Home Energy Scams
I was recently asked about a device for saving energy costs at home – a device for power factor optimization. I checked it out, and it indeed does have all the red flags for a juicy scam.
Techno Scams
One flavor of scam is to overwhelm a potential customer with technical information that sounds superficially impressive but which the customer is sure not to understand. There may be a kernel of truth to the science, but it just takes one technical fatal flaw to doom an otherwise plausible scheme. Examples include special audio cables that cost thousands of dollars, but do not produce any audible difference in sound quality.
A subset of these scams is to take a technology that actually has some advantage in specific industrial applications and then adapt them for residential or personal use, where they have not benefit. An examples of this is filling tires with pure nitrogen – this has a small but real benefit for trucks and large vehicles, but not for your family car.
Sometimes part of the scam is to come into the home with some gizmo and then give an impressive-looking demonstration. Home water filter salesmen are known for this.
Protect Yourself
There are some very useful rules of thumb to follow when someone is trying to sell you such a device. Do not purchase of device if you do not understand the science behind it. Do not let a slick salesmen dazzle you with technobabble. If you don’t understand the claims well enough to judge them for yourself, then consult an expert before making a purchase.
Listen to your common sense. If a claim sounds too good to be true, that’s because it probably is. Adding a magnet to your fuel line is not going to increase the fuel efficiency of your car by 30%. You have to ask yourself – if such a claim were true, why isn’t everyone using such a device. Why isn’t the government mandating that such devices are added to all cars. Imagine if we could reduce the fuel use of our automobile fleet by 30%.
Don’t believe testimonials. Testimonials are worthless, they can be invented, they can be given by people who have a stake in the company or the sale, or they could just be cherry picked and misleading. Testimonials are used because people emotionally find them compelling, but they are worthless as evidence. If a company has a link to testimonials, but not a link to published peer-reviewed scientific evidence, or to official government or industry information – then be wary.
But also – be wary of links to official government or industry information. This may be legitimate, but ask yourself if the links actually support the claim or are just provided to give the impression of legitimacy. One trick, for example, is for medical device marketers to claim that their device is listed with the FDA. This makes consumers think that the claims made for the device are FDA approved, but this is not true. Again – if you have dificulty sorting this out, consult an expert or a more knowledgable friend.
And of course – generic advice – don’t let yourself get pressured into a quick sale. Take the time to investigate. Anyone who wants you to make a decision right then is scamming you.
Power Factor Optimization
Now back to power factor optimization – what is it? This falls under the category of something that is useful for industry, but not for residential use. Companies selling this for the home, will typically impress their customers with a long, and generally accurate, description of the physics. But they leave out the little detail that dooms their claims.
In short, these devices reduce reactive force – technically volt-ampere reactive power, or var. There are two kinds of loads in an electric circuit: resistance and reactive. Resistance is what does useful work – turning a motor or lighting a lightbulg. Reactive load results from differences in the current and the voltage and essentially is wasted as heat.
Var devices claim that they balance the current and voltage (using capacitors and other methods) and therefore reduces reactive load, decreasing the amount of electricity that is wasted as heat, and thereby increasing efficiency. This, therefore, will reduce your electric bills by reducing waste electricity.
But here’s the kicker – electric companies measure and charge for only the resistance load, electricity that does work. They do not care about the reactive load for residential homes because it is generally minimal.
They do measure the reactive load for industrial use, where certain pieces of equipment may have significant reactive load. They charge a “penalty” for high reactive loads for industrial use – but not to residential customers.
Therefore the savings for a residential user should be minimal to nothing.
Some companies, like KVAR energy controller, appear to make devices that actually work, in that they may reduce reactive load. They have to be installed by an electrician at the circuit breaker box – the point at which electricity enters the house. The problem appears only to be the application to the home and the claims for electric bill savings, with only testimonials to support these claims.
Even the modest 10% savings they are claiming would be huge if employed nationwide. If it really worked I would think it would either be mandated, or supported by a tax refund or other incentive.
There may also be outright fraudulent products out there also. I recently received this e-mail from an SGU listener:
Last year I was visiting my mom and she had an appointment with some people to come over and check her house because they could “save her money” on her electrical bill. Of couse when they showed up I was immediatly asking for specifics about what they did. They had all kinds of fancy words and equipment, but here is the jist. The lady pluged a device with a small LCD screen into the wall sockett and said, “Ooohhh…” then told me that the current in the line was jumping up and down really bad. She also threw in some “wave” and Diffrental” words She then pluged a capacitor into another plug on the same circuit and showed me her little LCD readout witch had droped to neer zero. She told me that the capacitor would store all that wasted energy “noise” and smooth out the flow in the lines, then release it later. Thus saving up to 30% on your energy bill. I was astounded, mostly that my mother and stepdad would let these people within 100 yards of their front door.
A device plugged into an outlet would not plausibly achieve power factor optimization, so this is a scam of a scam. But we see here the typical ploy of doing the in-home demonstration combined with some technobabble and some impressive claims – 30%, wow.
Conclusion
I had to spend some time investigating this one. The basic concept of installing a device at the junction box to reduce wasted electricity sounds superficially reasonable. There are advancements in effiiciency all the time as the technology evolves. Home appliances and electrical circuits today are generally more effiicient than they were 50 years ago. Just like cars today are much more fuel efficient than those of the past (although in the US they are also bigger on average, offsetting some of the advantage in fuel efficiency).
Also – the back story of reactive vs resistive loads is all correct. But still, the extraordinary claims and the marketing style set off my skeptical alarm bells. The devil is in the details, and in this case power factor optimization seems to be useless for residential use, although legitimate for certain industrial applications.
I also acknowledge that I am not an electrical engineer, and some of the technical websites I consulted exceeded my basic knowledge in this area. So if there are any electrical engineers out there – please add any needed detail or corrections to my summary.
But I followed my own advice – I consulted the experts, and my summary above is what they had to say.
A solenoid put in parallel with load can act as power factor correcting filter. Putting a filtering device into a power outlet is putting it in parallel with other devices in same circuit, so the device presented to listener was not necessarily a scam. Hard to tell without knowing what it was actually. Not sure if it would lead to any savings either.
See ‘Power factor’ article in Wikipedia (‘Switched-mode power supplies’ section and below)
Forgot to add a folowing bit of trivia:
Once upon a time, where I live a certain model of welding power supply was vary popular due to the fact it had a negative power factor. As a result it was actually turning the electricity meter backwards.
I’ve never actually seen it though, so it might be an urban legend.
The most common reactive loads in residential areas are motors in the refrigerators, air conditioners, washing machines and dryers. The government could always mandate that the manufacturers of such goods put in the extra circuitry to get a ‘power factor’ close to 1 but I’ve never calculated how much energy is wasted by these devices so I have no idea what would be saved. These tiny inductive loads are absolutely nothing compared with large industrial motors though, and power companies never felt a need to audit houses and estimate the power factor.
No single device can properly adjust the reactance of any and all appliances; circuitry has to be selected for each reactive device in question. One trick I did long long ago was to build a device to get a very low power factor so that I could use certain appliances and not be charged as much; it’s actually a pretty stupid idea so I wouldn’t recommend that people do such a thing unless they’re bent on claiming the title King of Geeks or some such.
Another scam I’d seen is a device with a plug, socket, and a diode in it. The claim was that you plugged this gizmo into the wall and plugged your appliances into the gizmo, and the gizmo would save you money. What’s more likely to happen is that the diode used can’t take the current running through it, heats up and burns down your house (or just goes ‘pop’, smokes and stinks up the place). If you plug in the refrigerator then you have a contest for what happens first: house burning down from the overheated diode or motor windings burning out because the motor cannot develop enough power to start spinning and jus heats up. Fortunately my friends asked me about this miracle device without having bought any.
I’m not an electrical engineer though, I’m a chemist – but I never let that stop me from playing with electricity. Ah, I miss the good old days when I’d shoot 1/2″ sparks from my fingers, make neon filled globes light up by merely touching them, and give passers by a little shock as they walked past. I miss the old Tesla coil too but it’s probably a good thing I don’t have it; I have no idea of the X-ray dose I must have received from the power tube over the years.
@Mchl:
Definitely an urban legend. The weird induction motor which makes up your electricity meter can only spin one way. It’s an interesting type of motor consisting of only a few wires and an aluminum disc. I used to stare at the motor for long periods of time and see it spin faster or slower as people switched things on or off.
Energy Star has an entry on power factor devices:
http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4941&p_created=1204908170
@MadScientist
As far as I know (and I did some additional research just now) at least in some older makes of energy meters it was possible to turn them backwards (in a variety of ways, most common being switching the connectors). That’s why mechanical blockades of reverse direction have been introduced.
So let’s talk about solar panels. A sales rep I talked to said that during the day when you’re producing electricity with your solar panels your meter spins backwards because you’re putting energy into the grid (there is no battery system). The idea being that as you’re adding energy to the grid the electric company is “paying” you for that energy and it helps negate the cost of the energy that you use during the evening when you’re home and using more energy.
However, if I understand the comments here correctly, your meter cannot turn backwards. So that brings up some questions:
Does a solar panel system that does not save it’s power in batteries for your own use actually save you money?
Is the energy you’re producing actually being “saved in” or “added to” the grid?
If it does save money, are you getting the full benefit of the solar energy you produce? It might be clearer to ask “Does my savings in energy cost equal the energy my solar cells are producing? Or, if I’m producing more energy during the day that I use (because I’m away at work at the time) am I producing more energy than what I’m getting back as a benefit?”
Thank you.
Greg
In my country, if you want to legally put energy into a grid, you have to sign a contract with grid operator. Then you get (well… buy actually) a specialised meter that works both ways (it’s not mechanical AFAIK).
Trying to put energy into grid without the grid operator’s consent is likely to result in serious fine.
Steve,
I’m an electrical engineer. Your summary is right on. The fact that electricity meters measure only real (resistive) power is definitely the key to realizing without a doubt that it’s scam.
If the power companies ever started charging for reactive power, it still wouldn’t help because simply connecting a capacitor to the breaker box would mean that it’s always connected, so if most of your inductive loads in the house are turned off, then the capacitor will over correct, which is just as wasteful. Therefore, the only proper way to do power factor correction is to connect a capacitor at each individual load that is sized to match the load. This way it’s only active when the device is turned on.
Another related scam is the TVSS (Transient Voltage Surge Suppression) devices offered by websites like http://www.powergleaner.com They made similar power saving claims and the FTC even shut cracked down on a similar company in Florida for making the bogus claims.
Andrew
“Do not purchase of device if you do not understand the science behind it.”
I wonder what would happen if most people applied this advice to every piece of technology they bought. Computers, TV and radio would be excluded right away, along with anything that uses semiconductors. And this would be only the tip of the iceberg… :)
Interesting history of science/technology exercise: try to pinpoint the moment when most of science/technology became incomprehensible by a reasonably educated person. Early 20th century?
(ENMNL – English is not my native language)
@Mchl: That’s hard to believe; the motor used in the meters is one of the oldest invented. All I could remember was that Edison was still alive at the time this type of meter was invented. According to the Wikipedia entry, the motor was invented by Elihu Thomson in 1888. It’s not the only type of meter but it is the most common due to its simplicity, very low cost, and it is effective.
Wow – I feel so lucky to be here in Australia, where we’re pretty energy-conscious, and seemingly ripe for this sort of scam. I have had people come to my door from rival energy companies, and yes, I have switched based on some evidence – but I’ve NEVER heard of folks claiming they would stick magnets on my power lines, or try and sell me gizmos (yet). In fact, I did my own research, and talk to many engineers and architects (my wife and I are concerned about cutting power, but we like to be well-informed) and when I quizzed the salesperson about how it works, he was actually able to answer all my questions! for example: Solar power you don’t use goes back into the power grid. Green energy sources are not measured in the individual electrons that go from the wind farm to your house, but rather as a percentage of the whole over the entire system. Your savings are usually more to do with incentive, and what they would have taken from me, they invest. I switched to a company that didn’t muck me about, invested in green energy, and the proof was in the pudding: my electricity bill at the end of the next quarter, based on average consumption, was indeed lower (in comparison to the previous year of the same seasonal period).
Great article, Steve. I shall be on the look-out for scams such as these. My wife and I already have a good skeptical arsenal, but it’s always good to have back up.
@Greg:
No. the meter does not turn backwards. You have two meters – one for electricity consumed and one for electricity injected into the grid. If you’re considering that type of solar installation, you need to make sure whoever installs it has the appropriate licences and that the equipment meets all appropriate regulations and has the approval of whoever’s in charge of your local grid. You need a pretty huge array to do much good though. Personally I just use solar panels to charge batteries to operate LED lighting around the place. My neighbors use them to charge batteries that operate their automatic gates.
There’s similar products that allege to save fuel in cars.
I found the perfect fuel saver. Public transport.
@Jose:
That reminds me of a scam I heard about maybe 2 years ago in Australia. A friend was asking if he should invest in some company that claimed to invent a magic tablet that goes into the fuel tank and cuts fuel consumption by half. I said it was a load of nonsense and spent the hour going through how the internal combustion engine works and where the gains are to be made. Modern engines are pretty hard to beat and there’s no way you’re getting a 50% reduction in fuel consumption by dissolving a small tablet in your gas. Just a few months ago my friend was telling me that the scam had been exposed and that the company trading shares in the scam was being investigated. I was shocked that people were fleeced many millions of dollars on such a simple scam which any decent chemist or physicist or motor engineer could explain without half trying. I was told that even politicians were promoting the woo (probably because Australia is so wonderful and can invent miracle tablets that us dumb yanks could never invent in a million years).
One of my favorites (usually from third world countries) are claims of a ‘water fueled engine’. I saw some stock footage from the Philippines that had me rolling on the floor laughing. These guys poured a little water onto an oily rag, held the rag over the carburettor, started the engine – and presto! The car is running on water. It astounded me at how stupid the journalists must have been to fall for that one (I was told this thing was actually on the news). That was an obvious lie that any car mechanic could have exposed, not to mention any number of teenagers who knows anything at all about cars. It’s kind of funny though to think of a claim that an engine is literally running off the smell of an oily rag.
@MadScientist
Great explanation on the net metering, I’d just like to add that some utilities will buy your power at wholesale prices rather than the retail you pay them.
I’d also like to point out that if you are reasonably power conscious and no one is home during the day it wouldn’t take that huge an array to exceed the demands of an empty house at noon.
I install solar panels. I also know a little about meters, although I am not a metering technician.
All induction-type (electromechanical) watthour meters are capable of turning backwards. Digital meters, which are very rapidly replacing the induction type, may or may not run backwards depending on how they are programmed. In my area, a digital meter will run backwards only if programmed as a solar net meter. This only happens if the utility knows you are putting solar on the house. Otherwise, it will be programmed in detent mode. The demand indicator (little LCD blip that simulates the disc of an induction meter) will run from right to left, which indicates reverse power flow, but the register will continue to add kWh rather than subtracting. (This last bit is a theft flag, unless there is already a permit or application for a solar installation, in which case the reverse power flow is ignored by the utility.)
How do I know this? Let’s just say I’ve watched a lot of different meters during pre-inspection testing.
Oh, and “negative” power factor? That won’t make a meter run backwards. Induction motors (most AC motors, including your fridge and air conditioner) are inductive loads. “Negative” PF (I assume) must refer to capacitive loads. In an inductive circuit, current lags voltage. In a capacitive circuit, current leads voltage. So if you add capacitors to an inductive circuit, it will correct the PF. This has nothing to do with the direction of the meter. After all, the meter will turn the proper direction with only a resistive load, which has a PF of unity.
Incidentally, many household appliances do have PF correction built in. My fridge compressor has a PF of 0.95, while my chest freezer has a PF of 0.53.
Anyone know of a way to rate an eBay seller as fraudulent, without actually buying their junk? There’s a guy on there who used to sell memory cards. Now, he only sells “power electricity saver $$$” using “the latest German technology”. Makes me wanna puke.
@BooTX
Would it be fair to say that if the eBay seller’s junk doesn’t work, that it is indeed an electricity saver? I have an old TV that uses no power at all. If you ignore the fact it doesn’t work then maybe I could sell it on eBay also? ;)
I once placed a small ad in an Australian magazine that said no more than:
Make Your Money Go Far!
Send $20 to:
DA
123 Jones St.
Podunk Holler NC USA
I collected $2.3 million. Great gig.
@Jose
I have an even better fuel/money saving plan, I work for the public transit system here, so I ride for free….;.)
You say the energy saver doesn’t work, but you don’t give me any tests or information that backs your statements. Bottom line__I am going to buy a KVAR Energy Saver and you don’t have to, but I will be saving money and you will still be paying the same or more when the power companies increase the KWH rates. If the power-factor is less then unity and this corrects it and you lower your watts used daily that will add up over time, lets say a year. If you save 11 KWH a day for 365 days that’s 4015 KWH a year. Multiply that by .14 cents per KWH that equals $562.10 per year. It is a whole house surge protector so if it saves my $3000 t.v. then it paid for itself. It’s an investment in your home. I am paying for the power no matter what so I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Thanks,
Angelo
I just got through listening to my wife’s uncle try to sell me on these things. Fortunately I had recently read this post and was able to coherently counter his claims. This post will be first on the list of responses I send to him. Many thanks!
CyberLizard —
What claims did you counter? What proof did you use? Did you buy one of these units and test it for three months comparing it with last year’s KWH usage or are you someone selling energy products and you are just blowing smoke to the people that come on here to read. If you know anything about electricity you could have said something more than fragment sentences. Please let all of us here these extravagant counter claims you shot your uncle down with. He was just trying to help save you money. Let him put one in your house and if you are unhappy with the results then come online in front of a million people so you at least sound educated. I am sure he will take the system out if it’s a hoax. But you will never know because you take a blogs opinion. The other people on here you have never met, but your family is out to get you. You’re the man. LOL. I have an idea, how about taking the 100w light bulbs you probably have and put in energy efficient ones. That unit her uncle is selling will save another 30% off of what they are already saving. I bet your uncle didn’t even know that. I’ve done the research and the tests. You did the Blog. Get educated and not blog educated because you just sound like you’re selling a different energy product.
Sorry to be so harsh,
Angelo
To whom this may concern,
Please, if you just make a little bit of effort to do some research you will find out for yourself if a product is for real or not. Instead you put a % in your head that a product must be a hoax and hope that someone agrees with you to increase the % or doubt.
Well I don’t even know why I even care but I hate a good product being bashed. These couple of paragraphs regards the KVAR Energy Saver not solar energy.
Power factor correction is simple but easy to complicate if you don’t want someone to buy a product that fixes the problem. The problem is high energy cost that people don’t have to pay. When a motor or (inductive load) is running it needs a magnetic field to operate the motor. When a motor is turned on it makes the phase unstable which in turn lags the voltage. Thus, creates a poor power factor. In other words the voltage has a hard time keeping up.lol. When this happens the circuit breaker has to push more voltage through the circuit to keep up with the needs of the motor. When there is a need for more power the power company doesn’t just give it to you for free. You are using more wattage and it cost you plenty. The power company might not give you a fine for a poor power factor but you are still using more KW.
The KVAR Energy Saver is a 21st century engineered product that uses capacitors to correct the power factor. It is NOT a magical box, it is quite simple actually. When a motor is turned on, The KVAR Energy Saver creates a lead, taking the lag out of the line and stabilizes the phase to get the power the motor needs without drawing more power from the utility company. If you have a 75% power factor and you add the energy saver you will increase the power factor to 95-99% efficient energy used. The other 14% of wasted power that was heat before is stored in the capacitors becoming usable energy, thus lowering your power bill. It doesn’t send the power back to the power company unless the breaker the unit is hooked up to is off. I have seen the meter slow down to almost a complete stop. The meter was spinning @ 8 seconds and decreased the revolution to 35 seconds when the capacitors emptied. It was kind of cool. It is a whole house surge protector that conditions the voltage from the power company in return taking the spikes out of the line that slowly or quickly kills your equipment. Anyone that says it is a scam for residential hasn’t done the research or even owned the product themselves. But in all reality I don’t care if you save money, but at least know what you are talking about. I left the technical stuff out because I don’t know if you have ADD and probably wouldn’t understand anyway.LOL
Angelo
Are you done spamming?
Yes Max! I am done spamming. lol. I probably should have posted this information on a website that agrees with energy efficiency, instead of one that doesn’t.
Don’t go GREEN! It is scam! lol that’s the technical info you were looking for this website. If you read blog 21 it clearly states why the device doesn’t work. LOL
Angelo
Angelo – at this point I suspect you are a not-too-savvy salesman for these products. You said nothing that counters my actual points, but instead tried the sales pitch of – hey, why not try it for yourself. You then try to hit us with the straw man that if we do not agree with you we are not concerned about energy efficiency.
You further tried to shift the burden of proof to us – as if we have to prove this does not work or accept your claims. Where is the published and reviewed evidence that it does work?
I think what you meant to say was that you should have posted your sales pitch on a less skeptical site that would not immediately see through your BS.
But for your convenience – here are my main points:
1 – power companies do not charge residences for reactive force
2 – such a device attached to a home would not work anyway, because the reactive force has to be optimized for each appliance drawing power.
3 – energy star and other modern high-end appliances already incorporate this technology. So if you want to be energy efficient, install energy star appliances.
4 – if this product worked as advertised, why are power companies not pushing them (or just installing them) and why aren’t governments mandating or encouraging them?
Good luck.
To answer your questions Steven,
I am just an environmental person who cares about the environment. One KWH is one pound of carbon monoxide that is being transferred into the atmosphere. So if you lower your KWH usage you take away from the carbon footprint. NOT A SALESMAN. Well if you look at the KVAR website you will find that it optimizes the reactive power. I like your idea about the energy star products but the average person doesn’t have an extra $10,000 dollars to go out and buy this equipment with. But if you don’t get charged reactive power from the utility, then what’s the point in going out and buying new appliances. If the appliances work, why wouldn’t the KVAR Energy Saver. I own a 300,000 home and it didn’t even come with E star rated appliances. I don’t know a whole lot of people that have them either. It works with the same concept. I smell a salesman for home depot or best buy. You might be him.lol. Here is why the power company is not pushing KVAR Energy Saver: They don’t care about going green, they don’t care about saving you money, and they will be losing money. Rocket science I know. Does the government charge taxes for each homeowner for power consumption or does the government indeed charge taxes to the utility companies for their profit and income? You might be from the power company. The concept of the product is “instead of going out and spending $10,000 on new appliances this product for $399. Uninstalled will optimizes the appliances you already own. It makes sense. The government IS always pushing green products anyways, so I don’t know what you are talking about. You should watch the news. The product is getting popular now because people are paying more for fossil fuels. I am paying .14 cents a KWH where 10 years ago I was paying .04 cents a KWH. Thank you Steven but your number 3 question contradicted your whole argument.
Good Luck
Angelo
“One KWH is one pound of carbon monoxide ”
no- depending on how the power is generated, it is some quantity of Carbon Dioxide. Only minuscule amounts of Carbon Monoxide are generated.
Hydro and Nukes generate zero carbon. (aside from construction and support costs)
“optimizes the reactive power.” – I hope you meant to say it “reduces” it.
Energy Star appliances don’t focus on reactive power, necessarily- they focus on total/billable power.
Angelo’s posts, especially #23 above, lead me to agree with the others- he hasn’t a clue.
Jay,
Optimize: to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible.
Yes, in one way I meant to say it reduces it. But to fully understand electricity reactive power is NOT provided by the power company. Reactive power is something your home makes in the EMF through your equipment in your house. The energy saving unit makes the KVAR more efficient by making it real power. So in a way it reduces it but it doesn’t disappear; it transforms. So you are not using more power from the utility company. The unit takes the waste and makes it usable. I know I have been quite arrogant in some of my post so I do apologize for that. But to take my arrogance for foolishness is not true because I do understand all the babble that these people are talking about. Now there are some posts where people are talking about plug in the wall units that optimize the power factor for your whole house. I disagree with that though. If you have anything that is plugged into the wall, it will only work with one phase of an electrical circuit so you have a totally different phase that has reactive equipment that it doesn’t work with. If they state they are saving more than 25% residential they are lying, because some of these post are right, by saying there is not much inductive loads in residential. But the product I was talking about is installed in the main panel or directly on the inductive device. Take it for what it’s worth; I am not trying to sell you one. I stand corrected with the carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide still contributes to the green house effect. I would have to see the % of savings with energy star equipment, but energy equipment still has an inductive load and does create a % reactive power. I don’t buy anything that I have not researched because I can’t afford to have my house burn down so I do know what I am talking about. A lot of these posts agree with my terminology and ways to correct the power factor, they just don’t believe in the product. I agree with some of the posts. I come here for education as well as giving information. I read the post and took everyone’s opinion into consideration when I wrote those comments.
Thanks
Angelo
“1 – power companies do not charge residences for reactive force”
Power companies don’t provide the reactive force so they can’t charge you for it. The motors need a MF (magnetic field) to operate which is a reactive force. Think of a mug of beer. Keep with me.lol When you get a mug of beer it will have foam at the top. Now the foam is waste and the beer is usable. The foam represents KVAR or reactive load. The beer represents KW or usable energy, and KVA is the total amount KVAR + KW. The bartender is charging you for the whole beer but some is waste. The energy saver device just makes the waste smaller, just like a beer with less foam. I am done arguing because I didn’t come on this website to pick fights. I just wanted to help and provide people that don’t understand energy saving equipment or electricity a little information so they aren’t confused with sales people with their big words and confusing babble come to there door. It doesn’t hurt to talk to sales people but understand what you are buying so you don’t have to be so skeptical. I hoped to change someone’s view about helping the environment without having to go out and plant trees.
Signing off,
Angelo
Angelo,
You missed some important points. The KVAR does not work because you cannot optimize and entire circuit with multiple resistance loads by a single device. You would need such a device that is designed to work with each appliance (and also would only be on when the device was on).
This is not about going green or caring about the environment – the thing does not work.
I will happily change my mind if you can provide scientific evidence that is does.
I never said the underlying concept was flawed – that is true, and is why such technology is incorporated into many appliances. It just doesn’t work when attached to your main circuit.
Further – you missed the point that the electric company does not charge for reactive force, but it does reduce the efficiency of their energy delivery. So they are paying for it, but cannot charge for it. Therefore they have a huge incentive for power optimization – so they can charge for as close to 100% of the energy they deliver (because it will all be used as resistance force).
You need to read more closely. And your jokes about me working for the power company do not serve you well, even if tongue-in-cheek, as I am a public figure in the skeptical movement with nothing to hide.
Nate
You being a public figure in the skeptical movement do not serve you well. You are exactly that a public figure. Your concepts are deceiving to uneducated people. You set smoke screens and your arguments are far from scientific. You cannot say that a product of this kind can’t work because you say so without testing one yourself. With all my equipment running in my house I timed my meter with the energy saver off. Then with the same equipment I timed it with the energy saver on. It slowed down the revolution of the meter. A corvette will travel at a speed of 200 mph. Without test how would you know it was true? You wouldn’t. You would be skeptical about how fast it actually goes. Your arguments are kindergarten and you don’t even have an electrical background. You are a public figure but until this blog I didn’t even know that you existed. If I didn’t read this blog does that mean you don’t exist if I have never seen or heard of you? Does that mean you are not real? No it just means you are unpopular.LOL. With your small audience you don’t have much hope with this skeptical revolution you are planning, but remember small America don’t drink the punch he gives you. This product does work just not in the little head of yours. Do your own research, I already am saving money. What more proof do you need? I have only two things in this world my word and my balls and I am not putting my WORDS in your mouth. You’re a joke.
Angelo
I meant steven, my bad. I should of known that you being as popular as you are.
I read of one good reason not to send power back into the grid; Say there is a problem in your area like a downed wire and your neighborhood is without power, except for the bit that you are putting back in. Some worker thinks he is working with disconnected wires and suddenly the sun comes out, or the wind blows and your power goes right through him.
So let’s side aside for the moment whether or not this device is a scam with regards to saving money on power usage. Would it not help in terms of providing surge protection for your house? With the capacitor bank would it not help level out the current on the lines if you live in an area which has poor quality electric service (lot of surges and brown-outs?) I live in such an area on the Gulf Coast and since the last hurricane we have had a lot of issues with our power quality and the repeated brown-outs and surges on our lines as our power goes on and off repeatedly whenever the wind blows.
