macon
    <http://www.guymacon.com/>
    Guy Macon, Nov 22, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RP Henry

    Battery saver circuit (updates?)

    RP Henry, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    686
    Jonathan Kirwan
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. ian field

    Energy saver bulbs.

    ian field, Oct 9, 2008, in forum: Hobby Electronics
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    701
    Lord Garth
    Oct 14, 2008
  3. ian field

    I've found a use for energy saver bulbs!

    ian field, Feb 6, 2009, in forum: Hobby Electronics
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
    ian field
    Feb 6, 2009
  4. ClueLess

    Power Saver circuit

    ClueLess, Aug 1, 2007, in forum: Electrical Engineering
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    783
    ClueLess
    Aug 5, 2007
  5. rr_me

    want schematic of 100w energy saver

    rr_me, Apr 8, 2011, in forum: General Electronics Chat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    343
    ashish chaubey
    Apr 8, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page