I’m a computer/business consultant not an electrician. I helped a company with a business plan that sells KVAR EC. Even though “theory” doubts the technology, I’ve personally seen 70 installs without a single customer claiming it failed. This product is unprecedented. I’ve started selling them for residential application and will build my own controlled studies and supporting documentation. I challenge anyone to find a customer that actually failed to save money. I realize some thought they should save 30% on a home which is unrealistic. Residential saves approx. 10% while industrial can save up to 30%. They had a customer that saved $15,000 per month or about 32% of their electric bill.
Curt
Steven,
Good explanation. We analyze utility invoices for errors for businesses, but not for residential users. You mentioned reactive and resistance. We look at is as KW and kwh. Most, unless very small, commercial users are charged for demand as well as usage. They have demand meters. Residential users are only charged for usage. It is true that a commercial user with a high demand may be penalized and charged a percentage of their highest demand. This is because the utility company cannot store energy. The fact that these companies are claiming to store kwh does not make sense. Also, commercial users can cut down on their peak demand by using capacitors. That would not matter with residential users as they are only charged for usage.
I recently received a very sophisticated sales piece to buy a $1500 energy saver. The company called me up first talking about solar energy and panels being put on our house. I said send me the information. When I received it, there was a lot of talk about the solar panels and the return on our investment in 8-10 years, but, while that takes some time with permits and such, if we wanted to get started with savings while we wait, we can purchase the power saver for $1500. By presenting the larger investment first, the $1500 does not look so big. Also, they didn’t say it would store energy as most do. Their argument was that the utility company provides you the same amount of energy all the time so you have it to use. If you do not use it, it disappears in the form of heat. Basically, they are saying if you have every appliance on in the house and the next day you only have the refrigerator on, you will still have the same amount of usage. Again, this does not make sense as residential users are only charged for the kwh that they use.
Look into RESNET’s (HERS) business practices! They are building up a monopoly for their own “rater provider” as they call themselves. The whole RESNET is in the hand of a few insiders, which misuse their status as energy star certifier. They pretend they educate energy rater but in reality they just sell expensive energy rater classes without any prospect of getting certified. RESNET (HERS)stinks!
Our product as you even admitt does work, so there for would not be a scam! It works better for some people then others depending on the level of load, which is pointed out by our professionial sales staff. This product does work and if everybody put it in there home or business, and all industry then we would have a strong impact on our enviroment. This would also reduce some health infections. So everyone should get aboard and contact your nearest rep to have this product installed in your place of business, residence, or industry! Don’t waste anymore time, this is great importance to everyone.
Our Oshkosh Energy Center would be happy to help anyone in the surrounding area of Wisconsin! Please contact our office at 920-232-5716.
Go to my fox phoenix energy capacitor on the internet and you will clearly see that the KVAR Energy Saving device is not a scam. You would think that if FOX News is endorsing the Energy saver than it must be a good thing right? I mean if it were a scam don’t you think there would be complaints? If you are going to claim to be an electrical engineer than put the company you work for, or you license number, or just make sense. Hi, I am an electrical engineer. See I can do it to. Or you can believe some nerd like Steven Novella who probably asked his boyfriends 75 year old dad, if he thought the unit works or not. Get in the times America and start saving the planet. Every little bit helps and if you can do that and put a little money in your pocket I say what the heck. Steven, Best of LUCK. For all of you in the skeptical movement make sure Steven Drinks the punch first. You know “test it,” like you should test the energy saver before saying it doesn’t work. Never mind I will bring the punch losers.
“You would think that if FOX News is endorsing the Energy saver than it must be a good thing right?”
Oh yeah, Fox News is a real paragon of honesty in so it must be true!
Angelo is clearly pushing a product. “I’m not a salesman” my rear end. This guy is an activist for a product. What do we call that?
Let’s not believe fox news but let’s believe some who’s screen name is tmac57. I think I will listen to a news program. besides wouldn’t it be better news if it were a scam dummy. What does your screen name stand for anyways. Too Much A$$ and C@ck. If you are going to argue with me at least bring you A game tmac hienz 57.
Hey, nice ad hominem! Did you learn that from Fox News too? You are wasting your time trying to peddle your questionable wares on this blog site MF (my friend).
See how he defends himself. Again, an activist for a product. Pay attention to this thread. I would glance over angelo’s comments and notice that he is the minority…
uh boys? ALL media outlets are whores. Mostly they are made up of some of the dumbest laziest peopel I’ve ever encountered outside of maybe politicians or lawyers. Fox isn’t better then CNN nor is CNN better then Fox. They both stink to high heaven.
Totally agree. I was just putting Angelo’s appeal to a ‘dubious’ authority in it’s rightful place: In the dumpster.
This has nothing to do with politics notsocool57 and appeals have nothing to do with the 92,000 KVAR units that went out last year and have not heard one complaint. Again I say that in order for it to be a scam someone has to complain or better yet, hundreds of thousands of people have to complain. This isn’t a debate if the news programs lie, but if you watch a thing or too with the news you will see a pattern of drama more than positive news. If I were a news program I would take into consideration that it could very well be a scam because all you have to do is type KVAR and or energy scam and this website pops up. I am sure the news read through all your pleads that this is a scam and to join you in this skeptical society which judging by the pictures at the top looks like it turns into an orgy at the end of every meeting. Bottom line redass57 if you are going to argue let’s hear the argument that compacitors don’t work on electrical systems, not the fact that you don’t watch the news. You are bunk.
If he’s not a salesman, than why is he so well armed with information about his… oops THE product….
In a way, a capacitor is a little like a battery. Although they work in completely different ways, capacitors and batteries both store electrical energy. If you have read How Batteries Work, then you know that a battery has two terminals. Inside the battery, chemical reactions produce electrons on one terminal and absorb electrons on the other terminal. A capacitor is much simpler than a battery, as it can’t produce new electrons — it only stores them.
This is how it works, so it kills the theory that it has to be on when motors are running and off when motors are off, because if you know anything it just stores and regulates electricity. So if nothing is on in the house or business than guess what? The capacitors are not storing and releasing electric.
How it saves you money? The KVAR Energy Saver is using the unused energy from the motor as usable energy so you don’t need to pull as much power from the utility. Reactive ampere is pulled out of the motor that will just dissipate as heat and it will use that to run equipment in the home instead of pulling it from the power company. I don’t want to keep on calling you stupid because you can’t help it tmac57 because you are associated with Steven Novella and he has brain washed the common sense and kept you from reading books so you wouldn’t educate yourself.
The whole thing about the power company not charging for wasted energy is JUST PLAIN STUPID. When power enters the breaker panel and is used than who have already paid for it. So if the waste occurs in the motors in your home than they are charging you for the waste.
In residential you don’t get surcharged for the electric that is wasted but you are getting charged for the waste. That was the dumbest thing that I read on this blog.
The Better Business Bureau and the state Attorney General’s Office have received no complaints against Southern Energy Concepts or the product’s manufacturer, KVAR Energy Savings of Port Orange.
“We have a file on KVAR Energy Savings,” Pepper said. “This year, we’ve had about 71 inquiries, not complaints.”
This is unreal. I don’t believe for a minute that if any of us went out and purchased one of every KVAR product out there and tested it — and proved it did not change the billable kWh, that it would make a difference to these people. Of course it would for us because we would have wasted money and enriched the scammers. Anyone with a degree in physics, math, engineering or an interest in science can easily understand why these don’t save money for residential customers but do for commercial customers. The rhetoric from the scammers and salesmen is ridiculous. I encourage everyone who sees one of these ads to go to https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ and add it to their criminal databases. You can use the ENERGYSTAR FAQ for ammunition if you don’t want to quote the skeptics.
Another fool among fools! “I don’t believe for a minute that if any of us went out and purchased one” I stopped right there because the rest of what you have to say is sh@t. If you have done your homework with any kind of inductive device (and if you don’t know what that means research on your own time,) you will have a harmonic frequency wave which will show the voltage lagging the ampere. Well Article 460 of the 2008 NEC Handbook clearly tells you how to fix the frequency by installing capacitors on your electrical system. OH Yeah! Just a little more tidbit is that little picture is one of KVAR’s units in the National Electric Code Handbook? Yes indeed it is and you can call and ask. All my friends purchased one of these units for residential use and they are all seeing the savings. Energy Star is competition and they make a ton of money for putting their logo on appliances, and like any other business they will bash the competition to lobby their products. Forget for a minute that the unit is called KVAR. All the box is doing is housing capacitors. It’s the science and math that makes the capacitors work the way they do, and that is what KVAR is, the math and science. They don’t own the patent on capacitor; they own the patent on the sizing. What the capacitors are doing is storing reactive amp (that doesn’t cost a dime to do) and when a motor turns on instead of the alternating current moving positive to negative 60 times a second and the capacitors move the current 120 times a second positive to negative using reactive amp which takes the lag out of the voltage and uses less amps because the sign wave of the ampere to voltage is unity. It reduces the magnetic fields in motors and takes the heat out which is wasted watts. Give it up! How can you complain if you haven’t tested a unit yourself? If you have purchased a unit KVAR will be happy to make sure you installed it properly and test the unit for any possible defects. Don’t try to understand physics and math because the smoke coming from your ears is wasted watts and KVAR can’t help with common sense, but they can help with research so call and talk to one of their amazing representatives. You’ll be glad you did. I just hope you don’t like wasting money and you are on here to peddle Energy Star because they are lobbyist.
Oh my God! Look at this guy go!
I had some free time on my hands so I went to Energy Stars F&Q website. I will pick apart everything this dumba$$ states one arguement at a time.
1.) First, residential customers are not charged for KVA-hour usage, but by kilowatt-hour usage.
Angelo says: Wow! Ok, lol. Let’s do a little math 600 KVA = 480 KW
2.) Second, the only potential for real power savings would occur if the product were only put in the circuit while a reactive load (such as a motor) were running, and taken out of the circuit when the motor is not running.
I already discussed this in previous post but capacitors absorb electron on one terminal and release them on the other terminal. Capacitors don’t use any electrons. The capacitors are storing reactive amp to help the system and fixing the motors before it becomes consumption amp so it doesn’t cost a dime and because it is a passive device it doesn’t have to be on or off. I know it’s rocket science that’s why when NASA recieved the units to test they hooked it up wrong and blew the fuse so the inventor had to fly to Texas to show them how to hook it up. The motor NASA tested used 8.7% less power with a .86 PF. The test is available to preview on the internet.
3.) For commercial facilities, power factor correction will rarely be cost-effective based on energy savings alone.
You have to be a sucker to believe that hahaha! I witnessed an energy star Air Handler on a commercial facility with a .689 Power Factor. The initial amps wer 13.89 and with the sizing equipment brought the PF to a .989 and dropped the ampere to a 7.2. Doesn’t sound like much but it running most of the day in a warm climate year around you are going to save some bucks. amp x volts= watts. The voltage is 480 just in case you want to break out the caculator. then divide your answer by 1000 because there are 1000 watts in one KW.
Energy star is a sticker that is placed on equipment to boost sales. That sticker makes people feel warm but people are still buying crap.
I stole this from another KVAR hater, but I thought it was comical!
The meter below is measuring the power factor of a small aquarium pump, and is showing a power factor of 0.28.
This isn’t a problem for the motor – in fact it is a natural part of its operation. hahahah!! You’re are correct in a way because motors are sized 125% bigger than actually needed. But to think this is good you are a tool.
The power factor is a fraction or decimal that shows the actual power being used over the total power. So if the pump is a very low .28 that means:
28% of the power is being used
72% is being wasted and that wasted amp isn’t reactive its consumption.
The IRS has just approved a $500 total tax credit for installation of the KVAR Energy Controller.
With a copy of your receipt and warranty paperwork, go to IRS form 5695, under “weatherization” fill in the “other” space with your KVAR model # and serial # and you are eligible for a $200 tax credit for 2009 and a $300 tax credit for 2010
I’m not doing this to convince the skeptics that this works. I am just doing this to show you there are smarter people than you and people that aren’t smarter than you should be educated properly instead of just one way conversations. Let’s agree to disagree but in every game of chess there is always a checkmate!
KVAR Test
Hodges Electrical Enterprises, Inc.
Tallahassee. FL
Septem ber 26, 2008
A. The test consists of a 1/3 hp motor connected to a City of Tallahassee digital meter.
No other motors or appliances are connected to the meter. The purpose of the test is to
determine the time it takes to record one (I) KWH on the digital meter.
B. After that time is determined, the same 1/3 hp motor will be connected to a KVAR
Energy Controller, sized for the motor. The motor will again be run to determine the
length oftime it takes to record one (1) KWH on the digital meter.
Part A: without KVAR Energv Controller
Start time A: 5:30.00 pm 9/23/08
Digital Meter Reading: 47 KWH
Amps: 5.56
Watts: 196
VoIts: 121.3
Stop time A: 10:01.54 pm
Digital Meter Reading: 48 KWH
Runtime required for Part A: 4 hours 31 minutes 54 seconds
Part B: with KVAR Energv Controller
Start time B: 10:34.00 am 9/24/08
Digital Meter Reading: 48 KWH
Amps: 1.59
Watts: 185
Volts: 121.6
Stop time B: 4:16.38 pm
Digital Meter Reading: 49 KWH
Runtime required for part B: 5 hours 42 minutes 38 seconds
Test Summary
Time required for part A: 4 hours 31 minutes 54 seconds or 271.9 min.
Time required for part B: 5 hours 42 minutes 38 seconds or 342.63 min.
Difference between A and B: 1 hour 10 minutes 44 seconds or 70.73
minutes. ”
The difference of test A and test B (70.73 min.) divided by test A results
(271.9 min.) is equal to 26.013°1., of additional time used to produce 1
KWH on the di2ital City of Tallahassee Centron Meter, ( model # CL200
240 V 3w, type CIs 30TA 1.0KH, ITRON Watt Hour Meter). This meter is
presently used on 240 volt single phase services in Tallahassee, Fl.
Angelo,
I have to agree with everything you are saying but I do have a question about your last post. Simple math tells us AxV=W. So in example b 1.59×121.6=193.34 which isn’t far from 185. If we divide 1000 by 193.34 we get 5 hrs 10 min 20 sec, which again isn’t far off from the numbers you came up with. But in example a they don’t come anywhere close. 5.56×121.3=674.43W, which should give us one hour and thirty min before 1kwh draw. Could you please explain this discrepancy?
EnergyStar is right and Angelo is wrong and just doesn’t understand basic electrical theory. Reactive power is not wasted power. You are not charged for it. The KVAR will not save you money. Report all KVARs marketed to consumers to the FTC (Google FTC complaint assistant). They need to be added to the criminal databases. Using capacitors to correct power factor does make sense for industrial customers — it is the marketing to residential consumers promising large power savings that is fraud.
Disclaimer: I am a co-conspirator in a Global scheme to enrich power companies and deny power savings to customers.
My KVAR unit saves me about 5 percent on my electric bill. My bill was about $300.00 per month, and I am saving about $16.00 every month which should make me my money back in about 2 years. I love it.
Listen Carefully Amazed! Because you are not understanding what I have been beating into this blog.
Correct! Reactive Amp is NOT charged by the power company. All right we all understand that now genius.
The KVAR uses reactive amp to fix your electrical system on the load side of the meter. Which may include ac, pool motor, fans, pumps…
So if the power company doesn’t charge for reactive amp then the customer is getting a device that doesn’t cost them any money to have in their home after initial purchase, that provides 100% money return within 1-3 years, unlike solar that has a 30 year return.
I don’t know what your selling but I tore apart the energy star website. But I will put a system in your house for free so you can eat crow for the rest of your short life.
KVAR is putting 89,000 of these systems out into the world each month so obviously someone agrees.
You sound like a bitter bitch who couldn’t sell the product and now you want to stick it to the company that has made me rich.
If you reduce the consumption amps you reduce your bill, just like if you reduce the amount of stupid post you write it will keep me from having to teaching you something.
Yes Matt your math is correct but I believe that during the test they used a watt meter because if you use that formula for ex. A you will come up with 674.428 watts, which is a huge difference from 193.34. I hope this answered your questions. These were all electrical engineers so there test is 100% correct or they wouldn’t of put their name on it.
AMAZED WRITES: Blah!EnergyStar is right and Angelo is wronBLAH!g and just doesn’t understand basicBLAH! electrical tBLAH!heory. Reactive power is not wasted power. You are not chargBLAH!!ed for it. The KVAR is awesome and it does work!LOL will not sBLAH!ave you money. Report all KVARs marketed to consumers to the FTC BLAH!(Google FTC hahaha!complaint assistant). They need to be added to the criminal databases. BLAH!Using capacitors toBLAH!! correct power factor does make senBLAH!se for industrial customers — it is the marketing to residential consumers promising large power saBEBIDY BLAH BLAH BLAH!!vings that is fraud.
Disclaimer: I am a co-conspirator and Dr. Evil and are involved in a Global scheme to enrich power companies and deny power savings to customers.hahhah! Where mini me Amazed?
—hahahahaha! WTF! Can you believe this guy
Tax credits of up to $500.00 from the government energy savings IRS form 5695 rated a green product
LEGAL INFORMATION
YES… KVAR UNITS ARE UNDERWRITERS LABORATORY INC. LISTED (28EP)
Canadian Standards Association listed (LR78409-1). There are fourteen United States and International patents on KVAR Power Factor Optimizer and our trademarks are registered with the United States Government. There is also a U.S. Department of Energy study (Sept. 1980 DOE/TIC 11339, Category UC 38) that attest to the savings and all benefits gained through the use of power factor optimization.
Amazed it’s not looking good for you buddy. Sorry, but the power companies are scamming all of you. Did you know that during peak hours of a demand they will unhook there capacitors to put an increase on electrical consumption. That is how they receive rate increases. So you tell me who is scamming, I am just trying to help people save money and my Granddaddy taught me that if you are good at something charge for it. After all the power company is a business and businesses strive to make money just like you and me, but if they are cheating you out of your money, who do they have to answer to? Call the power company and tell them they are scamming you and don’t pay. Let me know how long your lights are on. It’s a monopoly people, and most of the people that disagree with me are just pissed off because I am taking money from their retirement and putting it back into your pocket. Love you all especially you “amazed” you sly SOB! God Bless. I’ll be back soon I am sure.lol
Your right for the most part
power factor correction can only save 3-5 % at a residence
but to the power company there is savings and this will help keep the “historic” cost of electricity down. The power ompanies at this time use capacitors to correct there power factor but there doing it wrong they use bulk correction at the poles ,the best way to install smaller banks as close to the end user as possible and they should provide incentive to help reduce demand. One thing you need to remember is that source generation power is created at KVA not KW and that when you reduce line amps they see all of that savings plus they pick up all the loss saving 30% more than showned at a given facility(at source generation) There are power companies through out the USA promoting line amp reduction if you want I will send the links.Savings at industrial level in certain places like Detroit
if your power factor is below .70 your fine is 25% of your bill in
most of those cases you can ROI in a couple of months.I have been working in the electrical feild over 20 years and with power Quality issues for four years and have tested 1000’s of motors. I have used
the charts and measurements but with Kvar’s Sizers I will get a better result and at the same time I can see if I create any harmonic reanance before my coustmer has to purchase.
Buy the way Train will let there units be corrected to .97 using
a Kvar system but only to .93 with calucations.Mainly because there
is much room for error.
I would be glade to take a call from you to disscuss this further
I work with kvar but also work with other product lines.
Bill Wheeler
office 847-640-3202
cell 708-253-5469
Hey Bill,
I will give you a call. I did a sizing on a residence today after I left a green energy convention down here in FL. These gentlemen owned a solar company and he heard the same thing these bloggers and other bad press and he wanted me to size his house. I hooked up the KVAR size US-1 and dropped 4 amps on his panel with the AC running and some ceiling fans. I used switch 1 and 3 which is a PU1200. The problem with the KVAR is that the system is probably the simplest device ever invented but engineers and bloggers over complicate the system. The problem with bloggers is they are usually selling something else like CFL’s and they start a blog that states “has anyone ever heard of the KVAR Energy Saver,” and two or three people fill up the first couple of pages with, “it’s impossible,” “Snake Oil,” and then have conversations with each other until the blog is completely full, then shut it down so no one else can comment. This website is a little different in that they really are just over complicating it. I understand that Steven Novella is looking out for the best interest in the consumer and just explaining to people just to be careful. I have been told that my prices are a little higher than others, but I tell them if they do decide to buy from someone else make sure that it is a genuine KVAR Energy Controller. I DO NOT ENDORSE ANY OTHER PFC OR PFO DEVICE SO IF YOU BUY A POWER SAVER, I WARNED YOU AND I HOPE IT DOESN’T BURN DOWN YOUR HOUSE. I do it right and size a house or business and make sure they will benefit before they buy it. I also own the patenting sizing equipment that makes it possible to put the right amount of capacitance on an AC service.
Angelo
I have read your blogs and have a few questions..
1 my understanding is that your home electric meter is basically an ammeter that measures current used. since volts x amps = power and the voltage is fixed, the measured amps are used to calculate the amount of power used.
2 If the voltage is low (like during a brown out) the motors and light bulbs will draw more amps, which is why brownouts shorten the life of electrical components. It is the increased ampere flow that generates the heat in the coils and filaments of electrical components.
3 Motors draw significantly higher amperage over operating amperes every time they come up to speed. this is to magnetize the coils and to overcome the inertia of their rotors and device load during acceleration. Even though this happens over a short period of time it draws a lot of power (amps x voltage). In some cases 6 times the operating current of the motor. Refrigerators, furnace fans, air conditioning compressors, attic ventilation fans, sump pumps, well pumps etc. all start and stop very often thru the course of a day, using a lot of power in the process.
4 Capacitors basically store a charge that is returned to the line when the line voltage drops below the capacitors stored voltage, and store a charge when the line voltage exceeds the capacitors voltage.
So they are in effect like springs that store and release energy as load is applied and released.
My understanding is that a proberly sized KVAR will clip the peaks off of the amp draw by maintaining the voltage in the line by storing the energy from spikes, noise, and de-energizing transformer and motor coils and during and no load voltage levels, clipping the peak amp draw. That is how they reduce electrical costs because they reduce the peak amps that the induction type devices draw, by maintaining the voltage.
Reducing the amp draw makes the meter turn slower..
Our power company has plans on placing a surcharge for peak power used and total power used over a set limit, here in NJ. It has been postponed for the time being. Living in an all electric house, I am now very interested in the KVAR system. 3% of a $500/month electric bill can add up very quickly!!
Do I understand it correctly?
Pat,
There is a video on youtube that shows a demo on how the system works.
All motors need an EMF to run. The EMF is provided by the power company for residence at no charge on your electric bill to you. The tech term is Reactive Amp. If you look at the sin wave of a motor it will show the amps and the voltage. The space between the two is the PF. Resistive load the amps and voltage are unity which means the amps and volts are the same. Once the amps enter the motor they become consumption ampere.
In alternating current the sin wave goes + to – 60x per second, so when the motor pulls reactive amp it has to go from the transformer to the motor and repeats 60x per sec. the farther the transformer from the house the farther the power has to travel and the phase begins to bend. The bending pushes the amps farther from the volts.
To correct that what we do is install the KVAR Energy Saver that has capacitors that store reactive amp so when the motor calls for reactive amp the KVAR “grabs” it and pushes it back to the motor and the sin wave goes + to – 120x per second. When this happens the motor has to work less, taking the heat out of the motor and reducing the amount of amps the motor needs. amp x volts = watts. You decrease the amps you decrease the watts.
Also I just want to add that when you reduce the amount of reactive amp the power company needs to supply, you also reduce their demand. If everyone had one of these systems you will reduce the need to build more power plants.
Back to the demo. When you see the motor running without the KVAR the reactive amp is being pulled from the transformer and when they flip the KVAR switch, the motor is then pulling from the KVAR which is closer to the motor. The KVAR KEC drops the amount of amps needed 70%. In a home you probably don’t have a .2 PF though I have seen it, but not on average. That is why we can save anywhere between 6-25%. I do like to low ball the savings and when they get their bill and it’s even lower, they are much happier.
Note there are no switches on the actual KVAR that is installed.
Here are some other key points:
-100% amp surge protects up to 2000 joules
-Adds 85% life to the motors
-Tax incentives
-No maintenance
-12 year factory warranty
-25 year life expectancy
Again I do not endorse anything but the KVAR KEC Saver because all others are companies that stole the idea brought it to either Mexico or China and are made a lot cheaper and may come with defects.
I know Power Saver says they bought the idea from NASA when the patent ran out, and that is total bullshit! The only reason NASA is involved is because they tested ours. NASA is not making capacitors.
The actual patent is on the sizing equipment, not capacitors. Capacitors were invented way before NASA.lol These other knock off companies are the reason they are calling it a scam. Big promises and they can’t back it up because they can’t size the motors.
I do it right!
Thanks for taking an interest.
My electric bill runs from $900 – $1000 per month in FL.
I run my internet business from my house.
In addition to two airconditioners running 24/7 for 9 -10 months a year, i have a 24/7 pool pump,and an additional freezer, several room fans, and an office with 12 pc/laptops, multiple printers, and CD reproduction machines, and over 30 lcd screens.
In the winter i am heating my pool and parrot cage.
My bill has dropped an average of $200 over the last 4 months with an outside meter installed KVAR. i visually saw the electric meter slowed down immediately with the KVAR connected. ON.. Off , ON .. OFF each time it spead up, then slowed down. SLow = money saved i think!
I will have a better measure come winter and the higher utility bills from heating stuff.
David,
The KVAR Energy Saver only works with inductive loads such as motors. Heating elements are resistive loads which means their Power Factor is already unity. You will not save any money with heat, but the motor pushing the heat you will save.
Have a good day and thanks for the post.
I am on multiple heat pumps for the house plus the pool.
My biggest electricty drain.
David,
Yes def. you are going to save. Did you ever do a power factor check on your house? The thing with the pumps and motors is the wasted energy just turns into heat so when the waste is eliminated you also add life to all the motors which pays for itself as well.
Angelo
Time to update the original article — now that you have seen the diatribes from KVAR promoters and a few common sense comments from electrical engineers — the answer should be obvious.
Angelo, Do you have any independant, third party verification on the savings claims your making on these products. Has any research institutes like EPRI conducted any tests?
Hi Rich,
Yes, read Blog 56: Hodges Electrical Enterprises. The original letter is more official looking than what I have posted because the copy and paste doesn’t work well on this blog. I also have test and letters from customers of mine. I do the sizing with equipment that I purchased from KVAR for $25,000, and that is the only way I sell equipment. I don’t just hook up cookie cutter boxes. The power companies use capacitors throughout their electrical systems. Capacitors are in the little gray boxes that you see online. You can look up article 460 in the national electric code handbook as well. Capacitors are nothing new and bottom line it works, but if your bill is less than $150 save your money unless you are looking for surge protection or a long pay back.
Angelo
Angelo, I read blog 56 and the first thing I did was to look-up Hodges Electrical Enterprises. I’m not sure if you know this but on their website they seem to sell the same KVAR stuff that you endorse. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that dis-qualifies Hodges Electrical Enterprises from being an Independant Third Party verifier. Also your girl-friends, sisters, brothers, uncle, who has a friend, that knows a guy, that………. they don’t count either.
Rich,
1. I am already loaded! 2. I actually hook up systems to equipment and electrical panels showing the owner of that equipment the amp drop and power factor correction. I do that because he or she carries the checkbook. Each month I get their satisfied letters and bills, and by the way I am single, so don’t worry about the gf uncle thing.haha! You really just sound stupid. Friend of an uncle…Come on! What are you 5? Lets here some arguments with some math, because I hate to be the bearer of bad news you need to beat blog #72. I love that one!
Well Rich I think your last blog will affect are friendship, but did you read article 460 in the NEC Handbook about capacitors? Get the Blue one 2008 and you will see the KVAR. But I guess not since all you had to say was girlfriends, uncle, sister, and don’t forget you “crack head.” Don’t bother writing anymore blogs unless you are coming at me educated. You bore me Rich, I am done with you.
89,000 KVAR’s go out each month, you are going to miss the boat trying to figure out how it can’t work, plus you will be disappointed and u will come up empty. Good Night smart ass!
Angelo
Hodges Electrical Enterprises Inc. offers a wide range of services to fit the needs of our customers. Along with the general building and residential electrical installations we offer several products for the customer that is looking to save money and reduce their carbon foot print by reducing the consumption of energy and water resulting in lower utility cost. We offer Solar Photovoltaic,Solar Water Heating,Solar Attic Fans, KVAR, Lighting Control,Cistern and Dirty Water Recovery, High pressure,Water Source A/C and Gas Water Heating,,Radiant floor Heating,Light Tunnels,Spray Foam Insulation,Energy Star Rated Appliances,Metal Roofing, Windows and Siding,Air Purification, and Complete Building Access,CCTV,CATV,Fire Alarm, and Communications Systems as well as ADA Compliant electronic Doorbell and Nurse Call equipment and installation. We are one of the only local qualified sales and installation companies for the KVAR product. Our company does extensive background checks on all employees. All employees are polite, professional and in uniform. We are listed venders with the federal,state,city, county and school board.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/profiles/24881#ixzz0Y2D1ajSr
Sounds like a pretty official company to me, and I love that they sell KVAR. Hey Rich, call them up and tell them it doesn’t hold water, I bet the secretary will have a more educated response than you. “HUH huh, this is Rich, I don’t think that test is valid, does your uncle work there? hu hugh!
Angelo, Why are you so defensive. Are you trying to hide something? You got balls calling me stupid when you can’t seem to grasp the concept of “Independant, third party verifiction” I’m gonna break this down so even you can understand it.
When a company makes a claim as to how well it’s products work that claim needs to be provenperformanceeeds to show that the product that company nyOU SHOwhat don’t you understand YOU Stop with the double-reverse, bulllshit. do you have any independant third party verification on not
Rich I am defensive because your a smart ass. It’s just capacitors genius. They have been around for 150 years. KVAR doesn’t have the patent on those boxes they are selling because they don’t have the patent on capacitors. “KVAR has the patent on the sizing equipment so they can build those boxes.” I offer the math and I can pick apart everything you got so keep the smoke screens coming. You don’t have shit.
Honeywell KVAR Test #1: Executive Summary
A. Overview : The KVAR Power Optimization Capacitors were installed on the chiller
and chilled water pump at Apollo Elementary School in Titusville, Florida, on Friday,
May 4th, at approximately 12 PM. A data logger was used for brief periods prior and
after the installation, in order to measure the effects of the installation on the
electrical power system. This report is to document the results of this test.
B. Installation : The chiller utilized for this test is a Carrier #30GT-210, air cooled,
packaged unit, manufactured in 1996. It is powered by 480/277V, 3f, wye electrical
service. The chiller has seven (7) reciprocating compressors, which cycle on and off
to maintain the leaving water temperature setpoint. Weather related load variations
cause cycling of the different compressors. Therefore, weather had some effect on
the chiller data collected, as electrical load changes likely occurred during trending.
The pump tested provides primary chilled water for the chiller. There are two 25 HP,
base-mounted, end suction pump, operating at constant speed. They are powered
by 480/277V, 3f, wye electrical service. Only one pump is operated at a time, with
the other use as a backup. Weather related load variations on the chiller will not
effect the electrical usage of the pump.
The measurement tool used in the testing was a clamp-on, power data logger,
manufactured by Extech, model #382060. It was installed on the three power
feeders between the disconnect switch and load (chiller or pump). It measured realpower
(kW) of the 3f service to each load, as well as amps per phase, line-line
voltage, kVA and power factor. As savings resulting from the power factor
optimization will be realized at the utility meter in kW reduction, this report will focus
mainly on those results.
C. Operation : This particular chiller is part of an ice-storage cooling system for the
elementary school. It is automatically controlled to perform dual functions
throughout the day and night. First, it is operated in the ‘ice-building’ mode after 10
PM at night, producing 20°F glycol solution to charge the ice storage tanks. After
the ice tanks are completely filled, it shuts down, approximately 5 AM each weekday
morning. It then operates as a regular chiller between about 6 AM and 12 PM.
Finally, it remains off-line until ice-build time, later that night. The primary chilled
water pump operates anytime the chiller is running, as well as during the ‘ice-burn’
mode each day.
D. Baseline data were collected during the morning mode of operation, at around 10
AM. The capacitors were disconnected from both the pump and chiller at this time.
After several minutes of data logging, the capacitors were connected and post
retrofit data were collected. This process was repeated for both the chiller and
pump.
1
01/07/09
Calculations: The following standard formulas were used to determine the savings from
this retrofit:
Demand Savings = kWbase – kWpost
Energy Savings = ([kWbase - kWpost ] x hrs per year )
Cost Savings = (Demand Savings x Demand Rate x Months) + (Energy Savings x Energy Rate)
Assumptions:
1. Chiller operates 40 weeks, 5 days per week, 13 hrs per day, for a total of 2600 hrs per year.
Pump operates 40 weeks, 5 days per week, 22 hrs per day, for a total of 4400 hrs per year.
2. Chiller and pump operate over a total of 10 monthly demand periods.
3. Average electrical rates are $8.65/kW and $0.0477/kWh.
4. Pump capacitors and installation costs = $645
5. Chiller capacitors and installation costs = $3,085
E. Results : The results of the power factor correction can be seen in the charts on the
following pages. Actual savings for the retrofit were calculated as follows:
Pump:
Demand Savings = (12 – 8) kW = 4 kW
[ ] kWh
yr
Energy Savings 4 kW x 4400 hrs = 17,600 ÷ ÷
ø
ö
ç çè
æ
=
185 , 1 $ 0477 . 0 $ 600 , 17 10 65 . 8 $ 4 = ÷
ø
ö ç
è
æ + ÷
ø
ö ç
è
= æ
kWh
x kWh x
kW
Cost Savings kW x
Simple Payback 0.5 yrs
$1,185
= $645 =
Chiller:
Demand Savings = (53 – 45) kW = 8 kW
[ ] kWh
yr
Energy Savings 8 kW x 2600 hrs = 20,800 ÷ ÷
ø
ö
ç çè
æ
=
684 , 1 $ 0477 . 0 $ 0,800 2 10 65 . 8 $ 8 = ÷
ø
ö ç
è
æ + ÷
ø
ö ç
è
= æ
kWh
x kWh x
kW
Cost Savings kW x
Simple Payback 1.8 yrs
$1,684
= $3,085 =
2
Rich
You thought you had me in checkmate, sister, brothers cousin who you married..Come on Rich Simple payback 1.8 years saving $1,684. That’s the Apollo Elementary School. You got me, that’s what I have been hiding. hahah!
Angelo
Angelo sorry I accidently hit the send key. Independant third party verification is when a company that has no affiliation with the company making the claim, test’s their products and gives an unbiased accounting of how the product performed. These tests are usually conducted under a controlled environment under strict supervision and are very detailed with great care taken to make sure the tests are fair and complete. Hodges Electrical Enterprises spent about 10 hours testing this product so don’t embaress yourself by telling people you stand behind this study. Even you, can’t be stupid enough to think this is a valid test. Sorry to hear you spent $25,000 on this stuff but a fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place.
Angelo, Do the math! For billing reduction purposes managing power factor only makes sense if the facility is billed on a KVa basis. The billing reduction on the Honeywell example you cited is due to demand reduction
I did it again this new computer is driving me nuts. Angelo I’m sorry but I’m gonna have to burst your bubble. The next time your trying to take advantage of a person with a checkbook show them this.
Initial amps x Initial P.F x volts = watts
Optimized amps x Optimized P.F. x volts = watts
You should see the same amount of watts so what are you saving these people. DO YOURSELF A FAVOR. THANK ME, AND GO GET YOUR $25,000 BACK.
Well folks I rest my case. I doubt we will ever hear from Angelo again. He’s probably hiding somewhere behind a wall of bullshit.
Angelo maybe you should stay away from sharp objects and avoid driving over bridges until you get over the fact that you been had. It’s really a shame because I can see how passionate you are about this technology. I know you mean well and want to do the right thing but doesn’t it bother you that the company offers no proof of savings in a verifiable form. If they had proof they would be jumpin’ around like a bunch of raped apes, pounding their chests, and shouting at the top of their lungs. Instead they make a monkey out of you and encouage you to go on with your dog and pony show while they enjoy the $25,000 you gave them to make a fool out of yourself. Get your money back!
So mongoloid Rich that is your argument that this system doesn’t work:
“Initial amps x Initial P.F x volts = watts
Optimized amps x Optimized P.F. x volts = watts”
That is a before capacitance and after capacitance formula used on our engineering logs. You forgot the 1.73 which is a very important part in that formula.
Also you commented that KVA has nothing to do with KW then why does
600 KVA = 480 KW? 200 KVA=160KW? 50KVA=40KW? Like I said research before you type I am a lot smarter than you and this is my profession.
I gave you two tests that were done with independent companies that were not selling KVAR at the time of the test, but both used the capacitors to reduce the watts? Your only rebuttal was “they are not a valid independent.”?? Who cares the test was conducted and they found it to work. Look I can copy and paste college engineering studies, more tests, and I can show you my tests that I have done in the field with the YMCA, Restaurants’, Bars, Homes. If you didn’t act like a dickhead I would give you my customers’ numbers to call, but with the uneducated half assed arguments that proves to me that you and I are not even in the same league. Are your bogs serious?? You’re trying to be funny, but fall short again. The most I can say after becoming stupider just reading your comments is look up capacitors on your own time, and really try to understand. Blurting out formulas that are missing key elements is just wasting time and space. It took me a while to even register what you considered smart, I wasn’t even going to respond and I would just wait on someone else to comment. Good luck with whatever you are into and I will thank God everyday that you are not in my business, because you would burn down a house with your knowledge. Do us all a favor and not type anything else. Get over the $25,000 Rich, I spend that on fuel a year for my 1966 Cessna C182 J.
Best Regards,
Angelo
Next please: Mongoloid Rich was not a good match up.
On Average this is what I see in HVAC Systems.
4w 208 Air Handler
Initial Amps: 14
Initial PF: .65
Volts: 208
Optimized amps: 8
Optimized PF: .95
Volts: 208
P = 1.73 x E x I x PF
1.) 14 x 208 x .65 x 1.73 = 3274.544
2.) 8 x 208 x .95 x 1.73 = 2734.784
the difference: P=539.76 <—–Like I said, "do your math!"
"You should see the same amount of watts so what are you saving these people. DO YOURSELF A FAVOR. THANK ME, AND GO GET YOUR $25,000 BACK."-Rich
Using same numbers
3w Air Handler 240
P = E x I x PF
14 x 240 x .65 = 2184
8 x 240 x .95 = 1824
Difference P = 360 <—-
Angelo I didn’t realize you were so wealthy. I got a nice deal on a beautiful bridge but it’s only for very smart people like you. It’s only available to guys who can bend the laws of physics. When do you want to look at it?
Angelo Since your so well off why don’t you bring your KVAR unit to a company like EPRI (Electric products research institute)and ask them to evaluate the savings caims you are making for these products.
EPRI is a independant third party verifier who will tell you exactly what your products can and can’t do. Now I know your response will be “why do I need varification, I already know this stuff works.” Well this is just to let the rest of the world know just how much money they can save with KVAR. Come on Angelo the whole world is depending on you pick up the torch and make things happen. Call EPRI today.
I wonder why KVAR hasn’t done this already?
Rich,
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you would of cut the BS and just came out with that. We haven’t done any work with EPRI because I’ve never heard of them. Most of the tests that are done are in Florida because we all live here, and we have distributors set up all over the world that primarily deal with customers. Is that where you work? Because Rich, I would really like to meet you. Let me check out their website and do some background research and I guarantee that I would NOT have a problem doing that, because I do it for non believers and unbiased clients every single day. You think I sit on my ass all day with my quantum theory books and type on blogs? Well I do, but I also work.
Again Rich, cut the BS and just say what you want. Rich to me it’s not about the money I make, I love working in the electrical field, primarily in commercial. It’s my passion, and I get up every morning to hopefully learn something new or to convince a skeptic. Hopefully I will change the opinion of everyone, but everyone has their special test that they want to perform to be convinced. For you it’s EPRI, others their own personal panels. Just remember I was a skeptic too.
I will look into EPRI, and when they do the test, find it works, and decides to start selling them, Rich I don’t want to hear shit! Got me?
Angelo
Rich,
It would of been nice of you Rich to provide a website and phone number for me, remember I am the man with the $25,000.00 equipment, your the one that wants me to use it.
Thanks
Angelo
Rich,
Oh yeah, No thanks on buying the bridge, in your previous blog you told me to stay away from sharp objects and bridges so I will.
Thanks
Angelo I love your tanacity but your missing the point. You call yourself a professional but you never heard of EPRI. You really are a rookie. Okay tiger go to epri.com and watch their video “all about Epri” If you have any trouble understanding the video I’ll be more then happy to try help to explain it to you. I’m not gonna tell you who I am and what I do because I don’t want to spoil all the fun Im having toying with you. Eventaually I will tell you who I am but right now I’d rather watch you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.
Here we go with the BS again! Mongoloid Richard (dick) is back. You’re a joke. I’ll skip on the video because that is my competition selling other energy efficient products and services. Good luck! I guess first one to the top of the mountain because when I see you, you will be looking up at me from your back. Rich says capacitors don’t work. Anybody with some common sense wants to educate him, because he definitely called me tiger. Rich I can see the stretch marks around your mouth from here. Peace!
I’ll still do the test though with the KVAR! I will size the EPRI buildings and show them how much I can save on their own equipment; I am expensive though so being a nonprofit like themselves I hope they can afford it. Rich will be looking to make his stretch marks around his mouth bigger to maybe take it out in trade. I don’t swing that way chip.
Angelo,either your the stupidist son of a bitch in the world or you didn’t go to the EPRI website. EPRI DOSN’T SELL ANYTHING YOU IDIOT! YOU CAN’T GO AND SIZE THEIR BUILDINGS.
EPRI conducts R&D (research and developement) I spelled it out for you because i’m not sure if you know what R&D stands for. EPRI conducts R&D relating to Generation, Delivery and use of electic power. You have to pay them to prove the claims you are making. Either they will validate your claims our they will dismiss it. This is what’s known as indepedant third party verification. I know this concept confuses you so maybe you should get one of your kids to help explain it to you so you can understand it better.
By the way I never said capacitors don’t work. They work very well there just not gonna save you 15% on your electric bill. Unless you have independant third party verification to validate your claims you have nothing. Capice.
Sounds like somebody didn’t like the stretch mark joke. Well you got your free advertisement and now everyone knows what the EPRI does. I have already exhausted the fact that I will pay to have this test done. I know what it means to you. haha! Only the people in the independent third party agrees with you and your BS because KVAR puts 89,000 out each month and they have an A+ commonality with the BBB. You say capacitors work well so I rest my case. I also claim 6-25% depending on the motor load. So if I don’t get this test done I can only think of one person who won’t buy one, and he currently has his mouth full and his tongue tied up in knots. Good Night Dick.
Angelo I give up. You stated that you “have already exhausted the fact that I will pay to have this test done” what the hell doe’s that mean. Are your saying that you are going to bring the KVAR unit to EPRI and have them verify the savings you claim you can recieve?
If you do bring the unit into them you better call the homicide squad because the’re gonna die laughing! There gonna say hasn’t anyone explained the power triangle to this guy? EPRI is a world class operation and your a rinky dink KVAR distributor. There are things they forgot you havn’t learned yet. Let me think about this? Angelo or EPRI. My cousins, sisters, aunt says go with angelo because she thinks she heard about someone put one of these KVAR units in and she thinks they save money. SO there you have it, who needs independant third party verification when my cousins sister aunt knows best. Go ANGELO!
Angelo I want to pass on some advice my father once gave me. “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your stupid then to open your mouth and prove it!
I’m sorry I rained on your parade but KVAR should have given you an umbrella of facts. Instead you spout out useless babble which you think are facts. It’s quite obvious your new to the business, and although you are very enthusiastic you have got to do your do dilligence before you start selling this stuff.
Your boasting you can save 6-25% depending on motor load, well prove it. You can’t and neither can anyone else at KVAR. Ask KVAR how many distributors have left the business. This will give you an idea of how valid this technology actually is at saving the customers money. You spent $25,000 for some sizing equippment which you were tricked into thinking is the only way you can measure what capaciatence is required to bring a motor to unity. Virtually anyney $500.00 meter can achieve the same purpose claims like 6-25%
Well folks it looks like Angelo has slithered off into the sunset. At first I thought he would leave with his tail between his legs and offer an apology for his IGNORANCE but it’s obvious he hasn’t progressed that far up the food chain. Good luck Angelo!
If you looking for another opportunity I heard U.S. Fidelis and Mogi the extended car warranties are hiring. Your a lock to land a position, your perfect for the job, you can blow more smoke then a volcano. If they need a referal you can show them this blog and they’ll probably offer you a job on the spot. The best part is these companies don’t want any independant third party verification on anything they do so you’ll fit right in and feel right at home.
Angelo, Your up. Go get ‘em, tiger.
Angelo what happened to you babe. What are those stretch marks around your mouth? For a guy who had all the answers it seems that your “mouth is full and your toung is tied up in knots.”
You should show this blog to the guy who brought you into the business and punch him right in the mouth for taking advantage of you. If KVAR has “conerence calls” like many of these companies do ask them why they haven’t conducted independant third party verification. There answer will be simple “Angelo, if we did that the game would be over we wouln’t be able to fleece people anymore, so Angelo just keep your mouth full your tounge tied and wear those stretch marks proudly!
I really don’t understand what the argument is? You gave me a company to conduct the tests. I said I will get that R&D Company to look into my system. You said capacitors work and that is what the KVAR is. You gave me a formula that was not correct and using the right formula and your formula it proved to reduce the watts. You are really just looking dumb because I made $14,000.00 today and I showed the customer what you were writing and the three partners said you are a dumbass while they signed the check. I hooked up the sizing equipment and showed them the difference in amps. If you weren’t being such a dick I would give you their number too, so keep on with your BS. Talk to you next week, maybe you will wright something that has some intelligence, so do your homework you got a week.
Angelo you said it all in your opening sentence “I really don’t understand what you argument is” You right, you really don’t understand power factor correction but you insist it will reduce your electric bill. You wow-ed these guys by showing them a drop in amps while bringing their power factor to unity. This demonsration is impressive, and leads prospects to believe their bill will drop in direct coralation to the amps dropped, but did you show a drop in watts?
You can’t, It’s impossible, unless your KVAR unit has some smoke and mirrors in it that allows it to bend the law of physics.
Put your data logger on the circuit your KVAR unit is on and measure the amount of watts it is drawing. Now turn the KVAR unit on and off. WOW!!! After you pick yourself up off the floor and you regain your senses you’ll notice. Surprise! No drop in watts. Weather the KVAR unit is on or off your still drawing the same amount watts. Guess what? no drop in watts no savings on bill.
You should actually see a rise in KWH usage. Maybe you can use that $14,000 you made to post bond when you get arrested for fraud!
Angelo, go to the ENERGY-STAR website and show your customers what they have to say about how power factor correction cannot lower your electric bill. Now who are your prospects gonna believe Angelo, or the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Show this post to the guys that called me a dumb-ass and the’ll be calling you a con-man!
amps x volts = watts so when you reduce the amps you reduce the what? You are fighting a losing battle because you claim independent, independent. Now you want me to look at the energy star website and read about those ass wipes for lobbyist. They are a “sticker company” riding everyone else’s coat tails. I gave you a week for this purpose of you not looking like an idiot, which you accomplished, and the only thing you accomplished. I bet you are in your bath tub right now biting your fart bubbles. Have a thought of your own Rich instead of regurgitating what other people write.
KVAR is backed by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Not sure what you meant by that? But KVAR and I have all of that paperwork from those governmental agencies. We are also UL Listed, RoHS, NASA, Honeywell approved. All this can be found online.
Angelo, once again you have proved that you have now idea about what you are taking about.
You said ” now you want me to look at the Energy Star website and read about those ass wipes for lobbyist. They are a sticker company riding everyone else’s coat tails.”
In your next post you state that KVAR is backed by the (DOE) and the (EPA.) Are you sure? Have you done tour homework?
The answer is no! If you would have researched Energy Star
SURPRISE!!!!! you would have found that Energy Star is a joint program conducted by the (DOE) and the (EPA.) OOPPS, Now don’t you feel like an idiot!
So the same company that you called “ass wipes” is backing your products. You sound very confused.
HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO SCREW EVERTHING UP? You only see what you want to see and you disregard the rest. Don’t you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot and showing everyone how stupid you are.
Angelo stop embarrasing yourself and get your facts together before you shoot your mouth off.
Angelo you call the people at Energy Star “ass wipes,” and you claim that KVAR is backed by the (DOE) & (EPA).
Since the (DOE) & (EPA) make up ENERGY STAR I guess what your telling me is that KVAR is backed by a bunch of “ass wipes”
Now your starting to make sense.
What happened when you conducted the test I suggested in #103 were you able to show a drop in watts? Remember if you tell us you did drop the watts no-one will believe you unless you can repeat the process. So unless you can put your money where your mouth is. Shut-up!
Amps x volts = watts so when you reduce the amps you reduce the what?
How cute! Your so whitty! Did you make that up yourself? Your mother must be very proud of you but once again your not telling the whole story. You forgot to mention the recipricating relationship between the amps dropped and the rise in power factor when measuring an inductive load. HUH!!!!!!!!
Angelo don’t worry babe I wouldn’t expect you to understand my last sentance. Do the test from #103 and go get your money back.
Angelo don’t post anything until you post your results from #103.
Rich,
My mom is very happy because the amps x volts = watts was just a test to see if I am dealing with someone smart enough to understand what comes next. You would have to be smarter than what I think you are to get dressed in the morning.
The KVAR operates on a simple principle of power factor compensation, and is directed towards motor loads. This I hope you already know? If not that means the current will lag the voltage (for a 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage, this mean the current peak will occur up to 4.17 ms after the voltage peak). A typical motor may have a phase shift of 75 degrees, which corresponds to a power factor of cosine 75 degrees = 0.26. A pure inductor would present a phase angle of 90 degrees, for a power factor of 0.
A dual element to an inductor is a capacitor, which creates a current waveform that leads voltage (for a 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage, this mean the current peak will occur up to 4.17 ms before the voltage peak). An ideal capacitor will have a current phase angle of -90 degrees.
Resistive load presents a phase shift of 0 degrees and a PF of 1. Which means current peaks exactly synchronized to voltage peaks.
If an electrical device is required to deliver a specific amount of power (watts=volts*amps), then the amount of current that must be delivered to the device will be influenced by its power factor. For a load with a PF = 1, the current required is at a minimum. This is because the voltage and current waveforms are exactly in phase, thus the current peaks occurs with the voltage peak, thereby delivering power very efficiently. However, as power factor drops (as with an inductive load), power delivery becomes less efficient. This is because the current peaks begin to lag the voltage peaks. With this situation, the current peaks must be larger to achieve the same power levels. This is why a low power factor is undesirable.
Here you go Rich: Unless the PF=1, you cannot measure AC voltage, and then measure AC current, and simply multiply to determine power. This is because of the phase dependency described in a power of 0 watts, even though current and voltage are both non-zero. Power meters are helpful but rich is probably smart enough to determine by integrating the product of instantaneous voltage and current throughout one period of the AC waveform.
I hope you’re still with me Rich because this is where it gets good.
Now, as current peaks increase with falling power factor, the inefficiencies in the system grow with the square of increasing current. This is because power is dissipated in the wiring leading up to a load. This wiring acts as a resistor, with power loss calculated as I squared * R. Thus, if current increases by 4x, then the associated power loss increases by 16x, this is where the power saving lies with power factor compensation.
Of course, in addition to reducing I squared * R losses within a home or factory, power factor improvement is to the advantage of a utility company but the customer saves also.
Here’s the test Rich:
The output of the KVAR box is connected directly to a Dayton 5K917 1/3 HP split phase motor, rated for 5.6A nominal.
The KVAR uses two SP65A-1, 35uF, oil filled, motor run capacitors from Shine Capacitors rated for 50/60Hz up to 240Vac.
Measurement W/O KVAR With KVAR
volts 116 116
Amps 5.17 1.37
Watts 170 154
VAR 576 43
VA 601 160
PF 0.28 .95
Eat shit bub!
You can run that through dustball.com and this is what you get
No plagiarism suspected
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! MONEY!…..MONEY!
There is also a U.S. Department of Energy study (Sept. 1980 DOE/TIC 11339, Category UC 38) that attest to the savings and all benefits gained through the use of power factor optimization.
Energy Star is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products. It was first created as a United States government program in 1992
KVAR was tested by the DOE 12 years before energy star was ever created.
Everyone has their opinions on “sticker companies.” I have never sold a KVAR because it was backed by anything governmental, just like i would never sell a KVAR if the EPRI backed it. I just love this product and it’s been good for me and my customers. Best of luck! And have a merry Christmas!
Angelo, I’m impressed! You are so eloquent. Thanks to you my mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of intention. (Mel Brooks)
Now stop the bull-shit and don’t post anything until you show the results from Post #103.
Come on Angelo, Shit or get off the pot!
Angelo we don’t care what you know only what you can show. Don’t post anything else until uou can show the results from post #103.
Has anyone seen Angelo? It looks like he conducted the tests from post #103 and I doubt we will ever hear from him again.
Let’s see if he’s man enough to admit that these KVAR can’t save what he claims they can save.
I hope Angelo was innocently duped into buying into this bull-shit. We’ll find out if he comes on to man-up.
Like my father use to say “Belive nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see”
Angelo this ain’t the end of the world but the next time you try to save the planet make sure you do it with a product that has INDEPENDANT THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION and don’t be such an asshole when someone is tying to keep you from making a total fool of yourself. Have a merry Christmas, Rich.
Angelo:
Firstly, the KVAR uses capacitors made in China which they buy from China, and then they assemble them according to the System (Microfarad Values) in a NEMA 3R Indoor/Outdoor Metallic Box. So I advise you NOT to downgrade other capacitors as Made in China by claiming the KVAR is Made in USA – because it is NOT. It is merely ASSEMBLED in Florida using Made in China capacitors. Ask Steve Fish, CEO of KVAR and he will admit to that.
Secondly, EnergyStar did NOT test the KVAR. The Certification showed KVAR to have participated in the Energy Conservation activity organized by EnergyStar – which had the participation of all other products and technologies. EnergyStar does NOT recognize the KVAR as a certified product. You can ask Mr. Robert Saucelli in New York about this. KVAR Florida is however still working on getting the KVAR certified.
Thirdly, I do have a lot of tests showing in real-time that KVAR has indeed lowered the kWh of the motors – provided they were properly sized – optimized without leading results in the amp meter.
Cheers!
Vince your knowledge of what’s going on at kvar is impressive. I would love to see the test results you have showing how the kvar unit can lower the kwh on motors. Thanks Rich.
Here are the results:
Testing Date: July 7, 2009
Testing Facilities: Boiler Room at a Major Healthcare Institution in the Northeast USA.
Equipment = Reheat Pump (Fixed Load / Running 720 Hours per Month)
PHASE 1 – Sizing Operations
Baseline/Non-Optimized Data: Volts=277.00 / Amps=17.25 / PF=0.810
Optimized Data: Volts=276.80 / Amps=13.16 / PF=0.997
A quick verification of changes in kW need to be made so the decision was to leave the sizing equipment connected for 59 minutes to the pump, and the kW was metered at the dedicated sub-panel/MCC section. Distance from Reheat Pump (Test Equipment) to the dedicated sub-panel at the MCC was 70 feet.
PHASE 2 – 59 Minute Quick Verification of Sizing Results:
Date of Verification Test: July 7, 2009
Metering Incrementation: Minute-per-Minute for 59 Minutes
Non-Optimized (No Sizer Connected) Metered Average kW = 8.510 kW
(Duration: From 7/7/2009 14:55 to 7/7/2009 15:16)
Optimized (With Sizer Connected) Metered Average kW = 5.840
(Duration: From 7/7/2009 15:17 to 7/7/2009 15:53)
The 59 Minute Test which registered an average kW reduction of 31.37% needed to be further verified in terms of kWh reduction (hourly basis) for an extended period of time. In view of this need, the customized KVAR Unit was built and then installed at the facility – to the same motor test equipment (Reheat Pump), and metered using the same HOBO PROware Metering System. The results are as follows:
PHASE 3 – 38-Day kWh Reduction Performance Measurement & Verification (M&V):
NON-OPTIMIZED (BASELINE – NO KVAR INSTALLED)
Date of M&V Assessment – Non-Optimized: July 7, 2009 to July 30, 2009
There was NO KVAR connected. The kWh was measured and used as the Baseline for this Phase 3 Extended M&V Operation.
Metering Incrementation: Hourly for 24 Days
Non-Optimized (No Sizer Connected) Metered Average kWh = 8.05 kWh
(Duration: From 7/7/2009 16:00 to 7/30/2009 13:00)
OPTIMIZED (WITH CUSTOMIZED KVAR INSTALLED)
Date of M&V Assessment – Optimized: July 30, 2009 to August 12, 2009
The appropriate customized KVAR unit was installed at the load side of the Reheat Pump, and the kWh was measured every hour for this Phase 3 Extended M&V Operation.
Metering Incrementation: Hourly for 14 Days
Optimized (Custom KVAR Connected) Metered Average kWh = 5.79 kWh
(Duration: From 7/30/2009 16:00 to 8/12/2009 8:00)
The average reduction in kWh consumption yielded a 28.07%
Ideally if the customization of the PF correction optimization closest to the load is a strategy that could be properly and correctly implemented on a selective basis to improve the energy efficiency performance of motors with higher monthly motor run-times, then the KVAR has its merits.
Without motors running at higher run-times, and whose PF ratings are already high enough (i.e. 0.93++), implementing the KVAR in such a facility may be financially prohibitive and disadvantageous to the customer. This is certainly one of the strongest reasons why KVAR may NOT always work in the residential home sector where not enough motors with higher run-times apply.
One therefore should be extremely careful in DOGMATICALLY prescribing the KVAR as a “standard product” applicable at all times – because the KVAR is really a SOLUTION which applies in very specific situations and under very specific conditions. An initial engineering work to assess the applicability of the KVAR technology is therefore a must BEFORE stating in non-discriminating terms the “general applicability” of the KVAR technology as THE standard for energy savings. After all, without downgrading its merits in very specific situations, the KVAR is just one of the good and perhaps better energy efficiency power conservation technologies available in the market today.
Cheers to everyone… If you need more information, email me at: ssr.nevada@yahoo.com
Vince,
I have never stated that KVAR is backed by energy star but they are backed by the DOE. It is not the principle of where they get their parts, but the fact that KVAR is manufacturing their product here in the US creating jobs! But I like your test!
Angelo I was getting worried about you. What happened when you conducted the test from #103. Rich.
Angelo:
Firstly, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between “OE Manufacturing” (where the word – “manufacturing” really comes from in the strictest meaning and sense of the word) and “assembling”. KVAR assembles their product in the USA – in Daytona Beach, FL. They do NOT in that sense, “manufacture” the KVAR.
Secondly, the US DOE does NOT back a specific product label. The US DOE (being a Federal entity) recognizes the “CAPACITOR TECHNOLOGY” (NOT the KVAR Capacitor – as there are MANY other capacitors out there) as an acceptable technology for AC inductive motor power factor correction. That is the PROPER CONTEXT to understand the relationship between the US DOE and KVAR. The KVAR does NOT have ANY ENDORSEMENT from the US DOE nor from ANY Federal or State sector of the US Government.
I have to state however that a test was conducted by NASA as early as November 19, 1996 (cf. NASA Test Protocol Ref. TTA-K517) on a 10Hp Compressor Motor located in their Prototype Shop M7-581 Building utilizing a Drantz Power Monitor PPI Instrument (NASA Property Tag #1382136), and the results showed indeed an 8.7% reduction in motor kW consumption (i.e. 5.63kW down to 5.14kW).
Notwithstanding that NASA testing, there is NO reason why the US DOE would EVER endorse the KVAR because that is NOT within their Governmental mandate and function. As I have said, there is only ONE kind of POWER FACTOR CORRECTION CAPACITOR technology ALTHOUGH there are MANY capacitors out there (INCLUDING a system of computing for the EXACT capacitance needed in terms of Microfarads), and one of them is the KVAR that is assembled (NOT “manufactured”) in Florida. The only MANUFACTURER of Capacitor in Florida (a REAL USA MANUFACTURER) is this company that can be found 30 minutes from downtown Daytona Beach, but they manufacture motor start-up capacitors, although PF correction capacitors are being developed as of this writing date.
For those who wish to do a real, industry grade scientific testing of the KVAR – and REALLY see from an OBJECTIVE standpoint HOW and HOW MUCH savings can be generated at the load (demand) side, our engineering can do that A-to-Z work for you. Let me know via the email.
Cheers and Peace to Everyone!
Regarding the Test Protocol (cf. #103 above), the ONLY scientific way to show OBJECTIVE results is to meter actual kW and kWh in the initial (before optimization) and after (optimized) conditions. As meters do NOT lie (NOT unless the meter is defective in itself), there will be NO disputes. This is the ONLY SOLUTION to put to rest ALL the issues (and rants) presented in this Forum.
Angelo, whats the story? Are you to ashamed to tell us what happened when you conducted the test from #103.
If you would be able to prove your point nobody would be able to shut you up.
However, not one peep out of Angelo. Now let’s see if your man enough to post the actual results. Rich.
Here’s another interesting technology…
It is a semi-conductor unit (UL and CE certified) and it will actually treat the circuit line itself – using specific waveforms of infrared to make the circuit line itself laminar and makes the electrons more stable as they transport current through the lines. This is a technology that incorporates the principles of quantum physics.
The nice part is that this equipment which is installed at the sub-panel will work for ALL types of loads – both inductive and resistive.
In the realm of energy conservation, there are times that it does NOT make too much of a point to fight over the KVAR and the capacitor technology because notwithstanding the claims (proven or otherwise) that the KVAR and capacitors reduce kW and kWh consumption through optimized PF correction, evidently it still has its limitations in not being able to address non-inductive loads, which this state-of-the-art, new technology (that is NOT capacitor based NOR VFD based) does.
I do agree with you Rich. Let Angelo come up with and publish his test results. That is his redeeming factor among you guys.
By the way, has anyone tried the energy savings performance of the CIRCUIT RIDER (Made in Texas)?
I find this blog to be very intrusting. I am someone that doesnt understand much about the things you are talking about but a friend of mine has told me about a device that is installed in the electric panel that doesnt use capacitors and hooks to the nuetral bar. has anyone herd of such a device and if so maybe someone can explain it in a way that I could understand it. also about angelos side of the story. Being that I dont have any formal education and Have spent over 20 years in the building trades. I have found that some times just because something doesnt work in the text books doesnt mean it wont work!! I mean is angelo seems to have seen the proof with his own eyes (and perhaps his costumers also) And just because it may our maynot work on paper does not me it is our isnt true. If I had one of these things in my house and it worked, I wouldnt care what rich had to say about it. And if it didnt work then it would be shame on you angelo ( just because some law says that a 110 pound lady cant lift a 800 lb piano off of her child to save there life doesnt mean she wont do it) so rich try thinking outside the box because when people think out side the box is when amazing thing can happen. and sometimes laws get re written.
Dan the one fact that you have to you have to keep in mind is that “Electrical Theory” is not some theory that may or may not be true. This is an area that has been well understood for more than a century and concepts like like resistance, impedence and reactive current are accepted as reality, something you ignore at your own peril. Even if future understanding of particle physics were to give us new insights to old laws, these old laws are for all practical purposes, are perfect for predicting an outcome to common situations.
Dan you have to be able to prove what you are claiming and this is what I’ve been trying to get Angelo to understand. You can tell me that you can get water to run up-hill! But, until you can show verifiable proof, that this is true, then you have nothing!
Rich I donot disagree with everything you say but I didnt see any where in this blog that you tried this divice and if you did maybe I need to read our blogs again. you keep asking him to run your test. did you run a physic test yourself? and it you did what did you find out? Please let me know. Can you ans. my other ? about the other divice I was talking about? also Can you tell me what your backround is? ( In my life time I have learned that skeptics are either upset people our people that have our will do great things witch one are you ?
angelo seems to have proved what he said buy runing the physic test on the 1/3 hp motor and so have other people. Why cant you except that as a valid test.
We all know what angelo does and we know where his intrests are But we dont know riches does our intrest are.
Angelo Can you ans. my ? about the other device that I herd about?
Dan the reason why you can’t accept the results from #56 is because the test was conducted by a company who is a KVAR distributor.
Need I say more?
This is why independant third party verification is so important. It eliminates all the bull-shit and the bull-shitters like Angelo who can’t man-up he’s proved to be wrong.
I agree with you Rich that it has to be a Third Party and NOT a KVAR Dealer, Distributor or Sales Associate. In the case of the performance test of the KVAR made in that healthcare institution (cf. # 117), AFTER the installation, it was the Healthcare Institution that metered the device – to assess kW and kWh comparative changes to determine IF there are REAL savings generated – which they have seen. Additionally, the NASA Test on the KVAR is an Independent Third Party testing.
Notwithstanding those tests, and perhaps other tests that may not have been mentioned here, I still see a need for an unbiased Third Party assessment and measurement of the KVAR when installed on motors that have variable loads (e.g. elevators, escalators…). Any feedbacks from anyone regarding a KVAR test on variable loads?
From experience, the BEST ENERGY SAVER which does NOT need testing, and which everyone will agree on, is the “TOTO” APPLICATION (“Turn On – Turn Off/Unplug” when no longer needed. Much of the energy waste still comes from motors, lights etc… that are left on and not turned off/unplugged when no longer in use.
Education. Re-education. Reminders. Policy & Rules Enforcement… those are the back-ups to the TOTO prescribed measures.
Vince the NASA test is inconclusive. Do you really think that an orginization that spent the time, money, and the effort to land a man on the moon would release a 1/4 page statement endorsing a product?
If Nasa relied on information like this they would never even consider building a rocket let alone launching one. However, the KVAR distributors will accept the results as fact without any validation. Ask Angelo, who still hasn’t conducted the test from #103.
No one has still ans. my first ? and rich you still havent ans. all my ? that I asked you. There fore I have to conclude that you are a closed minded person. ( you have still not reponded to the ? Have you ever performed the physical test that angelo talks about and also what is your backround.)
How can you expect me our anyone else to believe things you say if we dont know your backround. I would be glad to believe what you say with out so much skeptisisam if I new what your backround was.
The NASA test indicates a kW drop and is a start for further and additional testing. This has been extensively done by a MAJOR HEALTHCARE INSTITUTION in the Northeast USA – minute per minute and hour per hour – logging on data to REALLY see IF the KVAR works. And YES, there are significant reductions in kW and kWh, HOWEVER, this test was done on a fixed load motor running 24/7. I personally see a need to validate the same test scenario using a VARIABLE LOAD MOTOR. Once the variable load test is satisfactory, that is the time that I can say that the KVAR is a technology worth considering as ONE OF THE MANY technologies and applications to optimize energy efficiency to generate demand side electrical consumption savings.
Cheers and peace.
Another thing worth mentioning here is that making it to a NASA testing – no matter how simple the test was, and seeing positive results from such testing event, are achievements for anyone who has developed an INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY – which is what the KVAR is. This is something that Rich needs to accept as a fact.
Vince the test results you offer on #117 are very impressive. Were you there to witness the test? Can you repeat the results?
Vince just by stating a “MAJOR HEALTHCARE INSTITUTION” without mentioning a name, doesn’t that raise some red flags in your mind.
If they were achieving these types of savings don’t you think the whole country would be beating a path to their door and we would all know their name. Best, Rich.
From the standpoint of logic, I do not see ANY connection at all between NASA’s landing a human being on the moon and the testing made on KVAR. There is simply NO logical connection at all because NASA can do a vast ocean of things as far as R&D are concerned – big undertakings and small jobs, and this is where the KVAR testing enters into the picture. That 1/4 page statement of a savings fact issued by NASA is worth more than a dissertation issued by another company or organization, if you consider the hierarchy of R&D importance. NASA does NOT and will NOT invent statements.
I think there has been much discussion about the KVAR here. The solution is simple. Utilize the principles and procedures of the Scientific Method to test the KVAR under different conditions, and replicate them 1 to 3 times more under those same varying conditions in various settings, and compare results. Use statistics to check a significant difference, and if there IS, then we will just have to accept the fact that the KVAR is indeed a performing product given certain conditions.
Any person who does NOT want to pursue the scientific method in lieu of addressing skepticism, and who decides to remain within the realm of a “persistent skepticism” without doing a proper scientific test assessment, will be consigned to the misfortune of being a stubborn skeptic.
Rich:
Firstly, in response to your comments, at this point, I do not have permission to mention the name because there is a process now being worked out with their Consultants to implement the KVAR in one of their facilities in order to do a “facility wide” assessment BEFORE they decide to do it on an “organizational-wide” scale. As soon as the institution gives the green light to make it a public matter, then I can mention the name and even furnish you directly ALL logs after you sign a non-disclosure paper (which is a normal process).
Secondly, YES I was physically there and I saw the entire operation;
Thirdly, YES this can be repeated – name the place and when, and given the proper logistics (as there are costs involved), YES the entire process, procedures, and protocols can be replicated;
Fourthly, I agree with you. YES, the country should really get into it, HOWEVER, like everybody else, a little skepticism tempered with reasonable judgments based on objective scientific tests and assessments, takes up time before a nationwide plan of action can be implemented.
Fifthly, as I have indicated in my previous comments, the KVAR is only one of the capacitor technologies developed to optimize power factor as a means to generate energy savings on the demand side. There are OTHER CAPACITORS out there – and OTHER COMPANIES may have developed their own system of a “precise motor sizing” (other than the “KVAR Method”) based on their own systematic classification and configuration of microfarads (mF), in order to size a motor according to one’s own mF grouping. This is where everyone who wants to understand the scientific logic and merits behind the “KVAR Method”, to carefully distinguish between WHAT IS A CAPACITOR itself (and this is where there are hundreds of real Original Equipment Manufacturers or “OEMs” out there from where KVAR surely buys their own capacitors), and YOUR OWN SYSTEM OF MICROFARAD CONFIGURATION (which is where you base YOUR OWN way to properly and accurately size a motor) which is where you custom assemble the capacitor you buy from OEMs. What is funny is that you and KVAR may have the same capacitor(s) inside the NEMA rated box (or casing), but you and KVAR may have a different system of configuring the mF for such motor(s). This is therefore the reason why the U.S. Patent on the KVAR is NOT on the capacitor itself – the KVAR Equipment (because capacitors have pre-existed the integrator/inventor of the KVAR method), but on the “KVAR SIZING METHOD” which is fundamentally and solely the SPECIFIC SYSTEMATIC GROUPING OF MICROFARADS developed by Mr. Gregory Taylor (the “KVAR Method”), and the manner in which those various units or combination of units of mF are switched back and forth in order to determine the EXACT MATCH between the SPECIFIC requirement of an AC inductive motor to operate at an optimized power factor rating, and the EXACT mF configuration in the mF Table that has been developed.
Lastly, I have to congratulate Mr. Gregory Taylor and KVAR for coming up with his/their own system and method of sizing motors based on an age-old existing technology called the “capacitors”. He has certainly opened the doors in the realm of R&D for others to also consider developing their own unique tables of mF configurations in order to also “integrate” other equipments that may ALSO optimize the efficiency performance ratings of AC inductive motors.
At this point, I now bow out of making further comments about the KVAR technology.
Happy Holidays to you Rich and to everyone in this Board.
Vince
Vince you must be a KVAR distributor. Do a test as mentioned in #103. Isolate a circuit with a motor. Measure the amount of watts it is drawing. Now optimiize that same circuit with the KVAR sizing equippment. Now how many watts are you drawing? Now stop the bullshit and post the results! When I told Angelo to conduct this test we never heard from him again. Let’s see if your man enough to post your results. Like I told Angelo shit our get off the pot!
These comments are for you RICH:
FIRSTLY, your challenge can be done BUT when you measure, you need to measure for a duration of at least 6 hours – inclusive of the baseline so you can see NOT ONLY reductions but the level of CONSISTENCY. That is the more effective way of testing. I do NOT espouse a one minute test.
SECONDLY, the problem with #103 is that the measurement device is NOT the proper one. You need a real data logger (NOT a clamp-on meter – which is what I understand you call a “datalogger” in #103) that will do minute-per-minute kW and kWh metering and on an hourly basis as well. RICH, FOR YOUR SAKE, PLEASE DO NOT CHALLENGE ME OR ANYONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO USE A REAL KW & KWH METERING DEVICES (e.g. Onset’s HoboWARE PRO system) BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES IF YOU PROPERLY CONFIGURE THE SYSTEM TO MEASURE IN REAL-TIME MINUTES, AND IF YOU HAVE THE PROPER CAPACITANCE APPLIED TO A MOTOR. Believe me YOU will LOSE!
THIRDLY, I do not want to be blunt here, BUT I strongly suggest that you kindly review these concepts of – Power Factor Correction, IR2 Losses & Line Impedance… You can start reading: Capacitalk No. 101 of Myron Zucker (they are a real MANUFACTURER of Capacitors in the USA) where the issue of a kWh reduction from power factor correction is discussed in the context of the technical concept of segmentation metering. You will also learn there the difference between a Bulk Capacitor and those installed at the load side like the KVAR equipment…
Here are a few points for you to ponder on Rich:
1) Lowering the current through the cable actually means
lowering heat loss and, therefore, reducing power loss through the supply cable.
2) Reduction in kWh needs to ALSO consider the IR2 losses along several points in the entire circuit line system. The difference in I2R loss component from for example Point “A” to Point “C” , the point where the Grid bills the Consumer, or when the I2R component is considered even further up to the Point of the Grid Distribution there would definitely be a reduction in KWH component.
3) You can actually calculate kWh reductions from IR2 loss reductions. Here is the formula: [I(diff) squared] x [r] where [r] is the cable resistance and [I(diff)] is the difference in current drawn with and without using Power Factor improvement.
4) By Kirchoff’s law, the sum of all (I(diff)) of all motors on the MCC would be the differential current on the cable from the MCC to the metering point (Point B to C). Replicating the process of optimized power factor correction on motors in a facility will accumulate to a desirable level of monthly power savings for the facility.
FOURTHLY, if you Rich accept those Statements from #1 to #4 as the fundamental premise for judging the merits of a scientific testing procedure, then we can do that test which you so desire. You need to be there and you need to bring a real kW and kWh metering instrument, and NOT a “clamp-on power meter” (because that is NOT the proper way).
FIFTHLY, regarding the results – I have given you the results in kW and kWh reductions in this blog. The reason why I cannot divulge the identity of the institution is because of the proprietary nature of the test information which will ONLY be made public as soon as the energy efficiency optimization project is officially started on a facilities wide level. For now it is private and confidential – BUT, NOTWITHSTANDING this legal limitation in disclosures, that does NOT and SHOULD NOT in any way diminish at all the scientific reliability and integrity of the test.
Your proposal to do your “test procedure” as you indicated is WRONG!!! It is NOT a scientific method at all. You cannot use a clamp-on metering instrument for that kind of an operation which is what I assume you propose to do. Ask any serious engineering company and they will laugh at that procedure… NO NO NO we will NOT do that kind of a testing.
SIXTHLY, we are NOT distributors of KVAR. We provide energy efficiency, power conservation, and environmental remediation SOLUTIONS to commercial, industrial, and institutional clients. We have licensed electrical engineers on board, and we are actively involved in the World Association of Energy Engineers. We have been doing this for the last 3.5 years, in fact, for the last 22 months we have consistently been paid by a Government Institution for our share in their monthly power consumption savings based on a performance contract we have signed with them – and guess what, one of the core applications was the KVAR. We also use other technologies and they do complement each other. And YES Rich, we know what we are doing.
Here are my questions to you Rich before you ask me to “shit or get off the pot” (by the way, a very poor english): Do you Rich have any experience at all in delivering energy efficiency solutions to commercial institutions – even industries? Do you Rich have actual experience in planning and in installing at a turn-key level motor controllers, power factor correction capacitors? Do you Rich have an experience in real-time metering of kW and kWh energy consumption at the commercial or industrial level – including interfacing the computer systems for an accurate, real-time capture of the data logs?
You cannot therefore tell me to be man enough to show test results because I have ALREADY done it here – with significant details, and I guess everyone here who is NOT unreasonably biased will agree with me on this specific point.
You cannot ask me “to get off the pot” because I have written the truth – only the unbiased truth, and I have contributed sensible information here hopefully to get others to learn and for me to learn as well. There is NO room in this Blog for a STUBBORN UNREASONABLE PREJUDICIAL THINKING OF REALITIES BASED ON A SEVERE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR SCIENTIFIC MEDIOCRITY…
With or without the KVAR Technology, we will always stiok to the optimization of power factor correction as a method for reducing kW and kWh energy consumption of motors because that application and technical, engineering strategy works – from theory and from actual experience. There are many manufacturers of capacitors out there and they can make the customized capacitors we prescribe for our customers.
Anyway Merry Christmas to all and to you Rich…
Vince
Vince, I’m impressed with your understanding of power factor correction, but your missing the point. Don’t tell me what you know, tell me what you can show! Why do you need six hours to conduct a test? When you shut off the lights does it take six hours to figure out that they your are off?
Why make something that simple, difficult. Measure what a motor is drawing under load. Optimize that motor to unity. Now measure the draw. That’s IT!
Now if you can prove that your dropping the watts that, that motor is drawing then you need to bring the KVAR to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) because you are able to prove that you can bend the laws of physics! I’m sure they would love to validate your findings and publish them so the electric community can benefit from your ability to do what nobody else can do. Vince you’ll go down in history. The man who can drop watts while increasing power factor.
Vince in blogs 132, 137 & 140 you refer to Nasa’s endorsement of KVAR. You claimed NASA does not and will not invent statements. You would think that with all the highly paid talent at Nasa that they would know how to add, Right?
Not if you go to http://www.nlcpr.com-nasa-kvar and take a look at the test results on page two. The results that you are so proud to endorse are flawed by simple math errors. OOPPS! we were only off by a 1/10000. Yeah but you missed the moon by mile.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Are all of your tests
conducted in the same manner?
That’s why none of your statements are valid. When one statement is found to be suspect, should we believe anything you claim to be true. Do you just change the numbers to suit your findings. This is why independant third party verification is so imortant and why guys like you refuse to do a simple test like turning the KVAR on and off and measuring the watts. KISS, Rich.
Rich:
Firstly, you need 6 hours of test to demonstrate BOTH the REDUCTION IN ENERGY CONSUMPTION and CONSISTENCY. YES the test was done with a specific load – the same load that motor had for many years.
Secondly, ANY third party evaluator will insist on doing a test for several hours to check on consistency. Yes – CONSISTENCY – spell that right and hammer that in your mediocre mind. You test kilowatts and kilowatt hours, after all the objective – which is to pay less by using lesser energy without compromising the integrity of the motor – will BEST be ascertained by testing and measuring actual kW and kWh changes.
Thirdly, you do NOT test capacitors against lights as those are NOT inductive loads. Turning ON and OFF is NOT the kind of scientific test Third Party Evaluators will do.
Fourthly, don’t you understand “legal limitations on proprietary information”? As I have told you, this information will be made public at the right time.
Fifthly, why should I be ashamed of myself? A Third Party has done the test of our solution which at that time and under that specific application was the KVAR sizing method. The motor was loaded and was running as it should and as it had always been – and the proper measurements were recorded – minute-per-minute / hour-per-hour.
YOU should be ashamed of yourself because you remain in your persistent, baseless, and self-defeating – self-demeaning skepticism – and too bad your form and level of skepticism is the “academic-scientific scourge” of the century. Anyway, there is still time for you to go back and start from high school and move up to college (assuming you pass the entrance tests in a good school), and start reviewing the principles, procedures, and proper protocols of the scientific method.
TO ALL READERS in this Blog, you be the judge of the merits of the presentations here. I do NOT really include personal sarcasms in presentations, but since Rich started it, I have NO problem meeting his sarcasms with the same level of sarcasm.
You said KISS (Keep it simple ____”), I say to you KISS as well (“Keep it Stupid Stupid”) Loser!. lol.
Vince
Bravo Vince and Dan I’ve never heard of the product you are talking about. I don’t see however, how a product that works with the neutral will save you money. Find the name of the product Dan and let me know. I will give an independent third party verification. haha! (Richard what’s happening to us!”) -Tommy Boy
Kisses? Rich, keep the stretch marks around your mouth away from us!
Vince you and Angelo must have gone to different schools together. You guys can’t answer a simple question. Were you able to demonstrate a drop in watts when the KVAR was on as opposed to when it was off. Thats it! YES OR NO! Don’t write a diatribe about more bullshit, does it drop the watts? YES OR NO.
We havn’t heard from andelo in weeks. Angelo tell Vince what happened when you conducted the test? Were you able to drop watts? YES OR NO! No diatribe please.
Measurement W/O KVAR With KVAR
volts 116 116
Amps 5.17 1.37
Watts 170 154 <—I would say yes I can drop the watts!
VAR 576 43
VA 601 160
PF 0.28 .95
What is more impressive is the drop in VAR’s 576 to 43 Wow!
170 watts to 154 watts. Let’s hear the next smart ass comment that probably has nothing to do with this.
Let me get your address Rich and I will send you one free of charge and you can test it, install it, throw it away, I can give a shit! It seems to me that people won’t spend a dime to test one but they will spend other people’s money to plead a case. Well spend my money Rich, besides your arguements have earned me sales so I guess in a way I owe you one!
Here is my answer – YES. In that test in the Northeast USA Healthcare Institution which they have done, the watts dropped – because the (kiloWATTS) kW and kWh (kiloWATT hours) dropped. They were recorded by the HOBO PROWare System – and those instruments and computer systems do NOT lie.
Now let’s go to you Rich — Why don’t you answer the questions I asked you in Post #143? For your convenience, here are those questions AGAIN:
1) Do you Rich have any experience at all in delivering energy efficiency solutions to commercial institutions – even industries? YES or NO?
2) Do you Rich have actual experience in planning and in installing at a turn-key level motor controllers, power factor correction capacitors? YES or NO?
3) Do you Rich have an experience in real-time metering of kW and kWh energy consumption at the commercial or industrial level – including interfacing the computer systems for an accurate, real-time capture of the data logs? YES or NO?
Your answers there will tell me IF INDEED you are qualified enough to render reliable comments / judgments to facts/statements presented here, and NOT just writing a bunch of “BS” based on non-factual, scientifically baseless, prejudicial comments reeking of a debasing, obnoxious ignorance.
Vince The answer to 152 Is YES, YES & YES. I can prove that KVAR doesn’t work because I have taken the time and the effort to try to prove that it does work. That’s right, at one point in time I was as excited as you are about KVAR technology. I thought I had found the holy Grail and I was gonna save the world! I thank God that I took my time and did my due-diligence in trying to quantify what monetary savings KVAR could offer my prospects. this product could save didn’t have enough experience in power factor correction that through my tests I’ve been through This is why I’m trying to keep you guys from making fools of yourselfswhy do you think
Strike those last 3 sentences I accidently hit the submit key. THE BOTTOM LINE IS KVAR is great at playing the, “which came first, the chicken or the egg” game. There running the perfect scam. They get guys like you all excited because you feel you built the “better mousetrap” and your gonna save the world. You can’t it’s against the laws of physics you have to remember Electrical Theory is NOT Theory it’s well established fact. KVAR however, would like to have you think that this theory is subject to change. It’s not! It can’t!
That’s why I keep telling you to do the test with the kvar on & off on a circuit. Now stop defending this crap! Angelo your #’s look like they came from a KVAR demo kit did you forget to tell customers about the 100 feet of wire stored in the KVAR unit to help exaserbate the I squared R losses.
Angelo. the unit is a vcg unit made by a company called gig2inc.com
Rich:
I am more for the OPTIMIZED POWER FACTOR CORRECTION of AC INDUCTIVE MOTORS application as a strategy for reducing kW and kWh. Whether I get the customized capacitors from KVAR or from another institution is up to me.
The only conclusion I hold as valid and true as far as I am concerned is that a real optimization of power factor correction which does not make the motor(s) lead WILL reduce kW and kWh energy consumption of those motor(s). Period.
You can persist in the way you want to test capacitors to prove that PF correction does NOT reduce kW / kWh. That is your call. I stick to the way I understand a test should be done. I just cannot accept your “turn-on / turn-off” scenario as a valid one. The test that I was referring to is WAY WAY ABOVE the merits and integrity of your suggested “testing” protocol.
Vince I love you, but I give up. There’s an old saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Boy is that true. But I like the new saying better “A horse can be drawn to water, but a pencil has to be led.” a beautiful play on words, thats funny, but confusing, stop the confusion. Stop with the smokescreen. If you can drop kw by optimizing a circuit you should be on Good Morning America, the Today Show etc, etc…. Vince you should be a star. Vince, do you understand how redicules this all sounds? Vince can do something that nobody else in the world can do. G.E. can’t do it. Siemens can’t do it. Cultler Hammer can’t do it, but Vince can. Vince you can’t be this nieve. Don’t tell me you can drop watts anymore, you need to tell the world! Just tell me what shows and when your gonna be on. Vince your my hero! Say hi to Merideth for me. Best, Rich.
First things first Rich. Review your english grammar and your spelling BEFORE you delve into those kW and kWh reductions. And correction, did I say optimizing the circuit per se? Be precise. I said and I meant – “Optimizing the Power Factor Correction”.
Leading a horse to a body of water does NOT necessarily mean that I want the horse to drink. Who knows, I may only want to clean the horse there. Did you, Rich, go through LOGIC 101 in your college years?
You are the only one who is confused. You may have started using the KVAR but never understood the technology. Perhaps you were never successful in properly demonstrating kW reductions using the equipments and following the proper scientific protocols – so you start ranting, you persist in blaming the technology – and guess what, the problem is NOT with the technology, the REAL PROBLEM is YOURSELF. Unless you accept that limitation as your own fact of life, you will always be skeptical in life. In that sense, you are a BORN LOSER! lol…
Vince I give up, your the biggest ass-hole I ever met in my life. You can’t prove what you can say but yet you don’t shut up. You use tests that no one can verify and you claim you can drop kw use.
In your own words “The only conclusion that I hold Valid and true as far as I’m concerned is that a real optimization of power factor correction which does not make the motors lead will reduce kw and kwh energy consumption. Period.” Well that settles it. Vince say’s it works so therefore he must be right. He can’t prove it works but who needs proof when we got Vince. Vince in your statement you said it all. “The only conclusion that I hold valid and true as far as I’m concerned.”
“AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED” Well who the fuck are you and what gives you the right to make a statement that you can’t prove. You would think that by his time you would have hooked your sizer up to a circuit, optimize that ci
optimize that circuit and show us the watts dropped. But you havn’t done this, why? Because your a Rookie and you don’t know what your doing. You just keep rambling on and blowing smoke. Your problem is you listen, but you don’t hear. You look, but you can’t see. Take the blinders off and get in the game. Vince why are you able to do something that nobody else can do? Doesn’t that raise any questions in your mind? You would think you’d be re-thinking the validity of your tests, but, you would rather keep up your barrage of bullshit and give us numbers that you can’t prove to be true. Vince why don’t you do a test on You Tube so we can all see the results. C’mon Vince here’s your opportunity prove me wrong. Put your tests on YOU-TUBE so we can all laugh at you when you prove what an ass-hole you really are! The whole worlds counting on you Vince, don’t let us down.
I am happy with the tests I see. That institution which did the test is happy. The Third Party Consultancy Firm in New York that looked at the testing protocols and the results claim they are valid. So what can I say if the kW and kWh dropped as the PF was optimized? Why do you want me to change truth and reality?
I cannot put tests on you-tube when that has already been accomplished for a period of over 21 days to ascertain CONSISTENCY IN RESULTS.
Those numbers come from the instrument datalogs. I did NOT invent them NOR did the institution which had to do the test invented those figures.
Rich, by calling me an “asshole” – your language is foul. It is evident that you are NOW resorting to that kind of language because truth hurts – and the truth is YOU ARE A LOSER! lol… ha ha ha ha
No need to re-explain matters to stubborn mediocres like you. I do not have to stoop down to your level of barbarism. Get educated! Learn civility! ha ha ha ha Now the whole blog knows what kind of a person you are.
Here are the HOURLY datalogs of the BASELINE DATA GATHERING for the KVAR test conducted by and in a major healthcare institution in the Northeastern USA:
Period: July 7, 2009 – July 30, 2009
Number of days: 24 Calendar Days
Average kWh consumption: 8.05 kWh
Average outside temperature: 77.99 OAT
BASELINE DATA – NON-OPTIMIZED
# Time, GMT kWh OAT Reheat Temp
1 7/7/2009 16:00 0.46 81.14 139.93
2 7/7/2009 17:00 7.94 81.26 140.00
3 7/7/2009 18:00 7.94 83.46 140.00
4 7/7/2009 19:00 8.02 80.47 140.14
5 7/7/2009 20:00 8.06 74.52 140.00
6 7/7/2009 21:00 8.02 70.69 140.07
7 7/7/2009 22:00 7.96 69.72 140.00
8 7/7/2009 23:00 7.96 68.66 140.07
9 7/8/2009 0:00 8.02 62.04 139.93
10 7/8/2009 1:00 8.10 62.38 139.79
11 7/8/2009 2:00 8.08 62.18 140.14
12 7/8/2009 3:00 8.06 61.77 140.00
13 7/8/2009 4:00 8.08 61.37 140.07
14 7/8/2009 5:00 8.06 61.14 139.93
15 7/8/2009 6:00 8.04 62.69 140.00
16 7/8/2009 7:00 8.08 86.00 140.14
17 7/8/2009 8:00 8.18 86.85 139.93
18 7/8/2009 9:00 8.06 71.57 140.14
19 7/8/2009 10:00 8.06 72.10 139.79
20 7/8/2009 11:00 8.26 73.97 139.86
21 7/8/2009 12:00 8.00 77.34 139.86
22 7/8/2009 13:00 8.00 82.77 140.14
23 7/8/2009 14:00 8.00 80.73 140.07
24 7/8/2009 15:00 7.98 83.31 139.86
25 7/8/2009 16:00 8.10 85.61 139.93
26 7/8/2009 17:00 8.02 87.22 139.79
27 7/8/2009 18:00 8.10 85.65 139.93
28 7/8/2009 19:00 8.00 82.10 140.00
29 7/8/2009 20:00 8.04 73.72 140.00
30 7/8/2009 21:00 8.00 71.93 140.14
31 7/8/2009 22:00 8.14 70.57 140.14
32 7/8/2009 23:00 7.98 69.52 140.00
33 7/9/2009 0:00 8.04 67.59 140.14
34 7/9/2009 1:00 8.02 65.76 140.00
35 7/9/2009 2:00 8.16 64.27 140.00
36 7/9/2009 3:00 8.08 63.22 139.86
37 7/9/2009 4:00 8.20 61.89 140.07
38 7/9/2009 5:00 8.10 61.39 140.07
39 7/9/2009 6:00 8.20 62.00 140.07
40 7/9/2009 7:00 8.32 76.81 139.86
41 7/9/2009 8:00 8.22 70.94 140.00
42 7/9/2009 9:00 8.18 68.66 139.86
43 7/9/2009 10:00 8.06 70.78 139.93
44 7/9/2009 11:00 8.12 75.29 139.93
45 7/9/2009 12:00 7.96 75.45 139.93
46 7/9/2009 13:00 8.02 75.90 140.00
47 7/9/2009 14:00 7.98 76.08 139.93
48 7/9/2009 15:00 8.08 75.27 140.00
49 7/9/2009 16:00 8.02 75.35 140.00
50 7/9/2009 17:00 8.20 79.23 139.93
51 7/9/2009 18:00 8.12 79.45 140.14
52 7/9/2009 19:00 8.08 78.62 140.00
53 7/9/2009 20:00 8.12 70.35 139.79
54 7/9/2009 21:00 8.08 66.91 139.73
55 7/9/2009 22:00 8.02 66.37 140.07
56 7/9/2009 23:00 8.00 65.76 140.41
57 7/10/2009 0:00 8.06 65.21 139.93
58 7/10/2009 1:00 8.04 63.70 140.07
59 7/10/2009 2:00 8.04 62.77 140.00
60 7/10/2009 3:00 8.08 62.04 139.86
61 7/10/2009 4:00 8.10 62.12 139.93
62 7/10/2009 5:00 8.06 61.65 139.93
63 7/10/2009 6:00 8.06 63.01 140.00
64 7/10/2009 7:00 8.08 75.17 140.00
65 7/10/2009 8:00 8.06 84.03 140.07
66 7/10/2009 9:00 8.02 73.30 140.14
67 7/10/2009 10:00 8.00 75.55 139.79
68 7/10/2009 11:00 7.94 79.94 140.14
69 7/10/2009 12:00 7.96 80.96 140.07
70 7/10/2009 13:00 8.02 81.99 139.86
71 7/10/2009 14:00 8.00 83.82 139.79
72 7/10/2009 15:00 7.94 81.12 139.93
73 7/10/2009 16:00 7.94 84.74 139.86
74 7/10/2009 17:00 7.92 87.26 140.07
75 7/10/2009 18:00 7.96 89.47 140.21
76 7/10/2009 19:00 7.96 84.86 140.07
77 7/10/2009 20:00 8.02 74.11 140.07
78 7/10/2009 21:00 8.02 70.73 139.86
79 7/10/2009 22:00 8.00 69.68 140.00
80 7/10/2009 23:00 8.00 69.19 140.07
81 7/11/2009 0:00 8.02 68.40 139.93
82 7/11/2009 1:00 8.02 68.01 140.07
83 7/11/2009 2:00 8.08 66.75 139.93
84 7/11/2009 3:00 8.04 65.88 140.07
85 7/11/2009 4:00 8.16 65.29 140.00
86 7/11/2009 5:00 8.10 64.98 140.00
87 7/11/2009 6:00 8.06 66.22 140.07
88 7/11/2009 7:00 8.04 82.93 140.00
89 7/11/2009 8:00 8.00 90.27 140.00
90 7/11/2009 9:00 8.00 78.92 139.93
91 7/11/2009 10:00 7.96 82.58 140.14
92 7/11/2009 11:00 7.94 84.51 140.07
93 7/11/2009 12:00 7.96 84.11 140.07
94 7/11/2009 13:00 8.00 84.07 139.86
95 7/11/2009 14:00 8.16 84.29 140.00
96 7/11/2009 15:00 7.98 84.59 139.86
97 7/11/2009 16:00 8.02 83.68 140.00
98 7/11/2009 17:00 8.10 80.35 140.00
99 7/11/2009 18:00 8.08 77.93 140.00
100 7/11/2009 19:00 8.28 76.77 139.93
101 7/11/2009 20:00 8.16 75.59 139.93
102 7/11/2009 21:00 8.04 74.70 140.00
103 7/11/2009 22:00 7.92 74.45 140.07
104 7/11/2009 23:00 8.14 72.40 140.14
105 7/12/2009 0:00 8.12 69.05 139.79
106 7/12/2009 1:00 8.16 68.28 140.07
107 7/12/2009 2:00 8.10 68.95 139.93
108 7/12/2009 3:00 8.02 67.28 140.14
109 7/12/2009 4:00 8.18 67.59 140.14
110 7/12/2009 5:00 8.16 67.73 139.86
111 7/12/2009 6:00 8.24 67.83 139.93
112 7/12/2009 7:00 8.20 74.84 140.00
113 7/12/2009 8:00 8.30 84.31 140.07
114 7/12/2009 9:00 8.36 79.68 140.07
115 7/12/2009 10:00 8.22 80.04 140.00
116 7/12/2009 11:00 8.26 82.81 139.93
117 7/12/2009 12:00 8.28 84.98 140.07
118 7/12/2009 13:00 8.40 83.76 139.93
119 7/12/2009 14:00 8.18 86.71 139.86
120 7/12/2009 15:00 8.28 87.12 139.93
121 7/12/2009 16:00 8.28 88.74 139.86
122 7/12/2009 17:00 8.26 92.16 139.86
123 7/12/2009 18:00 8.26 94.09 139.86
124 7/12/2009 19:00 8.20 90.57 139.79
125 7/12/2009 20:00 8.24 81.47 140.14
126 7/12/2009 21:00 8.62 76.67 140.00
127 7/12/2009 22:00 8.42 75.53 140.00
128 7/12/2009 23:00 8.12 72.16 139.93
129 7/13/2009 0:00 8.32 70.10 140.07
130 7/13/2009 1:00 8.14 68.64 140.07
131 7/13/2009 2:00 8.40 66.89 140.07
132 7/13/2009 3:00 8.30 65.39 139.86
133 7/13/2009 4:00 8.26 63.78 139.86
134 7/13/2009 5:00 8.10 63.28 139.93
135 7/13/2009 6:00 8.36 64.64 140.00
136 7/13/2009 7:00 8.14 82.73 140.14
137 7/13/2009 8:00 8.12 90.14 140.00
138 7/13/2009 9:00 8.26 77.40 140.00
139 7/13/2009 10:00 8.10 80.82 140.07
140 7/13/2009 11:00 8.04 83.05 140.14
141 7/13/2009 12:00 8.32 83.74 140.07
142 7/13/2009 13:00 8.02 88.23 140.07
143 7/13/2009 14:00 8.02 88.38 140.07
144 7/13/2009 15:00 8.22 88.46 140.00
145 7/13/2009 16:00 8.10 93.31 139.93
146 7/13/2009 17:00 8.08 91.59 139.93
147 7/13/2009 18:00 8.36 82.60 140.00
148 7/13/2009 19:00 8.24 87.11 140.00
149 7/13/2009 20:00 8.18 78.05 140.14
150 7/13/2009 21:00 8.26 75.57 139.93
151 7/13/2009 22:00 8.34 74.54 140.14
152 7/13/2009 23:00 8.04 72.14 140.14
153 7/14/2009 0:00 8.34 70.59 140.00
154 7/14/2009 1:00 8.20 69.33 139.79
155 7/14/2009 2:00 8.34 67.77 140.07
156 7/14/2009 3:00 8.12 67.36 140.07
157 7/14/2009 4:00 8.30 65.74 139.93
158 7/14/2009 5:00 8.16 64.70 140.14
159 7/14/2009 6:00 8.42 65.55 140.00
160 7/14/2009 7:00 8.46 78.97 140.00
161 7/14/2009 8:00 8.46 88.52 139.93
162 7/14/2009 9:00 8.28 74.47 140.07
163 7/14/2009 10:00 8.38 78.80 140.00
164 7/14/2009 11:00 8.28 80.82 140.14
165 7/14/2009 12:00 8.06 83.07 139.86
166 7/14/2009 13:00 8.20 87.36 139.79
167 7/14/2009 14:00 8.16 86.79 139.86
168 7/14/2009 15:00 8.22 84.98 139.79
169 7/14/2009 16:00 8.08 85.85 139.79
170 7/14/2009 17:00 8.06 86.51 139.93
171 7/14/2009 18:00 8.34 91.87 140.00
172 7/14/2009 19:00 8.22 90.26 139.86
173 7/14/2009 20:00 8.36 80.79 139.93
174 7/14/2009 21:00 8.14 76.16 139.79
175 7/14/2009 22:00 8.06 74.27 140.14
176 7/14/2009 23:00 8.10 72.75 140.07
177 7/15/2009 0:00 8.34 71.26 139.93
178 7/15/2009 1:00 8.34 69.68 140.07
179 7/15/2009 2:00 8.38 68.40 139.86
180 7/15/2009 3:00 8.08 67.48 139.93
181 7/15/2009 4:00 8.28 65.17 140.14
182 7/15/2009 5:00 8.42 64.84 139.93
183 7/15/2009 6:00 8.52 64.90 140.00
184 7/15/2009 7:00 8.72 82.46 140.07
185 7/15/2009 8:00 8.06 90.33 140.00
186 7/15/2009 9:00 8.16 76.32 140.00
187 7/15/2009 10:00 8.32 79.35 140.00
188 7/15/2009 11:00 8.36 81.69 140.00
189 7/15/2009 12:00 8.14 83.54 140.14
190 7/15/2009 13:00 8.14 85.75 140.07
191 7/15/2009 14:00 8.26 88.05 140.07
192 7/15/2009 15:00 8.24 89.01 140.00
193 7/15/2009 16:00 8.02 90.98 140.07
194 7/15/2009 17:00 8.04 94.67 140.07
195 7/15/2009 18:00 8.36 88.56 140.14
196 7/15/2009 19:00 7.94 81.69 139.86
197 7/15/2009 20:00 8.16 78.27 140.00
198 7/15/2009 21:00 8.14 76.24 139.86
199 7/15/2009 22:00 8.18 75.51 139.79
200 7/15/2009 23:00 8.06 75.67 140.07
201 7/16/2009 0:00 8.14 75.37 140.14
202 7/16/2009 1:00 8.08 75.98 140.07
203 7/16/2009 2:00 8.26 75.19 139.93
204 7/16/2009 3:00 8.24 74.29 139.86
205 7/16/2009 4:00 8.28 73.58 140.21
206 7/16/2009 5:00 8.30 73.25 139.93
207 7/16/2009 6:00 8.06 73.48 140.00
208 7/16/2009 7:00 8.02 77.06 139.86
209 7/16/2009 8:00 8.18 79.43 139.79
210 7/16/2009 9:00 8.30 85.33 140.14
211 7/16/2009 10:00 8.06 88.92 140.14
212 7/16/2009 11:00 7.94 89.63 140.07
213 7/16/2009 12:00 8.02 93.96 139.86
214 7/16/2009 13:00 8.00 93.68 139.86
215 7/16/2009 14:00 7.88 94.65 140.00
216 7/16/2009 15:00 8.02 94.65 139.93
217 7/16/2009 16:00 8.04 94.63 139.86
218 7/16/2009 17:00 8.02 92.79 140.00
219 7/16/2009 18:00 8.08 88.29 140.00
220 7/16/2009 19:00 7.94 87.52 139.79
221 7/16/2009 20:00 8.14 85.85 139.93
222 7/16/2009 21:00 8.40 83.94 140.00
223 7/16/2009 22:00 8.26 82.64 139.79
224 7/16/2009 23:00 8.10 82.01 139.86
225 7/17/2009 0:00 8.18 80.43 140.00
226 7/17/2009 1:00 8.12 75.65 140.00
227 7/17/2009 2:00 8.22 72.42 139.86
228 7/17/2009 3:00 8.06 72.08 140.14
229 7/17/2009 4:00 8.16 71.08 139.86
230 7/17/2009 5:00 8.10 69.84 139.73
231 7/17/2009 6:00 7.98 70.59 139.93
232 7/17/2009 7:00 8.02 80.21 139.73
233 7/17/2009 8:00 7.98 84.03 140.00
234 7/17/2009 9:00 8.02 83.09 139.93
235 7/17/2009 10:00 8.04 86.34 139.86
236 7/17/2009 11:00 7.98 90.79 139.86
237 7/17/2009 12:00 7.90 93.90 140.07
238 7/17/2009 13:00 8.10 94.63 139.86
239 7/17/2009 14:00 7.94 94.61 140.07
240 7/17/2009 15:00 8.00 91.85 140.00
241 7/17/2009 16:00 8.08 90.31 140.00
242 7/17/2009 17:00 8.06 86.44 139.93
243 7/17/2009 18:00 8.24 85.06 140.07
244 7/17/2009 19:00 8.24 82.85 140.07
245 7/17/2009 20:00 8.16 80.14 140.21
246 7/17/2009 21:00 8.04 79.47 139.86
247 7/17/2009 22:00 8.02 76.04 139.93
248 7/17/2009 23:00 8.16 73.72 140.00
249 7/18/2009 0:00 8.14 74.39 139.93
250 7/18/2009 1:00 8.00 73.13 139.93
251 7/18/2009 2:00 8.00 73.19 140.00
252 7/18/2009 3:00 7.98 71.73 139.79
253 7/18/2009 4:00 8.24 72.32 140.14
254 7/18/2009 5:00 8.26 71.36 139.93
255 7/18/2009 6:00 8.08 71.55 139.59
256 7/18/2009 7:00 7.98 74.09 140.14
257 7/18/2009 8:00 7.96 75.39 139.93
258 7/18/2009 9:00 8.00 79.15 139.86
259 7/18/2009 10:00 8.12 81.32 140.00
260 7/18/2009 11:00 7.90 83.27 139.93
261 7/18/2009 12:00 7.88 86.73 139.93
262 7/18/2009 13:00 8.18 89.53 139.93
263 7/18/2009 14:00 8.10 91.69 140.07
264 7/18/2009 15:00 8.06 90.55 140.07
265 7/18/2009 16:00 8.08 90.24 140.14
266 7/18/2009 17:00 8.00 92.93 139.79
267 7/18/2009 18:00 7.98 94.65 140.00
268 7/18/2009 19:00 7.98 94.65 140.00
269 7/18/2009 20:00 7.88 82.75 140.00
270 7/18/2009 21:00 7.96 78.11 139.86
271 7/18/2009 22:00 7.86 76.45 139.79
272 7/18/2009 23:00 8.00 74.78 140.14
273 7/19/2009 0:00 8.04 72.87 139.86
274 7/19/2009 1:00 8.04 71.47 139.93
275 7/19/2009 2:00 7.96 70.11 139.93
276 7/19/2009 3:00 8.06 68.84 140.14
277 7/19/2009 4:00 8.00 67.97 140.07
278 7/19/2009 5:00 8.00 67.08 140.21
279 7/19/2009 6:00 8.08 67.24 140.00
280 7/19/2009 7:00 8.10 81.34 140.00
281 7/19/2009 8:00 8.12 88.66 140.00
282 7/19/2009 9:00 8.00 75.49 140.07
283 7/19/2009 10:00 8.08 78.42 139.79
284 7/19/2009 11:00 7.96 81.55 139.93
285 7/19/2009 12:00 7.88 83.50 139.93
286 7/19/2009 13:00 7.90 86.40 140.07
287 7/19/2009 14:00 7.84 88.78 139.93
288 7/19/2009 15:00 7.94 87.99 140.00
289 7/19/2009 16:00 7.90 92.07 140.07
290 7/19/2009 17:00 7.86 85.73 139.93
291 7/19/2009 18:00 7.94 90.37 140.07
292 7/19/2009 19:00 8.16 86.97 140.21
293 7/19/2009 20:00 8.04 81.34 140.00
294 7/19/2009 21:00 7.94 77.66 140.07
295 7/19/2009 22:00 8.22 76.55 139.86
296 7/19/2009 23:00 7.98 75.12 139.86
297 7/20/2009 0:00 7.94 74.03 140.07
298 7/20/2009 1:00 7.94 72.89 139.86
299 7/20/2009 2:00 8.12 72.12 139.93
300 7/20/2009 3:00 8.12 71.36 140.14
301 7/20/2009 4:00 8.06 70.63 140.21
302 7/20/2009 5:00 8.12 68.58 140.07
303 7/20/2009 6:00 8.16 69.19 140.28
304 7/20/2009 7:00 8.12 78.60 140.07
305 7/20/2009 8:00 7.92 84.96 139.73
306 7/20/2009 9:00 8.12 79.56 140.07
307 7/20/2009 10:00 8.14 82.99 140.00
308 7/20/2009 11:00 8.06 85.27 139.73
309 7/20/2009 12:00 7.96 86.75 140.07
310 7/20/2009 13:00 8.06 88.40 139.86
311 7/20/2009 14:00 8.08 88.35 139.93
312 7/20/2009 15:00 8.14 87.22 140.07
313 7/20/2009 16:00 8.26 91.30 140.00
314 7/20/2009 17:00 8.28 87.81 140.14
315 7/20/2009 18:00 8.06 91.20 139.93
316 7/20/2009 19:00 8.20 84.74 140.07
317 7/20/2009 20:00 8.02 79.98 139.86
318 7/20/2009 21:00 8.24 77.26 139.86
319 7/20/2009 22:00 8.32 76.22 140.07
320 7/20/2009 23:00 8.16 74.54 140.34
321 7/21/2009 0:00 8.06 72.99 140.00
322 7/21/2009 1:00 8.10 72.14 140.00
323 7/21/2009 2:00 8.28 71.26 140.00
324 7/21/2009 3:00 8.22 71.36 139.86
325 7/21/2009 4:00 8.12 70.15 140.00
326 7/21/2009 5:00 8.14 67.69 140.00
327 7/21/2009 6:00 8.26 65.25 139.86
328 7/21/2009 7:00 8.02 65.27 139.86
329 7/21/2009 8:00 7.98 65.37 140.07
330 7/21/2009 9:00 8.26 64.60 140.00
331 7/21/2009 10:00 8.14 65.11 139.86
332 7/21/2009 11:00 7.94 65.59 139.86
333 7/21/2009 12:00 7.96 66.67 140.07
334 7/21/2009 13:00 8.16 67.48 139.86
335 7/21/2009 14:00 8.16 68.03 139.93
336 7/21/2009 15:00 7.98 68.21 140.07
337 7/21/2009 16:00 7.96 68.52 120.13
338 7/21/2009 17:00 8.04 69.17 120.06
339 7/21/2009 18:00 8.02 68.56 120.13
340 7/21/2009 19:00 8.12 68.44 119.93
341 7/21/2009 20:00 8.04 67.95 120.06
342 7/21/2009 21:00 8.14 67.65 119.99
343 7/21/2009 22:00 8.10 67.54 119.93
344 7/21/2009 23:00 8.40 67.46 120.06
345 7/22/2009 0:00 8.06 67.65 120.06
346 7/22/2009 1:00 8.26 67.52 119.93
347 7/22/2009 2:00 8.20 67.52 120.13
348 7/22/2009 3:00 8.06 67.32 119.86
349 7/22/2009 4:00 8.18 66.39 120.06
350 7/22/2009 5:00 8.10 66.79 119.93
351 7/22/2009 6:00 8.06 67.28 120.20
352 7/22/2009 7:00 8.18 77.95 119.93
353 7/22/2009 8:00 8.16 90.61 119.93
354 7/22/2009 9:00 8.18 77.56 113.74
355 7/22/2009 10:00 8.12 80.14 114.91
356 7/22/2009 11:00 8.12 82.16 115.04
357 7/22/2009 12:00 8.24 85.25 115.04
358 7/22/2009 13:00 8.18 89.29 115.04
359 7/22/2009 14:00 8.20 91.81 114.98
360 7/22/2009 15:00 8.08 93.58 119.99
361 7/22/2009 16:00 8.08 94.67 120.06
362 7/22/2009 17:00 8.04 91.48 120.13
363 7/22/2009 18:00 8.06 89.72 119.93
364 7/22/2009 19:00 7.98 85.29 119.99
365 7/22/2009 20:00 7.98 78.90 119.93
366 7/22/2009 21:00 8.02 77.08 119.99
367 7/22/2009 22:00 7.98 76.02 119.93
368 7/22/2009 23:00 8.14 75.75 119.99
369 7/23/2009 0:00 8.10 75.33 120.34
370 7/23/2009 1:00 8.26 74.56 119.99
371 7/23/2009 2:00 8.34 74.11 119.99
372 7/23/2009 3:00 8.08 74.11 120.06
373 7/23/2009 4:00 8.24 73.76 119.93
374 7/23/2009 5:00 8.14 73.17 120.06
375 7/23/2009 6:00 8.16 72.60 119.86
376 7/23/2009 7:00 8.04 73.46 120.06
377 7/23/2009 8:00 8.02 75.51 120.06
378 7/23/2009 9:00 7.94 77.81 120.06
379 7/23/2009 10:00 7.94 81.28 119.93
380 7/23/2009 11:00 7.96 84.13 120.06
381 7/23/2009 12:00 7.94 81.02 120.06
382 7/23/2009 13:00 7.9 78.23 120.20
383 7/23/2009 14:00 7.94 78.50 119.99
384 7/23/2009 15:00 8.00 75.90 120.06
385 7/23/2009 16:00 7.96 72.95 120.06
386 7/23/2009 17:00 7.96 68.28 119.86
387 7/23/2009 18:00 7.96 66.41 119.93
388 7/23/2009 19:00 7.94 65.09 119.93
389 7/23/2009 20:00 7.98 65.21 119.86
390 7/23/2009 21:00 8.02 65.39 120.13
391 7/23/2009 22:00 8.06 64.70 120.06
392 7/23/2009 23:00 8.08 64.92 120.06
393 7/24/2009 0:00 8.36 65.39 120.13
394 7/24/2009 1:00 8.28 64.84 120.13
395 7/24/2009 2:00 8.34 65.17 120.06
396 7/24/2009 3:00 8.20 66.61 119.79
397 7/24/2009 4:00 8.14 66.33 120.13
398 7/24/2009 5:00 8.40 65.61 119.86
399 7/24/2009 6:00 8.12 66.08 119.99
400 7/24/2009 7:00 8.30 75.19 120.20
401 7/24/2009 8:00 8.14 77.93 119.79
402 7/24/2009 9:00 8.00 75.90 119.99
403 7/24/2009 10:00 7.96 82.05 119.93
404 7/24/2009 11:00 8.02 85.45 119.86
405 7/24/2009 12:00 8.10 85.67 120.06
406 7/24/2009 13:00 7.92 88.96 119.93
407 7/24/2009 14:00 7.90 86.69 119.93
408 7/24/2009 15:00 8.02 91.14 119.93
409 7/24/2009 16:00 7.98 88.15 120.20
410 7/24/2009 17:00 7.90 91.38 119.99
411 7/24/2009 18:00 7.88 94.67 120.06
412 7/24/2009 19:00 7.86 89.00 119.93
413 7/24/2009 20:00 7.86 79.09 119.99
414 7/24/2009 21:00 7.96 76.87 120.13
415 7/24/2009 22:00 7.94 76.24 119.99
416 7/24/2009 23:00 8.00 75.00 120.06
417 7/25/2009 0:00 7.98 74.15 120.06
418 7/25/2009 1:00 7.96 70.17 119.93
419 7/25/2009 2:00 8.02 69.50 119.93
420 7/25/2009 3:00 8.06 68.58 119.93
421 7/25/2009 4:00 8.02 67.99 119.99
422 7/25/2009 5:00 8.00 67.12 120.06
423 7/25/2009 6:00 8.04 67.08 119.93
424 7/25/2009 7:00 8.06 72.30 119.99
425 7/25/2009 8:00 8.02 85.61 120.06
426 7/25/2009 9:00 7.96 81.51 119.93
427 7/25/2009 10:00 7.92 84.07 119.99
428 7/25/2009 11:00 7.94 86.91 119.72
429 7/25/2009 12:00 7.92 89.59 119.93
430 7/25/2009 13:00 7.92 92.07 120.06
431 7/25/2009 14:00 7.98 93.90 119.93
432 7/25/2009 15:00 7.94 93.58 119.79
433 7/25/2009 16:00 8.06 89.80 120.13
434 7/25/2009 17:00 8.14 88.82 119.72
435 7/25/2009 18:00 7.96 83.11 119.86
436 7/25/2009 19:00 7.90 82.08 119.93
437 7/25/2009 20:00 7.90 78.30 120.13
438 7/25/2009 21:00 7.88 77.12 119.99
439 7/25/2009 22:00 7.90 76.47 119.93
440 7/25/2009 23:00 7.94 75.82 120.13
441 7/26/2009 0:00 7.96 75.86 119.86
442 7/26/2009 1:00 7.98 76.47 119.65
443 7/26/2009 2:00 7.98 77.16 119.99
444 7/26/2009 3:00 8.02 76.89 120.06
445 7/26/2009 4:00 8.00 75.88 119.99
446 7/26/2009 5:00 8.00 73.84 120.13
447 7/26/2009 6:00 8.02 73.62 120.13
448 7/26/2009 7:00 8.16 74.82 119.93
449 7/26/2009 8:00 7.98 79.03 119.93
450 7/26/2009 9:00 7.96 77.71 120.13
451 7/26/2009 10:00 7.94 80.19 119.99
452 7/26/2009 11:00 7.94 87.28 119.99
453 7/26/2009 12:00 7.96 91.75 119.86
454 7/26/2009 13:00 8.02 93.25 119.99
455 7/26/2009 14:00 8.04 94.65 119.99
456 7/26/2009 15:00 7.92 94.65 119.99
457 7/26/2009 16:00 8.08 94.63 119.99
458 7/26/2009 17:00 8.06 90.57 120.06
459 7/26/2009 18:00 8.08 82.71 119.93
460 7/26/2009 19:00 7.96 84.17 119.99
461 7/26/2009 20:00 8.00 76.57 120.06
462 7/26/2009 21:00 8.00 77.75 120.06
463 7/26/2009 22:00 7.94 74.29 120.13
464 7/26/2009 23:00 7.96 73.62 119.86
465 7/27/2009 0:00 7.94 72.67 119.93
466 7/27/2009 1:00 8.02 72.93 119.17
467 7/27/2009 2:00 8.06 72.34 120.06
468 7/27/2009 3:00 8.14 72.34 120.13
469 7/27/2009 4:00 8.02 71.93 119.99
470 7/27/2009 5:00 8.10 71.49 119.93
471 7/27/2009 6:00 8.10 71.71 119.99
472 7/27/2009 7:00 8.02 77.16 120.06
473 7/27/2009 8:00 8.10 89.72 120.13
474 7/27/2009 9:00 8.14 85.25 120.06
475 7/27/2009 10:00 7.96 85.27 119.86
476 7/27/2009 11:00 8.12 87.85 119.99
477 7/27/2009 12:00 8.06 90.35 119.72
478 7/27/2009 13:00 8.24 93.84 119.93
479 7/27/2009 14:00 8.20 93.72 119.79
480 7/27/2009 15:00 8.18 92.56 119.93
481 7/27/2009 16:00 8.04 93.72 120.06
482 7/27/2009 17:00 8.08 88.03 119.86
483 7/27/2009 18:00 8.16 94.00 119.93
484 7/27/2009 19:00 8.14 85.92 120.27
485 7/27/2009 20:00 7.98 81.69 120.13
486 7/27/2009 21:00 8.28 80.51 120.06
487 7/27/2009 22:00 8.12 79.27 120.06
488 7/27/2009 23:00 7.94 78.90 120.06
489 7/28/2009 0:00 8.00 78.84 119.93
490 7/28/2009 1:00 8.00 77.60 120.13
491 7/28/2009 2:00 8.02 77.22 120.13
492 7/28/2009 3:00 8.14 76.24 119.93
493 7/28/2009 4:00 8.08 75.51 120.06
494 7/28/2009 5:00 8.16 74.33 120.13
495 7/28/2009 6:00 7.98 74.45 120.13
496 7/28/2009 7:00 8.16 77.24 119.86
497 7/28/2009 8:00 8.24 92.76 119.86
498 7/28/2009 9:00 8.14 85.96 120.13
499 7/28/2009 10:00 8.14 86.65 119.93
500 7/28/2009 11:00 8.22 89.11 119.99
501 7/28/2009 12:00 8.12 91.75 119.93
502 7/28/2009 13:00 8.06 94.65 120.20
503 7/28/2009 14:00 8.18 94.63 119.99
504 7/28/2009 15:00 8.20 93.90 120.06
505 7/28/2009 16:00 8.16 93.31 120.13
506 7/28/2009 17:00 8.08 92.03 120.27
507 7/28/2009 18:00 8.22 87.66 119.93
508 7/28/2009 19:00 8.00 84.11 120.20
509 7/28/2009 20:00 7.94 81.47 120.13
510 7/28/2009 21:00 7.92 79.70 119.72
511 7/28/2009 22:00 7.98 79.53 119.93
512 7/28/2009 23:00 8.04 78.90 120.06
513 7/29/2009 0:00 8.02 78.54 119.93
514 7/29/2009 1:00 8.04 77.73 119.93
515 7/29/2009 2:00 8.02 77.34 120.13
516 7/29/2009 3:00 7.98 76.69 120.06
517 7/29/2009 4:00 8.08 75.61 120.13
518 7/29/2009 5:00 7.98 75.61 119.99
519 7/29/2009 6:00 7.98 75.77 120.13
520 7/29/2009 7:00 7.98 77.64 120.06
521 7/29/2009 8:00 7.92 80.02 119.93
522 7/29/2009 9:00 7.96 80.59 120.06
523 7/29/2009 10:00 7.98 82.03 119.99
524 7/29/2009 11:00 8.00 84.51 120.06
525 7/29/2009 12:00 8.02 85.08 120.06
526 7/29/2009 13:00 8.04 86.46 120.13
527 7/29/2009 14:00 8.08 81.26 119.99
528 7/29/2009 15:00 8.16 77.87 120.06
529 7/29/2009 16:00 8.28 76.71 119.99
530 7/29/2009 17:00 8.24 76.57 119.79
531 7/29/2009 18:00 8.04 79.76 120.06
532 7/29/2009 19:00 8.00 74.17 120.34
533 7/29/2009 20:00 7.98 74.31 120.13
534 7/29/2009 21:00 7.94 73.84 119.99
535 7/29/2009 22:00 7.92 74.05 119.93
536 7/29/2009 23:00 7.96 74.43 119.93
537 7/30/2009 0:00 8.02 74.78 119.93
538 7/30/2009 1:00 8.02 74.84 119.72
539 7/30/2009 2:00 8.04 74.72 120.13
540 7/30/2009 3:00 8.02 74.58 120.13
541 7/30/2009 4:00 8.06 74.88 119.86
542 7/30/2009 5:00 8.08 74.78 119.79
543 7/30/2009 6:00 7.98 75.00 119.93
544 7/30/2009 7:00 8.00 77.48 119.93
545 7/30/2009 8:00 7.96 87.87 119.99
546 7/30/2009 9:00 8.00 83.42 119.99
547 7/30/2009 10:00 8.10 83.70 119.93
548 7/30/2009 11:00 8.08 89.74 119.99
549 7/30/2009 12:00 7.96 89.21 120.06
550 7/30/2009 13:00 6.88 91.87 120.27
Here are the DATALOGS DURING OPTIMIZATION:
Period: July 30, 2009 – August 12, 2009
Number of days: 14 Calendar Days
Average kWh consumption: 5.79 kWh
Average outside temperature: 80.29 OAT
# Time, GMT kWh OAT Reheat Temp
1 7/30/2009 16:00 6.08 92.91 119.79
2 7/30/2009 17:00 5.84 94.63 119.99
3 7/30/2009 18:00 5.76 94.63 119.99
4 7/30/2009 19:00 5.82 94.39 119.93
5 7/30/2009 20:00 5.94 84.84 119.93
6 7/30/2009 21:00 5.86 82.87 120.13
7 7/30/2009 22:00 5.86 81.16 119.93
8 7/30/2009 23:00 5.78 80.84 120.06
9 7/31/2009 0:00 5.76 80.29 120.13
10 7/31/2009 1:00 5.78 79.13 120.20
11 7/31/2009 2:00 5.80 78.27 119.99
12 7/31/2009 3:00 5.74 77.91 120.27
13 7/31/2009 4:00 5.74 77.20 120.13
14 7/31/2009 5:00 5.80 76.12 120.13
15 7/31/2009 6:00 5.80 77.48 119.93
16 7/31/2009 7:00 5.74 75.04 119.93
17 7/31/2009 8:00 5.84 74.88 119.93
18 7/31/2009 9:00 5.98 82.71 119.99
19 7/31/2009 10:00 5.80 89.03 119.93
20 7/31/2009 11:00 5.82 86.69 119.99
21 7/31/2009 12:00 6.00 90.59 119.99
22 7/31/2009 13:00 5.78 90.18 120.06
23 7/31/2009 14:00 5.88 93.72 119.93
24 7/31/2009 15:00 6.10 94.61 119.99
25 7/31/2009 16:00 5.86 72.50 120.06
26 7/31/2009 17:00 5.82 72.32 119.99
27 7/31/2009 18:00 5.76 70.55 119.99
28 7/31/2009 19:00 5.82 68.60 120.13
29 7/31/2009 20:00 5.74 69.25 120.06
30 7/31/2009 21:00 5.80 69.78 120.06
31 7/31/2009 22:00 5.90 70.00 120.06
32 7/31/2009 23:00 5.76 70.19 120.06
33 8/1/2009 0:00 5.78 69.62 120.06
34 8/1/2009 1:00 5.76 69.31 119.79
35 8/1/2009 2:00 5.80 69.07 119.79
36 8/1/2009 3:00 5.98 68.97 119.99
37 8/1/2009 4:00 5.76 68.24 119.99
38 8/1/2009 5:00 5.80 67.52 120.06
39 8/1/2009 6:00 5.74 67.44 119.99
40 8/1/2009 7:00 5.96 70.76 119.72
41 8/1/2009 8:00 5.86 84.05 120.13
42 8/1/2009 9:00 5.98 76.28 120.13
43 8/1/2009 10:00 5.78 79.49 120.06
44 8/1/2009 11:00 5.96 82.34 119.99
45 8/1/2009 12:00 5.84 85.81 119.79
46 8/1/2009 13:00 5.74 87.44 119.99
47 8/1/2009 14:00 5.74 89.09 120.13
48 8/1/2009 15:00 5.72 90.89 119.99
49 8/1/2009 16:00 5.70 92.01 120.13
50 8/1/2009 17:00 5.72 91.87 120.13
51 8/1/2009 18:00 5.80 93.48 120.13
52 8/1/2009 19:00 5.76 92.01 119.99
53 8/1/2009 20:00 5.78 80.82 119.99
54 8/1/2009 21:00 5.90 77.22 119.93
55 8/1/2009 22:00 5.74 76.26 120.06
56 8/1/2009 23:00 5.90 75.88 120.06
57 8/2/2009 0:00 5.72 75.77 120.13
58 8/2/2009 1:00 5.76 75.00 120.13
59 8/2/2009 2:00 5.74 74.74 119.99
60 8/2/2009 3:00 5.72 74.29 120.06
61 8/2/2009 4:00 5.82 74.37 120.06
62 8/2/2009 5:00 5.84 73.88 120.20
63 8/2/2009 6:00 5.76 74.23 119.86
64 8/2/2009 7:00 5.86 74.19 120.20
65 8/2/2009 8:00 5.90 74.72 120.06
66 8/2/2009 9:00 5.82 73.88 120.06
67 8/2/2009 10:00 5.78 77.36 119.93
68 8/2/2009 11:00 5.74 78.46 119.99
69 8/2/2009 12:00 5.78 78.05 120.13
70 8/2/2009 13:00 5.90 75.25 119.93
71 8/2/2009 14:00 5.74 69.70 119.99
72 8/2/2009 15:00 5.76 72.75 120.06
73 8/2/2009 16:00 5.84 80.18 119.93
74 8/2/2009 17:00 5.76 83.76 120.06
75 8/2/2009 18:00 5.82 86.38 119.93
76 8/2/2009 19:00 5.80 90.53 119.93
77 8/2/2009 20:00 5.88 77.77 119.99
78 8/2/2009 21:00 5.88 75.47 119.99
79 8/2/2009 22:00 5.82 74.54 120.06
80 8/2/2009 23:00 5.80 73.97 120.13
81 8/3/2009 0:00 5.80 73.40 120.34
82 8/3/2009 1:00 5.86 73.00 119.93
83 8/3/2009 2:00 5.82 72.40 120.20
84 8/3/2009 3:00 5.80 71.50 119.99
85 8/3/2009 4:00 5.82 71.40 120.06
86 8/3/2009 5:00 5.80 71.70 120.06
87 8/3/2009 6:00 5.86 71.90 119.99
88 8/3/2009 7:00 5.76 76.00 120.13
89 8/3/2009 8:00 5.82 80.30 119.93
90 8/3/2009 9:00 5.96 81.00 119.99
91 8/3/2009 10:00 5.76 83.90 120.06
92 8/3/2009 11:00 5.82 84.50 120.06
93 8/3/2009 12:00 5.78 87.20 119.93
94 8/3/2009 13:00 5.78 89.00 120.13
95 8/3/2009 14:00 5.74 90.20 119.99
96 8/3/2009 15:00 5.72 87.90 119.93
97 8/3/2009 16:00 5.74 91.10 120.06
98 8/3/2009 17:00 5.72 87.80 119.93
99 8/3/2009 18:00 5.72 94.60 119.99
100 8/3/2009 19:00 5.74 94.60 119.99
101 8/3/2009 20:00 5.76 83.20 119.99
102 8/3/2009 21:00 5.76 80.50 120.06
103 8/3/2009 22:00 5.76 78.90 119.93
104 8/3/2009 23:00 5.74 77.20 119.93
105 8/4/2009 0:00 5.74 75.60 119.99
106 8/4/2009 1:00 5.78 74.40 119.86
107 8/4/2009 2:00 5.76 73.70 119.99
108 8/4/2009 3:00 5.78 72.80 119.99
109 8/4/2009 4:00 5.78 71.40 120.06
110 8/4/2009 5:00 5.82 69.90 119.99
111 8/4/2009 6:00 5.78 70.40 119.79
112 8/4/2009 7:00 5.80 73.90 120.13
113 8/4/2009 8:00 5.76 83.50 120.13
114 8/4/2009 9:00 5.96 82.30 119.93
115 8/4/2009 10:00 5.86 85.80 120.06
116 8/4/2009 11:00 5.78 87.50 120.06
117 8/4/2009 12:00 5.82 89.60 120.06
118 8/4/2009 13:00 5.78 93.20 119.93
119 8/4/2009 14:00 5.80 93.70 119.99
120 8/4/2009 15:00 5.78 94.60 119.99
121 8/4/2009 16:00 5.76 94.60 119.99
122 8/4/2009 17:00 5.82 92.90 119.93
123 8/4/2009 18:00 5.84 92.40 119.99
124 8/4/2009 19:00 5.82 86.50 119.93
125 8/4/2009 20:00 5.90 83.30 120.06
126 8/4/2009 21:00 5.90 82.50 119.99
127 8/4/2009 22:00 5.74 81.60 119.99
128 8/4/2009 23:00 5.82 80.40 119.99
129 8/5/2009 0:00 5.82 79.20 119.86
130 8/5/2009 1:00 5.72 78.20 119.86
131 8/5/2009 2:00 5.80 77.80 119.99
132 8/5/2009 3:00 5.74 77.40 119.86
133 8/5/2009 4:00 5.82 76.80 119.79
134 8/5/2009 5:00 5.74 76.50 120.20
135 8/5/2009 6:00 5.72 76.20 119.99
136 8/5/2009 7:00 5.82 78.10 119.99
137 8/5/2009 8:00 5.82 84.20 120.06
138 8/5/2009 9:00 5.72 86.80 120.06
139 8/5/2009 10:00 5.74 89.90 119.86
140 8/5/2009 11:00 5.76 94.40 119.93
141 8/5/2009 12:00 5.76 94.60 120.06
142 8/5/2009 13:00 5.80 94.60 119.99
143 8/5/2009 14:00 5.78 94.60 120.13
144 8/5/2009 15:00 5.76 94.60 119.99
145 8/5/2009 16:00 5.76 85.90 120.13
146 8/5/2009 17:00 5.74 88.60 119.93
147 8/5/2009 18:00 5.76 92.50 119.99
148 8/5/2009 19:00 5.78 88.60 119.93
149 8/5/2009 20:00 5.90 83.00 120.06
150 8/5/2009 21:00 5.80 80.70 120.06
151 8/5/2009 22:00 5.80 79.00 120.20
152 8/5/2009 23:00 5.78 76.70 120.06
153 8/6/2009 0:00 5.76 75.60 119.93
154 8/6/2009 1:00 5.74 74.30 120.06
155 8/6/2009 2:00 5.72 72.60 119.93
156 8/6/2009 3:00 5.72 71.20 120.06
157 8/6/2009 4:00 5.72 69.80 120.06
158 8/6/2009 5:00 5.72 69.20 119.99
159 8/6/2009 6:00 5.70 69.00 119.79
160 8/6/2009 7:00 5.72 70.10 120.13
161 8/6/2009 8:00 5.68 71.00 119.93
162 8/6/2009 9:00 5.70 72.50 119.79
163 8/6/2009 10:00 5.74 71.30 120.20
164 8/6/2009 11:00 5.70 71.20 119.72
165 8/6/2009 12:00 5.70 78.40 119.99
166 8/6/2009 13:00 5.68 79.80 120.13
167 8/6/2009 14:00 5.80 84.60 120.06
168 8/6/2009 15:00 5.70 84.30 120.06
169 8/6/2009 16:00 5.70 83.00 119.93
170 8/6/2009 17:00 5.68 87.80 119.79
171 8/6/2009 18:00 5.72 94.50 120.06
172 8/6/2009 19:00 5.82 86.70 120.06
173 8/6/2009 20:00 5.88 79.00 120.20
174 8/6/2009 21:00 5.76 75.80 119.99
175 8/6/2009 22:00 5.76 75.00 119.93
176 8/6/2009 23:00 5.72 73.60 120.13
177 8/7/2009 0:00 5.78 71.60 119.99
178 8/7/2009 1:00 5.74 70.80 120.06
179 8/7/2009 2:00 5.74 69.70 120.34
180 8/7/2009 3:00 5.72 68.40 119.72
181 8/7/2009 4:00 5.84 67.10 119.93
182 8/7/2009 5:00 5.74 65.90 119.93
183 8/7/2009 6:00 5.76 65.70 120.13
184 8/7/2009 7:00 5.88 68.20 119.86
185 8/7/2009 8:00 5.90 74.20 120.06
186 8/7/2009 9:00 5.80 74.00 119.93
187 8/7/2009 10:00 5.72 77.50 120.13
188 8/7/2009 11:00 5.80 80.00 119.93
189 8/7/2009 12:00 6.00 80.90 120.13
190 8/7/2009 13:00 5.80 84.10 120.06
191 8/7/2009 14:00 5.88 85.10 119.72
192 8/7/2009 15:00 5.88 84.50 120.06
193 8/7/2009 16:00 5.94 84.90 120.20
194 8/7/2009 17:00 5.80 85.90 119.72
195 8/7/2009 18:00 5.72 90.40 120.06
196 8/7/2009 19:00 5.70 87.90 120.13
197 8/7/2009 20:00 5.90 78.10 119.99
198 8/7/2009 21:00 5.74 74.80 120.06
199 8/7/2009 22:00 5.84 74.20 119.99
200 8/7/2009 23:00 5.84 72.40 119.99
201 8/8/2009 0:00 5.92 71.40 120.13
202 8/8/2009 1:00 5.82 71.20 119.93
203 8/8/2009 2:00 5.78 69.70 119.93
204 8/8/2009 3:00 5.78 67.60 119.99
205 8/8/2009 4:00 5.92 66.70 120.06
206 8/8/2009 5:00 5.86 65.40 119.93
207 8/8/2009 6:00 5.80 64.10 120.13
208 8/8/2009 7:00 6.02 66.80 120.20
209 8/8/2009 8:00 5.82 72.00 119.99
210 8/8/2009 9:00 5.86 72.80 119.99
211 8/8/2009 10:00 5.78 75.20 119.79
212 8/8/2009 11:00 5.76 77.60 119.99
213 8/8/2009 12:00 5.80 81.00 119.93
214 8/8/2009 13:00 5.82 82.70 119.93
215 8/8/2009 14:00 5.78 85.80 119.99
216 8/8/2009 15:00 5.82 88.00 120.06
217 8/8/2009 16:00 5.76 86.20 120.20
218 8/8/2009 17:00 5.74 87.10 119.86
219 8/8/2009 18:00 5.76 81.60 119.93
220 8/8/2009 19:00 5.76 77.40 120.06
221 8/8/2009 20:00 5.74 75.10 119.93
222 8/8/2009 21:00 5.74 74.50 119.93
223 8/8/2009 22:00 5.78 74.10 120.13
224 8/8/2009 23:00 5.76 73.80 119.93
225 8/9/2009 0:00 5.74 73.60 119.93
226 8/9/2009 1:00 5.72 73.50 120.13
227 8/9/2009 2:00 5.72 73.50 119.99
228 8/9/2009 3:00 5.72 73.40 120.06
229 8/9/2009 4:00 5.72 73.30 120.20
230 8/9/2009 5:00 5.74 73.00 120.06
231 8/9/2009 6:00 5.74 72.70 119.93
232 8/9/2009 7:00 5.76 75.20 120.06
233 8/9/2009 8:00 5.74 75.70 119.93
234 8/9/2009 9:00 5.74 74.40 119.99
235 8/9/2009 10:00 5.74 75.80 119.93
236 8/9/2009 11:00 5.70 79.00 119.93
237 8/9/2009 12:00 5.72 85.90 120.13
238 8/9/2009 13:00 5.72 80.90 119.99
239 8/9/2009 14:00 5.72 85.60 119.72
240 8/9/2009 15:00 5.70 86.50 119.93
241 8/9/2009 16:00 5.72 84.30 120.06
242 8/9/2009 17:00 5.70 84.20 120.06
243 8/9/2009 18:00 5.68 80.80 119.99
244 8/9/2009 19:00 5.70 80.30 120.13
245 8/9/2009 20:00 5.70 80.00 120.13
246 8/9/2009 21:00 5.68 78.00 119.99
247 8/9/2009 22:00 5.70 77.90 119.86
248 8/9/2009 23:00 5.66 78.00 120.13
249 8/10/2009 0:00 5.70 76.50 120.20
250 8/10/2009 1:00 5.68 76.10 120.13
251 8/10/2009 2:00 5.70 70.70 119.93
252 8/10/2009 3:00 5.70 71.90 120.06
253 8/10/2009 4:00 5.68 72.00 119.86
254 8/10/2009 5:00 5.76 72.90 120.13
255 8/10/2009 6:00 5.70 73.20 119.99
256 8/10/2009 7:00 5.68 75.00 120.06
257 8/10/2009 8:00 5.66 79.50 119.72
258 8/10/2009 9:00 5.72 83.40 120.06
259 8/10/2009 10:00 5.90 85.50 119.99
260 8/10/2009 11:00 5.74 89.30 120.13
261 8/10/2009 12:00 5.70 92.20 120.27
262 8/10/2009 13:00 5.78 94.60 119.86
263 8/10/2009 14:00 5.86 94.60 119.86
264 8/10/2009 15:00 5.68 94.60 119.93
265 8/10/2009 16:00 5.80 94.60 119.99
266 8/10/2009 17:00 5.76 94.60 119.99
267 8/10/2009 18:00 5.76 94.60 120.06
268 8/10/2009 19:00 5.76 94.60 119.99
269 8/10/2009 20:00 5.80 91.00 120.06
270 8/10/2009 21:00 5.74 87.60 120.27
271 8/10/2009 22:00 5.84 79.60 119.99
272 8/10/2009 23:00 5.76 79.60 120.06
273 8/11/2009 0:00 5.84 79.50 119.99
274 8/11/2009 1:00 5.82 78.40 120.06
275 8/11/2009 2:00 5.76 77.70 120.06
276 8/11/2009 3:00 5.82 78.00 119.93
277 8/11/2009 4:00 5.82 77.60 119.86
278 8/11/2009 5:00 5.86 78.00 119.99
279 8/11/2009 6:00 5.84 77.50 119.99
280 8/11/2009 7:00 5.88 78.80 120.06
281 8/11/2009 8:00 5.86 83.20 119.99
282 8/11/2009 9:00 5.72 84.70 119.99
283 8/11/2009 10:00 5.74 86.40 120.06
284 8/11/2009 11:00 5.74 88.70 119.86
285 8/11/2009 12:00 5.74 91.40 119.93
286 8/11/2009 13:00 5.74 92.50 119.99
287 8/11/2009 14:00 5.72 93.80 120.06
288 8/11/2009 15:00 5.72 94.60 120.06
289 8/11/2009 16:00 5.72 93.10 120.06
290 8/11/2009 17:00 5.70 94.60 119.99
291 8/11/2009 18:00 5.68 91.90 119.99
292 8/11/2009 19:00 5.72 90.10 119.79
293 8/11/2009 20:00 5.72 85.60 119.93
294 8/11/2009 21:00 5.72 84.50 119.99
295 8/11/2009 22:00 5.72 83.70 119.93
296 8/11/2009 23:00 5.68 82.80 120.06
297 8/12/2009 0:00 5.68 81.30 119.86
298 8/12/2009 1:00 5.72 80.60 119.86
299 8/12/2009 2:00 5.70 79.50 120.06
300 8/12/2009 3:00 5.66 78.20 119.99
301 8/12/2009 4:00 5.66 77.20 119.93
302 8/12/2009 5:00 5.66 76.70 120.13
303 8/12/2009 6:00 5.66 76.30 120.06
304 8/12/2009 7:00 5.68 76.50 119.99
305 8/12/2009 8:00 5.68 81.20 119.93
Rich:
Those are the ACTUAL DATA recorded by the metering instrument from the 38-Day Test conducted BY and IN the boiler room of the Northeast USA Healthcare Institution I referred to above. I did NOT invent those numbers, and those were the numbers given to me by the Facilities Operations Department of that institution. Now, if you look at the data, you will certainly conclude:
1) That there is INDEED a mathematical difference in the kWh values;
2) That the difference is significant. You can subject that to non-parametric statistics and do a test for significance, and you will come up with a statistically correct “difference of significant value” (at a +/- 1% margin of error);
3) That the hourly logs indicate a CONSISTENCY – i.e. a consistent trend;
Now, IF you prove to me that those claims I indicated above are wrong, then please show me. Don’t refute my claims based on an “accusation of academic invention of numbers” because the HOBOPro WARE metering system (the instrument used during the entire testing stage) is NOT telling lies NOR did it invent those figures. Prove to me that I am wrong, and I will change my position.
Please do not ask me to perform a “turn-on/turn-off” test for the sake of checking the performance of a technology because that is NOT accurate at all, and much less scientific.
I am now challenging you to show the invalidity of the above numbers. Let the readers here act as the judge to determine who has the heavier weight in our discussions here.
Now, if you are NOT able to justly and properly prove the scientific invalidity of those data, and vis-a-vis the contentions I have subsequently made, then I advise you to pacify yourself with this humble belief that in certain instances, optimizing power factor WILL indeed reduce the kWh consumption of motors that have lower power factors.
Regarding your past encounter with the KVAR technology, and notwithstanding the data presented above, if perhaps you have NOT been successful in demonstrating the required kW and kWh savings (for some reasons I do not and care not to know), there is always certainly an opportunity for you to backtrack your steps, and re-assess where you have exactly made a mistake in the process, and then learn from the experience and from others; after all, everyone makes a mistake in life. Even scientists do make a LOT of mistakes in the trial and error stages before perfecting their scientific theories and discoveries. There is therefore no reason for you to gripe.
Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. May you have peace and harmony. Good luck on all your endeavors.
Vince
Vince just the idea that you think this is a valid test, scares me. You have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t know what your doing! I’m glad you posted this because nobody would believe how ignorant you are unless they saw it in print. THANK YOU!
You claim that “A third party consultancy firm in New York Looked at testing protocal and the results claim they are valid.” NAME THEM. You can’t because any firm that would have looked at your teasting procedure would told you to go away and don’t tell anyone that you even know us.
You are the only one who claims the test is invalid, because you do NOT understand what a valid scientific test is in the first place. That makes me think you are just a high school mediocre with “some college units”…
You are the only one who does NOT understand the real meaning of “legal restrictions in the disclosures of proprietary information”. In due time, the information will be revealed.
You are the UNEDUCATED MORON who does NOT know what a valid test is, and what a valid scientific method is. Your brain is the brain of a crazy caged monkey. LOSER!
I have said my piece. I have shown scientific data. You can write what you want Rich. In the end, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA to negate the claims I make based on the scientific data I have presented. So who do you think is the winner here? ME!!!! YOU are the PATHETIC LOSER!!! lol… From this point on, you are NOT worth my time, and surely even the time of serious people in this blog.
Vince I’m sorry to say this because I hate to kick a man when he’s down but if there is ever an award for ass-hole of the century it’s gonna have your name and picture on it. You compared the data between to different months and your claiming that the kwh reduction is a direct effect of the KVAR unit. TWO DIFFERENT MONTHS ARE YOU KIDDING! Not even an idiot would accept those results…..wait a minute where’s Vince. This is why I know your lying about your “third party consultancy firm.” Nobody in their right mind would even consider signing off on a test conducted in this manner….wait a minute where’s Vince. In a qualified test the idea is simple. Turn the equippment on for a day, measure the usage. Turn the equippment off the next day, measure the usage. Do this over a period of time and you will establish the right format to fairly evaluate if the product is able to save any kwh. There is an easier and quicker way to tell if the KVAR unit can save you money. Optimize the circuit and then turn the KVAR unit on and off and see if there is a drop in watts. You won’t, but don’t tell Vince. Because right now this poor son of a bitch is so close to the edge that I’m afraid any more bad news and he’s gonna take an optimized Swann dive into the cement pond. Poor Vince he doesn’t know any better and the worst part is he refuses to learn. Vince is living proof that IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
In reply to Post #168, prior to the consistency testing (for that extended period of time), there was a 59-Minute test conducted. The datalogging was made minute per minute, and YES there was a reduction in kilowatts. Here are the results:
Date of Test: July 7, 2009
Test Motor: REHEAT PUMP
Duration (Time): 2:55 PM – 3:53 PM (58 minutes)
Data Logging: HOBOware Pro Data Logging System (+/-1% factor of error)
Reults:
Average Non-Optimized kW (2:55PM – 3:16PM EST) = 8.510 kW
Average Optimized kW (3:17PM – 3:53PM EST) = 5.840 kW
Any comments? How do you explain that? Don’t tell me, the HOBOWare PRO Datalogging System made a mistake, or made up those numbers.
Folks, now you can see the reason why Rich is mad, why Rich resorts to the foulest language an uneducated barbaric person can use to cover up a failure that such person could not accept. I have given you BOTH results – a 59-Minute Test and an Extended Test (to assess and to ascertain a consistency or a savings pattern), and the results yield a kilowatt drop. I do not personally understand why Rich could NOT accept such empirical test results.
Any comments from other readers?
By the way in that 59-Minute Testing, the KVAR was installed parallel to the Reheat Pump, and the minute-per-minute measurements were made at the dedicated sub-panel at the MCC system located around 60 to 70 feet from the reheat pump. The reheat pump was a fixed load running 24/7 located in the Boiler Room of the Major Healthcare Institution in the Northeast USA.
Vince I just blew your last test out of the water by proving how invalid your results were. So what do you do? You tell me there’s more conclusivthat you forgot to tell me.
So what do you do? you tell me there’s more that you forget to tell me. Instead of apologizing for your fraudulent way you tried to present your data you then claim that there is a 59 minute test. Vince I wouldn’t expect anything less from you. You’ll keep changing your story to suit your needs. What really bothers me is that after you’ve been proved to be wrong your not man enough to admit it.
Don’t you understand a 59 minute test PRIOR to the Extended Period testing for consistencies? Folks, Rich just threw off data from a real test because the results do NOT suit his expectations.
Apologize? I did not do that. Fraud – prove it! Show me your test results to disprove the data I have presented here.
I do NOT change my story lines. The raw data I have presented are and will always be the same. You do not have anything to show. I believe you must be a VERY DISGRUNTLED former KVAR Dealer or Agent who failed to properly use the technology – so instead of blaming yourself, you blame the technology itself. Why don’t you conduct a test yourself – using a real kW and kWh metering system and power factor correction equipment of your choice?
As I have told you, it is NOT the KVAR that is the issue here. The real issue is proving that the optimization of power factor WILL also reduce the kW and kWh consumption of a motor. period. So far, the figures coming out from those tests support such a claim.
What I can suggest here for all of you other reasonable folks is to have a proper testing as well and we can compare results and information in order to validate the scientific validity of that position about the relationship between power factor correction and a reduction in kW and kWh motor consumption.
This is what I believe this Board should be doing – sharing and learning. Evidently the self-defeating, self-demeaning statements and unfounded persistencies of Rich do NOT have any place at all in civilized Boards such as this Blog.
Vince your finally starting to make sense and I quote you “the real issue is proving that power factor optimization will also reduce the kw and kwh consumption of a motor.” Period. I agree. Good we both agree on something. Now I have already done this but I need you to try it. Do you have the equippment needed to bring a motor to unity. This is a yes or no question. If you answered yes then bring a motor on a single circuit up to unity. Now how many kw is that circuit drawing? Now for the hard part, Shut the capacitor off. Now what is that circuit drawing. That’s it. The first part of the test is now concluded. Wasn’t that simple and easy, no bullshit, no diatribes, the meters don’t lie and now you can tell everyone the truth. Case closed, hopefully,for part one.
That first part of the test can be done and I agree with that. The second part which is to check on consistency needs to be done as well. A test that merely shows an amperage drop is very simplistic and is not enough to justify the merits of a technology because business owners are after the kW and kWh reductions. period.
In that 59-Minute Testing, however, the same method was followed with an exact kW measurement taken at the MCC side. What was wrong there? We saw the drop in the kW. We were NOT only after dropping the amperage. True enough, when you disconnect the capacitor, the kW went back up, when the capacitors were used and the PF went to 0.98, the kW went down. The test was made to last for 59 minutes to immediately check on consistency. Now you tell me what was wrong with that test?
The issue of dropping the kW was important HOWEVER the more important matter the Healthcare Institution wanted to see was CONSISTENCY OF RESULTS and TRENDS… That was the reason why an extended testing for 59 minutes (kW measured in minutes) and another continuation for more than 30 days (kW measured in hours) had to be done in succession.
Vince Now you can begin to see why independant third party validation is so important. You have to have an impartial referee that makes sure that the tests are conducted fair and square, and everything is on the up and up. Vince my first question on the 59 minute test is are you sure you data is correct? Your answer will be yes, my answer would be prove it, but the third party entity would be able to step up and verify your findings and settle the whole issue. Make sense? In doing so this entity would be putting and put their professional reputation on the line. Thats why I questioned the New York company you said endorsed your data. If they are wrong they would be shunned out ot the industry. That’s a risk no company would be willing to take. Getting back to the main issue. I believe you said that you have the equippment necessary to bring a motor to unity, is this true? Please just answer yes or no and we’ll move forward depending on your response.
YES. the testing was made by the healthcare institution itself. They want to be sure that there is NO manipulation in the testing.
YES. I have the equipment to optimize the PF of a motor.
The New York Company endorsed the continuation of the implementation of the KVAR as a pilot at a facility-wide basis and to verify the results at that level PRIOR TO making it acceptable for the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION.
Wow Rich, I thought you said it was impossible do drop the watts in an inductive load? Bending the laws of physics, he says? Yes that is the demo kit test, but it dropped the watts. As for the 100 ft that is incorrect, though there is probably 75ft of wire. What I want everyone to do is to measure from their electrical panel to all the motors in their homes. Around 75ft I imagine, then measure to the transformer that is supplying the home, hmm interesting. Now can you imagine the I squared * R losses in a business? Give it up Rich, you are a bitter bitch who couldn’t sell KVAR and now look at you, trying to pretend you are looking out for people. I was on this guys (not sure if it is Rich) website and he’s running his mouth that he used to be the only distributor in FL, spent a ton of money to do so, even wrote a book about it, then he went bankrupt. The book is available for download which I did, and it is a joke. He smoke screens you in the first paragraph on how he used to be the only one selling KVAR, and how KVAR promised him they would make him rich. He even stated that he was saving people money on their electric bills. As the book goes on he states that it doesn’t work. Talk about organized writing, First paragraph it works, last paragraph it doesn’t. Now I can’t pin point Rich to this guy, but there are an awful amount of similarities between his writing and Rich’s. The watts dropped, it is impossible to reduce the current bringing the amps and voltage to unity and it does nothing. That is just plain stupid and is also why I have my money in KVAR and you pulled out because your feelings got hurt. Look how many KVAR dealers there are now and I may have ran into one. Now that I think about it Rich could be a KVAR dealer trying to convince people that it doesn’t work so his sales territory doesn’t get invaded. Hmm. I am going to look at that book again and have a good laugh.
Vince I hate to keep reverting back to this train of thought but try this experiment by yourself with no one looking over your shoulder. Find a motor that has it’s own designated circuit. Hook your sizer to the disconnect switch for that motor and take your initial readings. Pay close attention to the power factor and the kw draw. Now start to add in your capaticence. You’ll notice that as your amps drop your power factor increases. This is what I call the “WOW-FACTOR” and to the un-trained eye this is proof that if you drop the amps your bill will also drop. However, nothing is further from the truth. As your amps drop and your power factor goes up this is whats known as a recipricating relationship. Look at it this way which is greater 5 x 3, or, 3 x 5. As you can see the answer will be the same. The only time you can save money by adding capaticence is if the I squared R losses are so great that the facility should consider a new retrofit because their system isn’t up to code. Best, Rich.
Angelo, your back. I never thought we’d hear from you again after you conducted the test I suggested. What happened? Were you able to drop watts on a indivigual circuit? I guess not because if you did we wouldn’t be able to shut you up. Instead you site some weak example from a demo kit that been RIGGED to trick people. Don’t you get tired of trying to fool people. Don’t you understand that the wire in the demo kit was pupposely undersized to exagerate the savings that could be achieved. Then you have the audacity to imply that everyone has electrical runs of 75′ or more so they should get the same savings. You idiot if houses were wired the same way the demo kit was done they’d be burning down house’s all over the country. Wiring is installed according to code for one simple reason. So that boneheads like you can’t screw it up. Rich
Angelo In your last post you stated “Give it up Rich your a bitter bitch who couldn’t sell KVAR and now look at you, trying to pretend to look out for the people”. Angelo, Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Your finally starting to get it. However you got one word wrong. Replace couldn’t with wouldn’t. That’s right I wouldn’t sell KVAR until I could prove that they worked. After many, many sizings and after many meetings with conservation and load management Engineers I was shown what I am sharing with you now. If you want a further education go to http://www.construction.org/clientuploads/resource_center/facilities Go to page 18. Have fun. Rich
Angelo when you google that website click on more results and go to power factor improvment. Then go to page 18.
open4energy has published a complete list of power factor correction scams, and other energy saving scams.
http://open4energy.com/forum/home/scam/energy_saving_scams
We do hope that consumers will use this resource to protect themselves. It is hard enough persuading people to actually save energy, without them being duped and taken advantage of like this.
Rich:
On your comment cited in Post #179, YES YES YES – those test procedures have been done LONG BEFORE you even got involved in KVAR and YES YES YES, I see the PF increase to an optimum level (without registering a lead), the amperage goes down, AND the kW goes down as well. You remove the proper capacitance, it goes back to the original (initial) load.
Secondly, I see those results whether I use KVAR or ABB’s equipments or other capacitors. The point here that I am making is this – Optimizing Power Factor Correction without leading WILL DROP the amperage AND the watts. You optimize PF closest to the load, AND you meter at the sub-panel (provided that its circuit is dedicated to the inductive motor you are testing). You will ALWAYS see that in FIXED LOAD MOTORS.
Thirdly, what is best to pursue is to see what the results would be when VARIABLE LOADS are involved. I am more interested in this scenario.
At this point, I rest my case.
By the way, Rich, just for your information, when the tests were planned and made – IN ALL INSTANCES, a real electrical engineer and/or a team of engineers was involved in the process, and concrete steps were ALWAYS taken to ensure OBJECTIVITY of the tests was AT ALL TIMES preserved, and extraneous variables were always minimized.
Vince
Vince Here we go again, You claim “optimizing power factor correction without leading will drop the amperage and the watts” You also state “a real electrical engineer and/or a team of of engineers was involved….” How do we know you didn’t use FAKE engineers…don’t you understand how rediculous and absurbed your statements sound? Who are these engineers? Let me guess? You probably can’t tell us because of some proprietory agreement…
More bullshit. If any engineers were able to prove what you claim you wouldn’t be able to shut them up! They would be the first in line for the next Pulitzer prize. HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO WHAT NOBODY IN THE WORLD CAN REPEAT. Let’s see if your engineers are willing to put their professional careers on the line to endorse the idea that power factor correction can drop watts. I’m getting my boots ready for your response. Rich.
You know RICH, keep your unfounded comments regarding the engineer to yourself. I know the engineer is NOT fake because he has a degree – a real degree from a State University in the USA, and because I know him and his family well. You are becoming too personal there. So now let me ask you: Are you an electrical engineer yourself to question that engineer? Are you even a graduate of a 4-Year College course?
You are in Connecticut. You are connected with POWER FACTORS PLUS, LLC providing “Complete Sizing Costs for Home, Commercial & Industrial Applications” (as you stated). You used to be (OR, are still) a Distributor of KVAR. You were ALL OUT with KVAR – even coming along with Steve Fish to the 2008 WEEC in Washington DC. What happened Rich? You must have had some bad experiences and you need to find a justification for some project failures, bitter defeats in life that are too painful to accept. So what can I say? We will be glad to teach you the right way to do a kW and kWh metering in your area so you can see REAL, UNBIASED and OBJECTIVE results yourself. YES, the guy who knows how to do the metering using the HOBO system is right there in NYC at Morgan Stanley. He can show you in the computer the amps and kW dropping, and the PF increasing 2 to 3 seconds after you install the right capacitor; and, he will LIKEWISE demonstrate to you the reverse results 2 to 3 seconds after you disengage that proper capacitor. Is that not the SIMPLISTIC “turn-on” and “turn-off” testing protocol you wanted?
The US Department of Energy (DOE) published since September 1980 a paper entitled “Classification And Evaluation Of Electric Motors And Pumps” which was prepared for them by Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois under Contract Nr. W-31-109-ENG38. When you go to Page 4 (counting from the Title Page), it is written: “…as the efficiency and the power factor are improved, motor line current will decrease, as will the motor’s contribution to extrinsic losses”. That is one of the theoretical foundation for my position regarding the direct relationship (mathematically an indirect proportionality) between the improvement of power factor and the reduction in amperage and watts in the context of a reduction in line impedance resulting from reduced heat losses along the circuit lines within the electrical distribution system. You reduce line losses (e.g. reducing heat losses), you WILL reduce BOTH amperage and watts – and that can be metered and measured, and will actually be empirically proven, IF YOU METER it at the right place along the system. Now how hard is that to be understood Rich?
In closing, Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to address this message to all of you who read this Blog: If you read the comments and opinions of Rich, he (Rich) is entitled to his opinions and so are the opinions that I have and what others have. BEFORE you make your judgments, make sure that the person making the comments is technically qualified from the REAL ENGINEERING perspective, and objective enough, to give you the correct answers that are scientifically based and are backed up by real, verifiable empirical tests conducted using the scientific standards of objectivity. So far Rich has been talking and talking – commenting and commenting WITHOUT proving ANY TEST he has conducted that will disprove what our tests have shown. So where is the sense of scientific justice here? Would you base your final decision on the opinions of a person who is actually sour-graping because of his failures to PROPERLY use the technology to the point of covering up his inadequacy by blaming the technology itself? And speaking of fraud, I challenge him (Rich) to bring a case against the technology manufacturers and providers in any court here in the USA. Let us see IF he will win, and much worse, IF there will even be a “prima facie” ground for justifying the merits of a fraud case in court.
One thing is sure, it will all be talks and sour-grapes… Have some organic sweet grapes from Whole Foods this New Year. They will make your day! Happy New Year to you!
Vince, Once again you have given us no real concrete evidence and proof you know what your doing. “The guy who knows how to do the metering is right there at Morgan Stanley.” Could you be any more vague! Who are you? What company are you with? What are you intrests in trying to perpetuate this scam. What’s in it for you Vince?
Rich,
You were associated with KVAR? I will teach you to size for $500 per day, and by your lack of knowledge I might have to give you a discount rate. I am a licensed electrician, and my favorite thing to watch is the meter slowing down when I hook a KVAR to the house or business. Amps, watts, blah, blah, blah; the meter slowing down is something you have to witness, not your text book bull crap that you regurgitating, which by the way isn’t text book. Come on Rich, the people that you are getting this information from is feeding you a line. I am sure whoever told you it was snake oil is someone you respect very much, enough to walk away from a million dollar business, and that business is energy my friend. I am not here to justify the demo kit that is irrelevant. You must have lost a lot of money, because nobody that breaks even is this persistent to plead a point against a product. I am sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. One of the customers of mine that read your blogs and then bought a system from me saved $100.00 on his bill and he states what you are doing and these blogs are doing is criminal, and he urges all of his friends to buy one. The only catch is he wants them to read your blogs too, so they can get a good laugh.
Too funny,
Vince “Do Work!” You’re the man!
Got make that money
Fight nice
Rich don’t bother making any more smart ass comments I won’t be responding.
I will look into the stuff you gave me in your previous post, but like I said, slowing down the meter can’t be rigged.
Angelo
Angelo:
IF I am not mistaken, Mr. Rich Frascone MAY be the same person who is associated with:
POWER FACTOR PLUS, LLC
Phone (203) 240-6707 – (may still be working)
His glossy (front and back) business card states:
“Complete sizing cost analysis for home, commercial & industrial applications”, and on the far right it says: “Maximize Your Energy $aving$ by Optimizing Your Power Factor”
And below, it has 0. .25 .50 .75 .99 with a question: “What’s Your Power Factor?”
Now IF you turn to the back of that same business card, it reads: “Get Green and $ave. Reduces Amperage and KW hr…”
So IF you are indeed the same Rich referred to in that business card, how would you comment on your own statement “… Reduces Amperage and KW hr…”?
Ask KVAR in Florida, specifically Steve Fish, IF they know Mr. Rich Frascone and they will tell you YES, and will provide you other information pertinent to his business as a Distributor of KVAR in the Connecticut area.
Now For You Rich – In Reply to your Comments:
1) YES, the guy who knows HOW to set up the HOBO metering instrument and to interface that in the computer so you get precise results, is actually there in New York – at Morgan Stanley.
2) YES, we know what we are doing. In the projects we do, we have REAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS and ELECTRICIANS involved – including people knowledgeable about the PROPER WAY to do metering. And YES, the Metering System was done and set up by that highly educated technical guy from Morgan Stanley in close coordination with the Manufacturer of HOBO in the State of MA.
3) IF you think we are doing a SCAM, you are entitled to your opinion. But then here is my challenge to you – why don’t you go to the FCC? to the FBI? to DOE? Go call them up – tell them about the “KVAR scam” and we will see where it will end up… Boy! if you do that, you better be sure you have the right reasons and evidences TO PROVE your allegations, otherwise, IF and WHEN the CEO of KVAR, Mr. Steve Fish, counters you in court, you may NOT have the proper technical evidences to support your allegations.
Let me give you a piece of advice Rich. You have checked with others about Power Factor Correction etc… and have been advised by them. You have the right to listen to those advices. Now, go and contact OTHER CAPACITOR MANUFACTURERS and tell them to explain their side, and then go back to the drawing board and compare those claims IN THE CONTEXT of fundamental concepts of impedance losses, segmentation metering… and perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel will give you a clearer picture etc… LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, do a test yourself. Period.
Happy New Year! Have you picked up those sweet grapes from the Store?
4) By the way since you have challenged the engineer wants to know IF you are an engineer yourself? OR, whether you went through a 4-Year College Course – and passed and earned a degree?
In our class on basic electricity, we were taught by our teacher that to compute for the watts, the formula to be used will be:
[ Power/Watts = Volts x Amps ]
Now, I have been following the passionate exchanges of ideas here, and let’s do some very simple arithmetic here:
Let us say:
Volts (Initial – Before PF Correction) = 220.74V
Volts (Optimized – After PF Correction) = 221.20V
Amps (Initial – Before PF Correction) = 19.20 amps
Amps (Optimized – After PF Correction) = 16.50 amps
Following the principles of “common sense arithmetic”, these will be the NECESSARY RESULT of the arithmetic operations utilizing the above-mentioned formula for computing for watts:
Initial Before PF Correction:
220.74V x 19.20A = 4,238.21 Watts
Optimized – After PF Correction:
221.20V x 16.50A = 3,649.80 Watts
From what I am gathering from Rich, despite the changes in the amperage, there may NOT be changes in the watts. I am just a simple high school student in my 4th year, and I could not see ANY logical reason following the principles of “COMMON SENSE ARITHMETIC” and the established formula above that there could not be any change at all in the watts. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
If I am right then you guys should not be disagreeing among yourselves because the principles of arithmetic will take its course. It would be foolish for a person to question the natural outcome of basic arithmetic operations such as the multiplication of numbers.
James
James when dealing with an inductive load such as a motor you have to include the power factor of the motor when calculating the watts. Volts x amps x power factor. The question here is Angelo and Vince claim that power factor correction will reduce the watts the motor is using and therefore save money on the bill. You be the judge. Let’s say the voltage is 120 the amps 30 and the power factor 60. 120 x 30 x .60 = 2160. Now these guys add capacitance to the circuit and magically the amps drop dramatically from 30 to 19. This is what I call the WOW Factor (this demo really blows people away and leads them to believe their bill will drop in direct relationship to the amps dropped)nothing is futher from the truth because when you lower the amps you raise the power factor. Now lets do the math. 120 x 19 x .99 = 2275. Now that’s what I call a WOW factor and I have video proof to verify my numbers. Not some bullshit about some fictitious guy who “actually” works at Stanley Morgan. Vince most of the things you come out with are hilarious have you considered writing comedy? Please don’t insult your engineer friend by stating he can prove your claims, why lose a friend over this. And Algelo If your a licensed electrician you of all people should know that adding capacitance won’t save any money in a residential environment. Hi my name Angelo, I want to charge you $600.00 so I can save you what your not being billed for. What a guy, thanks Angelo I’M sure Vince’s engineer friend can explain that one.
Angelo You said the meter SLOWED DOWN when you when you installed KVAR did you tell your customers the meter RAN LONGER to achieve the same results. Are you that greedy that you want to line your pockets by trdecieving people. how are you able to do Do your think you can get something for nothingcustomers thi
Are you that greedy that you want to line your pockets with the ill-gotten gains you recieved by tricking your prospects. Way to go Angelo you should be proud of yourself. Like P.T.Barnum once said “There’s a sucker born every minute.” It just a shame that there are people out there, like Angelo, that make a living at exploiting these poor ass-holes who think there gonna get something for nothing.
Regarding Item 191, there is an algebraic dilemma as follows:
When PF is included – as PF goes up (to signify an “improvement” or an “optimization”), and the amperage goes down (to also signify an “improvement” or an “optimization”), using the standard formula (which is NOT being questioned at all) will NOT do justice to the supposed improvement in the kW consumption to reflect true savings.
To solve that dilemma, one does NOT have to change the standard formula BUT to re-formulate it or change its expression in order to MATHEMATICALLY ALIGN the changes in the 2 variables (PF and Amps) to properly express a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between those 2 same variables.
Let me demonstrate:
Using the industry-accepted standard formula for computing the watts, you will express the values presented by Rich as follows:
120(V) x 30(A) x .60(PF) = 2160 (Watts)
That is TRUE and CORRECT.
Now, here comes the problem. If you optimize the initial PF to 0.99 resulting in an amperage reduction to a value of 19, with a voltage remaining unchanged (or constant) at 120V, you are faced with 2 realities that are supposed to be DIRECTLY INTER-RELATED but whose numerical values as supposedly reflecting that “direct inter-relationship”, are OPPOSITES (because 1 variable “increases” while the other variable “decreases”).
There is a MATHEMATICAL NEED to PROPERLY EXPRESS the relationship of those 2 aforementioned variables (PF and amperage), and the only way to do justice here – i.e. to both the 2 variables and the standard industry formula, is NOT to change the formula BUT to simply re-express it in order to formulate for the algebraic alignment of the PF change and the Amperage Consumption Change to get the correct wattage.
Utilizing the standard formula, you would have calculated the optimized readings as follows:
120(V) x 19(A) x 0.99(PF) = 2257 (Watts)
and you will ALWAYS have a product that is higher than the initial (baseline) index or reference number. And this is the “WOW Algebra” proudly espoused by Rich to practically discredit not only KVAR but EVERY POWER FACTOR CORRECTION CAPACITOR — as a technology used for motor efficiency improvements for energy savings.
The approach is evidently WRONG! because that “NON-RE-EXPRESSED FORMULA” does NOT properly and appropriately factor in the improvement in PF to the entire formula using the proper algebraic principles. So here is HOW Rich SHOULD HAVE done the computation to resolve the dilemma:
120 x 19 x (0.60/0.99) = 1381.82 (Watts)
Now you know why you have to divide the Initial PF over the Optimized PF (i.e. 0.60/0.99) because by doing that you are doing justice to the supposed DIRECT relationship between the improvement in PF and the improvement in the amperage usage, which is NOT the case if you apply your formula because:
An Improved PF = is an INCREASE in numerical value
(e.g. from 0.60 to 0.99)
and
An Improved Amperage Usage = is a DECREASE in numerical value
(e.g. from 30 to 19)
and that is the fundamental reason why you have to do a variation in the expression of the mathematical formula using the principles of algebra to PROPERLY show and RE-CALCULATE for that real DIRECT RELATIONSHIP of two variables (PF and Amperage) whose respective IMPROVEMENTS are calculated in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS — i.e. Variable “A” (i.e. “PF”) INCREASES while Variable “B” (i.e. “Amps”) DECREASES (and vice-versa).
Now, Rich, try that in REAL SCENARIO – by metering at the MCC/Sub-Panel side and optimizing PF closest to the load (at the Motor Disconnect) and this is what you will find out: That the actual kW will be closest to the computation I had (NOT exact results because of the fluid nature of energy) and your resulting product will be VERY FAR OFF from the actual test results using kW metering instruments.
So stop your cursing Rich. Go back to your Algebra 101 and perhaps do a little review of your Calculus. Ask mathematicians and they will VALIDATE the above re-expression of the formulation.
I hope this input puts in a LOT OF CLARIFICATION for everyone’s consideration and understanding.
Comments to Vince:
Initial Before PF Correction:
220.74V x 19.20A = 4,238.21 Watts
IF Motor has PF of 0.80, the computation will be:
220.74 x 19.20 x 0.80 = 3,390.57
Optimized – After PF Correction:
221.20V x 16.50A = 3,649.80 Watts
IF Motor has PF improved to 0.98, the computation will be:
221.20 x 16.50 x 0.98 = 3,576.80
Evidently, there are more watts after the supposed optimization of the power factor. My problem there is that somehow the improvement in power factor and the resulting decrease in the amperage value needs to be tied closely and the above mathematical formula will not show it. I see the need to allow the “mathematical formulation” and the “PF-amperage changes” “speak” to each other using the “language of algebra” and show the “real relationship” between “PF change” and “ampere change” without destroying the industry standard formula.
Let me try the idea of Vince. IF I want to show a real mathematical relationship between the improvement in PF and the reduction of amperage, the formula would have to be:
[{221.20 x 16.50} x {0.80/0.98}] = 2,979.43
3,390.57 – 2,979.43 = 411.14
411.14/3,390.57 = 0.12 x 100 = 12% (This needs to be verified in actual tests using meters. We need to see how close the actual test results will be to the paper calculations).
I believe the formula explained by Vince is the solution to the dilemma in algebra. That should be the formula to used to explain in sensible, reality terms the relationship between an improvement of power factor and the reduction in amperage to actual energy savings in terms of kilowatt consumption savings. I find this explanation of Vince very sensible and consistent with the standard principles and methods of algebra. I also agree with Vince that actual tests, however, should be done to see how close the metered readings would be to the results of the calculations using the formula explained by Vince. I believe this is the real scientific way of arriving at a reality-based solution of everyday items in life. Congratulations Vince.
Vince That was eloquent and beautiful. It’s amazing the bullshit you’ll come up with to hide the truth. This sounds like an old formula that KVAR used at one time which they said wasn’t correct, which they changed, and when that didn’t work, they changed it again. So is this the formula of the month. Vince it all boils down to one thing if you can drop the watts like you claim you can, your gonna be a national hero, why are you wasting your time on this blog you should be Time magazines man of the year! Vince don’t you understand how rediculous your claims are? How are you able to do what nobody else can do! You can’t, but you enjoy trying to trick people into thinking you got a magic box that defies the laws of physics. What’s next, you gonna claim you can make water run uphill?
Rich:
Firstly, what Laws of Physics are you saying there? You know this is my challenge to you and your big mouth – go and file a FRAUD CASE against KVAR and let’s have our days in court. Can you do that? Go do it on January 4, 2010 – and I can and will prove in court and in ANY forum what I have always believe in – “Optimizing Power Factor WILL reduce kilowatts”! We know how to do it. Evidently you do not know how to do it. We know how to measure it using the proper industry standard instruments. You obviously do not. You talk too much and your opinions are not even worth the time of serious people. Now for the fraud part, why can’t you just file the case against KVAR or make a complaint to the FTC? You know where to find KVAR. Let’s see IF you have the guts to stand by what you say that KVAR product is a fraud. Rich, talk is cheap!
Secondly, that formula is NOT the proprietary information of KVAR. That is common sense mathematics, common sense Algebra.
Thirdly, why can’t you provide us the information about your being an engineer? or where you finished with a 4-Year college degree? The way you talk, you portray as if you are the smartest highly educated guy. I don’t think so.
Fourthly, we make money every month doing the KVAR and/or other Power Factor correction strategies. Payments come to us from Utilities verified savings using IPMVP standards. I hope you even understand what an IPMVP stands for and what it means and how it is utilized in the energy sector.
Dropping the watts from power factor correction strategies HAS long been done by so many people who know HOW to, and NOT by someone like Rich who blames the KVAR technology for failing to use it properly – and to correctly show inquisitive engineers and facilities managers REAL reductions in kW. So, Rich sulks and sour grapes EVERY SECOND of his life. Get a life!
Here is an excellent material BACKED UP by real well-engineered tests, whose results agree with me that: POWER FACTOR CORRECTION WILL REDUCE KILOWATT HOURS. Period.
http://www.myronzucker.com/capacitalk101.html
For those of you who really value scientific presentations on the role power factor correction capacitors play in reducing kilowatts and kilowatt hours, that article is basic – instead of basing your judgments on pitiful self-defeating mediocres like Rich.
Wow guys, quite a technical discussion, and there is clearly some money at stake on one side, and some logic on the other.
The bottom line is that utilities only charge consumers for real power, so neither power factor correction, or lack of it will make any difference to the bill.
Vince, I hope you will see this list of how many products are claiming they can reduce the bill – amazing …..
http://open4energy.com/forum/home/scam/energy_saving_scams
Alex:
I base my claim on actual tests we have done and metered using very precise instruments and strictly following the scientific method. Go back up and you will see the hourly logs and minute-per-minute logs of kW changes. Allow me to do some explanations here, and hopefully, Rich grasps them in his mind:
1) Electric Power has two components: ACTIVE POWER, measured in KW, which produces work and REACTIVE POWER, measured in kVAR, which is needed to generate the magnetic fields required for operation of inductive loads such as motors, but performs no useful work. TOTAL POWER is measured in KVA. The ratio of Active Power to Total Power is the POWER FACTOR.
2) Since most Electric Utilities charge based on kWh usage, there is no direct charge for the Reactive Power used by many facilities. Active current and Reactive current both flow in the wires from the utility to the individual loads at the facility.
3) Indeed, significant distribution losses (the famous “I2R” concept) are present inside facilities. More current flow through the facility equates to higher distribution losses. Distribution losses in a facility can be in the following forms: Hysteresis, Skin-Effect, Proximity Effect, Transformer Losses, Line Losses and Eddy Current. Line Losses can consume 1% to 3% of a facility’s overall KW usage. Hysteresis and Skin-Effect can add 1% to 5% to a facility’s KW usage.
4) Now let’s tie up all the concepts in a causal relationship: When power factor correction is accomplished at (or as close as possible to) the load, the REQUIRED REACTIVE CURRENT will only flow back and forth in the conductors connecting the load to the capacitors, thus reducing the overall current flow in the remaining facility’s electrical conductors. Current reduction results in a reduction of distribution losses, thus a reduction in KWh consumption.
IN CONCLUSION, Power Factor Correction CAN be used as an ENGINEERING STRATEGY to reduce the kW and kWh consumption of motors with low PF – based on the explanation above.
Here is another actual study that was done in Ghana, Africa which clearly reflects those relationships:
http://www.ghanaef.org/publications/documents/6powerfactorcorrection.pdf
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE FORMULA RE-EXPRESSION:
For your information Rich, regarding the re-expression of the formula to reflect: (PFinitial / PFoptimized) is the appropriate algebraic expression that supports this industry-standard theoretical position that “…circuit current is reduced in DIRECT proportion to the increase in power factor…”. (cf. page 82, Industrial Power Factor Analysis Guidebook. Bonneville Power Administration, US Department of Energy, 1995).
Here is the link for your easy reference:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=A49EEBD3A2439941313C48DE7C8DEBD7?purl=/654078-6lcddX/webviewable/
STUDY STUDY STUDY!!!!!! Is it getting too complicated for you Rich? huh?
Vince, I’m sitting here in stunned amazement! STUDY STUDY STUDY !!!
Do you actually read the shit you claim endorses your products? You didn’t because if you did you would have seen that this document proves your the stupidest asshole that ever walked the face of the earth. Thank you Vince for shooting yourself in the foot once again, your getting very good at that, just like you always say, consistancy. Your very good a being a consistant asshole!
On page 59 did you look at the chart? You couldn’t have, because if you did you would have said I better not show this to rich because it proves he’s right! Are you that stupid! They were able to save 1.0 kw…..1.0 kw……..1.0 kw about $5.00 per month. WOW!
On page 67 the kw useage increased! “In fact, you will notice that the kw load is higher after the installation of capacitors.”
Is this getting to complicated for you Vince. HUH!
Let’s see you spin your way out of this one. Did your engineers read this report. If they did, and they still endorse your claims, get yourself some new enginneers. Like Steve Fish said maybe they should go back to college and ask for a refund.
Vince now that your have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong and that you can’t reduce kw by power factor correction, I want to see if your man enough to apologize. I doubt it. I don’t think you have enough character to admit your wrong. Knowing you, you’ll probably write another diatribe to avoid the issue and deflect the attention away from the fact that your an asshole who can’t prove what he says, but yet, he won’t shut-up. Come on Vince fess-up! Being wrong isn’t bad, but denying you were wrong is a very bad sign. We’re waiting for an apology. Rich
I lost track of the comments here, so forgive me if this has been mentioned.
The NIST produced a primer of power factor correction: http://www.nist.gov/cgi-bin//get_pdf.cgi?pub_id=903669
Bottom line – power factor correction will not save you money. Utilities charge for current x power factor, so if you reduce current by increasing power factor, the product is the same – no change in your electric bill.
Such devices do reduce the energy production required by the utility, but the amount is so small that it is likely not worth the money (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing the devices themselves.
Steven:
What we have found out is YES – in some cases, it is NOT cost effective, but in a number of situations it is. As an example, a capacitor project in a Medical-Transplant Center put in $24,000 in their capacitors for their fixed load motors. They were saving $3,200 on a monthly basis, and their ROI was 8 to 9 months. On the other hand, in another facility – a Home Depot Store, the ROI would have taken up 5 years or more (which is NOT cost effective) so we had to shift to another solution – which was NOT a capacitor.
Thanks for your comments. And yes, I am aware of that publication as well.
Vince
How many times do I have to tell you Rich:
1) How would you explain the data from the test I have generously disclosed here? (see earlier posts).
2) Why should I apologize? That is what I believe in – from what I do and from what I have seen in tests. period. YOU do not have tests to prove the contrary.
3) Read it carefully. I said Power Factor Correction. Period. No need to further explain things to you. You would not even understand, so what can I say? Good Luck to you!
As I have told you, IF you believe there is FRAUD in what KVAR is engaged in, why don’t or can’t you file cases with the FTC? Why can’t you start a fraud case? Go! Nobody is stopping you.
You call me an asshole? I call you a limp-dick! lol. Those tests on Page 59 had 14 capacitors installed at the MCC. I am more interested in capacitors installed at load – closest to the motors. My arguments were based on “at-load” connections. No need to explain as you would not understand anyway.
Last piece of advice for you limp-dick, start studying your english, specifically but not limited to, your spelling. I believe that is where you start BEFORE you even start delving into the stuff we are dealing with in this Blog.
Vince I really feel sorry for you. I knew you wouldn’t man up. You, yourself sent me to the website on #201 because you wanted to try to prove a point which blew up in your face. Pages 59 & 67 dramatically and conclusively prove that raising power factor will not reduce kw use. Period!
1) The data you have provided is fraudulent see post #168
2) That’s what you believe in. If Vince the almighty thinks 2+2=4 then we should all accept that. Pages 59 & 67 from #201 which was conducted by the “Dept. of Energy.” Proves that raising power factor doesn’t reduce watts but of course they didn’t conduct the tests according to what Vice believes in. Who does the Department of Energy think they are anyway.
3) Why are you so obsessed with fraud, you’ve mentioned fraud over and over. Why? Pages 59 & 67 From #201 clearly prove that power factor correction will not reduce kw usage, so after all this proof would it be safe to say that a person who claims to be able to lower kw while increasing power factor would either be extremely stupid or trying to commit fraud?
Have the balls and the guts to start a fraud case and we will see where it will end up. That is all I can tell you Rich. No need to explain, after all “instruments and meters wouldn’t lie”. YOU do not have the balls to start a “fraud complaint” despite nagging about it here in this Blog, because your comments are baseless.
Another thing, that document was prepared by ELECTROTEK CONCEPTS, INC. submitted to Bonneville Power Administration and the US Dept of Energy. It is NOT an OFFICIAL US GOVT PUBLICATION, and here is a DISCLAIMER from that document: (Read Carefully and ASK – in case you do not understand plain english).
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees. makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer,
or otherwise docs not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, reammendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Lastly I will NOT change my belief and statements. INCREASING POWER FACTOR WILL REDUCE KILOWATTS. Period. I can prove it. I have proven it. I have REAL scientific data proving it, AND there are sufficient respectable scientific literature that provide both the theoretical framework and substance to back up my claims. Capisce?
No need to prolong discussions here with Rich because he is evidently not the right person to discuss these matters.
Vince, You claim increasing power factor will reduce killowatts. Period. Vince on #201 page 59 & 67 they clearly prove that inceasing power factor will not save on kw. They were able to prove this and they have the documentation to back it up. What do you have besides more bullshit and meaningless tests that you doctor to prove your point. This test report was fine with you as long as it agreed with what was okay for your formula re-expression. But as soon as they throw cold water on your parade by proving that power factor improvment doesn’t lower kw, all of a sudden they don’t know what the doing and you start with the disclosure shit. Vince, Thank you for bringing #201 pages 59 & 67 to our attention. Do you have any other sites you can send us to that prove your wrong. Vince you and your “Real” engineers are your own worst enemies when you ignore the facts and will only accept results that suit your needs. This is why I know your engineers are frauds because no engineer would be foolish enough to risk his professional reputation by endorsing your claims.
Vince, From now on everytime I address this blog I am gonna include the numbers #201 page 59 & 67. I’m sure your familiar with the saying, out of sight, out of mind? Well I’m not gonna let you forget that statement. I want everyone to go to that website just to see the “emperical evidence” that proves you wrong and what an asshole you are to dispute these findings. I want everyone to say, Vince what’s your problem, these studies conclusively prove that power factor correction doesn’t lower kw use so why are you arguing the data. I want people to say Vince your wrong and you proved this through your own efforts! Vince, You yourself proved that YOUR A FRAUD! So theres no need for a court case. But it would be nice to hear you apoligize. Why won’t you admit your wrong. The truth hurts. Ask Vince. #201 page 59 & 67. Rich
Vince I can’t thank you enough for the website on #201 pages 59 & 67.
If it’s good enough for the D.O.E. then it’s good enough for me. Thanks again, Rich.
I will keep this as laymen as possible. Let’s start with a question and from the beginning. How many volts are going through the power lines leading to your home? How many amps? Remember the higher the voltage the lower the ampere.
Look at your house panel. Let’s say a 200 amp service. How can this panel supply 200 amp with maybe 3 amps running through the main power lines? Hmm? Well the answer is the transformer being one big magnetic field. All the motors in your home need a magnetic field to run. No argument there, but where does the motor get the energy to perform this? The answer is the motors get the energy from the transformer. Amps and volts, and looking at the harmonic frequency inside inductors, current will lag the voltage for a 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage, this mean the current peak will occur up to 4.17 ms after the voltage peak. Now if the motor needs reactive amp which it gets from the transformer to create the magnetic field that it needs, it has to travel from the transformer to the motor. Now if you are saying that the house meter doesn’t recognize reactive amp than how can it save? Well, if the motors are using more real power to get the reactive amp the meter will recognize that! During this time the motor is using unnecessary energy to accomplish this, which you can clearly see with the proper technology as the phase bends inside motor that is caused by the magnetic field, and the unnecessary energy is real power being dissipated as heat (not imaginary power that feels like it could be heat.)
What KVAR is assembling are capacitors that work with inductors that store reactive amp to reduce the amount of energy to complete the same job. If you move the reactive supply closer to the motor, there is less wasted real power that would otherwise dissipate as heat, because the motor has to work less to get the reactive ampere that it needs to create the magnetic field. Now if you reduce the heat in motors you not only save energy but you are also adding life to the motors. You also reduce the harmful magnetic fields in your home that have been linked to brain cancer by up to 40%. It also supplies up to 2000 joules of amp surge suppression. I install them for $550 all day every day for a PU1200. See how much it cost for a 2000 joule surge protector from any company. That alone makes it cost affective.
Now I have a question for you. If the power company doesn’t charge for reactive amp and you are billed for watts, and there is a reduction in a key component to this formula how is that possible?
Rich is looking at electric in one dimension, there is more to this than TOTO the motor and give three blinks.
Rich, you are entitled to your opinion but I think you are still an INBRED SHIT HOOK!
The KVAR saves:
Part one: I squared * R line loss
Part two: The wasted energy that occurs in the magnetic fields that dissipates as heat in the windings of the motor. That’s where the 6-25% savings come into play.
Get passed the power companies charging for real power only, because that is one dimensional thinking. It’s the wasted energy that occurs while trying to retrieve this reactive amp. Has anybody ever audited the power company to prove that they don’t charge for reactive amp, and only real power? That sounds like trickery as well.
Angelo, Vince gave us a dynamite website that clearly demonstrates that you can’t lower kw by increasing power factor. Go to blog #201 and read the reports on page 59 & 67. This is the first tangible evidence that Vince has presented and it proves conclusively that adding capacitence to an inductive load will not reduce the Kw. Period. Energy star (a joint effort between the EPA and the DOE)has clearly stated in no uncertain terms that they have not seen any data that proves these types of products for residential use accomplish what they claim. Now who are we supposed to believe some fraudulent scam artist or the Department of Energy? Stop the bullshit and show us conclusive evidence like Vince did. You can’t, so what do you do? You write a diatribe on what you want us to know. Angelo we don’t care what you know only what you can show, and so far you’ve offered very little. Hook up a motor to a KVAR unit turn that KVAR unit on and off and show us a drop in the watts. You can’t, but that won’t matter to you because you don’t care if you save people any money. You get off on scamming people and putting the money in your pocket. Angelo what goes around comes around and it won’t take long before people get wise to your scam. By the time people find out you have been scamming them you can move to a new city and start all over. What really bothers me is that you never took the time to see if these things really work. I guess Money has no conscience. Rich.
Did I say residential, Rich? I was referring to COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL. I will tell you AGAIN and AGAIN – Power Factor Correction will drop the kilowatts. Period. I have proofs to support this claim.
Regarding that document Rich is saying, he is equating an installation on the Sub-Panel/MCC versus an installation closest to the load. Naturally, there will be very little loss there.
Vince, what don’t you understand? Why is this so difficult for you to accept. The tests you provided from #201 pages 59 & 67 conclusively prove that you can’t save kw by power factor correction. Period. Vince all you do is tell us AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN that power factor correction will drop the kilowatts period. Who are we supposed to believe? VINCE, or the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Vince if you had proof that you can do what you claim you can do would be a national hero. Instead your trying to prove your the national asshole by claiming the website that you offered for proof is not valid. Do I smell fraud? Rich.
Explain the results-data in Post #169. Period. No need to explain. The data are numbers in KILOWATTS. Period.
Average of 8.51 kW (logging from 2:55PM to 3:16PM on July 7, 2009) without the power factor optimization MINUS Average of 5.84 kW (logging from 3:17PM EST to 3:53PM EST on July 7, 2009) with the power factor optimized = is how much? No need to explain. Period.
Folks you be the judge… Be objective. Use your Calculators. Do the standard mathematics.
Hey! if there is fraud going on, the Attorney General, BBB in Florida, the Federal trade Commission would have ALL filed injunctions (perhaps cases) against KVAR. Now why? Tell me. If you call up the BBB in Florida, there were a lot of calls inquiring about KVAR BUT no complaints.
Rich, you know why it will not reach that point of a fraud case, because it is BASELESS and will NOT hold out in court. The entire Power Factor Correction Industry – OEMs and Service Providers can and will come out in the open and present ACTUAL CASES proving that when you correct PF, you save kilowatts. Period.
On the other hand, the only complaint that KVAR will get will be from people like you who could NOT sell KVAR – products or services, and would like to get a refund and continuously look for information left and right (even taking ideas from documents and articles published out of context and as “absolutes”) SOLELY for the purpose of legitimizing their inadequacies to market a technology. Is that NOT what you are and who you are Rich? All you need is to tell us and we will TEACH you HOW to do it – sizing and metering, and who knows, when there is more time, to teach you better english because your english sucks.
Lastly, you call me a “national asshole”? Well, I call you also a “National Limp Dick Loser with a Limp Brain”! ha ha ha ha! Get lost.
Vince
Angelo:
It is pointless to explain and explain matters to Rich because he is NOT an electrician. He is in the remodeling and paint job and related activities business BUT definitely NOT as an electrician. Besides, it is extremely difficult to rationalize matters with him because he is extremely biased – being a disgruntled ex-KVAR distributor. Who know, he may still be a KVAR Distributor there in Connecticut.
Vince
Vince I already responded to #169 In #171 & 172. You tried the old double-reverse trick and it exposed how you faudulently compared your data (one month to another) to mislead people into thinking power factor improvment could reduce your kw usage. Vince that’s why I love #201 pages 59 & 67. This is a valid test confirmed by Independant Third party verification and it clearly proves that you can not reduce kw by power factor correction. Any idiot could easily see by the charts that this crap won’t lower kw. Oopps I mis-spoke Vince ‘m your wrong
Oopps I mis-spoke Vince will probably tell me I’m looking at the chart from the wrong angle or something like that and then in a 2 page diatribe he’ll explain that the D.O.E. is wrong and he’s right. Vince have your engineers look at the tests from #201 pages 59 & 67 and let us know what they think and if their firm will stand behind your claims.
Rich:
Answer the challenge I have in Post #216. IF you can overturn those results, I will change my position. I rely on scientific data. Period.
It is NOT a question of whether the DOE is right or wrong. Different tests – different results – various hypotheses explained and contextualized.
Again, HOW can you overturn the results cited in Post #216? Explain yourself WELL. DO NOT change topics. Let’s center our discussion on those results. Period.
I am trying to be objective as possible here. From what I am reading, those data presented by Vince in the 59-Minute Test are very challenging. IF those results AS REPORTED here are true and correct, then the data prove in no uncertain terms that Power Factor Correction does reduce the kilowatt and kilowatt hour consumption of an AC inductive motor.
What are your comments Rich? Vince is right. You need to stick to the issue – and the issue here which I myself want to explain as well is WHY DO THE DATA OF VINCE SHOW KW REDUCTIONS?
James
Vince, I GOT IT! You’ve mentioned fraud quite a few times so why don’t you sue the Depatment of Energy for fraud. Tell them they didn’t come up results that you wanted, so they have to be wrong. Period. Tell them you can prove you can save kw by power factor correction. Tell them #201 page 59 & 67 is wrong and they need to change the results to reflect that whatever you (Vince) say they should be . Why let actual numbers get in the way. Who does the deptartment of energy think they are anyway, letting factual data get in the way of Vince’s claims. The Department of Energy should be ashamed of themselves to even think about publishing this data until Vince O.K’D it. The nerve of some government entities! Vince it must be very lonely at the top. Rich.
Rich:
Here again, you are NOT answering the question. Come on, disprove the merits of those numbers and I will change my position. Evidently, you could not. So, learn to respect my claims and I will respect yours. Period. See Folks! You be the judge in the way Rich handles solid data presented to him. Evidently, the truth is clear – different test results will necessarily have different conclusions – and 1 conclusion could not totally overturn the other.
Can other folks comment on the data in Post #216 in an objective and unbiased manner? I do NOT need to read evasive answers such as those being made by Rich. He does NOT really have ANY solid answer.
James you hit the nail on the head. You said “If those results as reported here are true and correct.” Your right and that’s where the problem lies. Who if anybody verifyed these numbers. That’s why independant third party verification is so important. You have to have an impartial referee that makes sure everything is being tested on a level playing field. That’s why I get so pissed-off about the shit that Vince tried to pull on #162. He gives you data from one month with no power factor correction and the next month with power factor correction and then he claims that the kw reduction was due to his product. Comparing one month to another month is like comparing apples to sky-diving, it makes no sense. Look at the difference in average temperatures. What loads were the motors under……. on and on, Etc. Etc. There are to many variables. Also the kvar demo kit has been rigged with extra wire so they can exaggerate the savings in kw and who knows maybe vince hooked up his demo kit during the 59 minute test I didn’t see it did you? Are you gonna trust a guy who can’t admit it when he’s wrong? I don’t think so. Go to the website on blog #201 and read pages 59 and 67 and you’.ll find out the truth
Vince we got to get on the same page. I’m answering one question when your asking another one. I’ll talk later, HAPPY NEW YEAR. Rich.
Vince in #220 you stated. Rich, “Answer the challange I have in #216, if you can overturn those results, I will change my position. I rely on scientific data, period.” Vince if you rely on scientific data and you have the proof that you claim you have, you can’t change your position, because the data will not allow you to change your position. This is not subject to your approval. It is what it is. Either the data proves you right or the data proves you wrong it’s not subject to interpretation. The primary question here is, how, and by who was the data was collected. It’ easy to mis-represent the data. There are so many varibles in play that a reading taken just minutes apart can be dramatically different depending on which equippment switched on or off, Etc, Etc. That’s why #201 pages 59 & 67 are so important because they were conducted under controlled conditions over months of time by a reputable company who is proud to announce the engineers who participated in this case study. Vince you said you had some guy at Morgan-Stanley to verify yor findings. Sounds fishy dosen’t it? Vince if your able to prove the numbers in #216 are valid you should be pounding on the front door of the Department of Energy because you can do something that nobody else can do. Vince dosent that in itself lead you to question your controls. Go to http://www.nlcpr.com/deceptions1.php and pay special attention to page 6. Rich.
That website again is http://www.nlcpr.com Click on dececeptions, power factor and pay close attention to page 6. Rich.
I want at least one verifiable response that Rich is qualified enough to conclude his comments. O wait we already have it by Steve Fish, and that he is an ex distributor disgruntled and manipulating formula’s and theory to smoke screen this entire argument. That’s why he takes up to 3 or 4 blog #’s to attempt one pathetic thought because he is drawing all of you away from the facts!
He is in no way qualified and if he was a part of my company he would be the one holding the wire while I turned on the breaker, of course he would argue that he is not being electrocuted until he gets independent third party verification.
All of you are wondering “how can I believe a guy like Angelo who sells the product?” What you should be asking is “how can I believe an infant like Rich who hides behind the fact he is a disgruntled ex distributor who couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag?”
Don’t persecute me with the fact that this is my life and career, from someone like Rich who relied on the same paychecks as me to support my family as he did. Every person that challenged me could have proven or disproven the fact that this works or it doesn’t. I don’t want to sound harsh but I am the one with the balls and the other few on here that just tried it. It works or it doesn’t? Rich I guess has one because he was a distributor, and notice he never talks about personal experiences?
I believe Vince is correct in his data. The only information I am waiting is where and who. IF the where and who are reputable and verifiable, then ALL arguments supporting the claims of Vince that Power Factor Optimization indeed saves kilowatt is also valid and true. Evidently, Rich is NOT able to answer Vince’s question with his own scientific data – except fishing out other’s data. That is certainly not a true scientific approach.
Angelo it sounds to me like your the one who is disgruntled, What’s the matter does the truth hurt? Energy Star (a joint venture between the D. O. E. and the E.P.A.) clearly states “we have not seen any data that proves these types of products for residential use accomplish what they claim. Power factor correction devices improve power quality but do not generally improve energy efficiency (meaning they won’t reduce your energy bill). I’m sure you show this document to everyone when you install the KVAR unit in their home, Right? Only a con-man would try to hide the truth. Am I right, Angelo. In addition, have your prospects go to #201 page 59 & 67 and give them a big kiss while their reading it. I’m sure your familiar with the old saying I like being kissed while I’m being _ucked! Lay a big wet one on ‘em Angelo because you the man. All the electricians I know are stand-up types of guys who care more about there customers then there pocketbook, what happened to you. The electricians I know have integrity and they would not consider installing something unlesss they could prove it worked, what happened to you. I guess a quick buck is more important to you then watching out for the good of your customers. It’s guys like you that give the industry a bad name. Thanks for nothin’, Angelo. Rich.
It’s money and patents. Research that and you will understand. It does work though and I know that you know, your just pissed because they kicked you out of the club.
Angelo
James if Vince’s data is correct and he’s able to drop the watts like he claims, he will be a national hero. He will be able to do what no body else can do. I keep making a joke of this but its not funny and this is why you have to question the data. It’s like claiming 2 + 2 = 5 and then saying you have the data to back it up. Think about that? Your first question should be, how do we know the data he has is correct? Does this make sense? Thats why #201 pages 59 & 67 are so important. These case studies have been verified by a panel of engineers and not “some guy from Morgan Stanley” see what I mean? Rich.
Angelo I was smart enough to quit the club because I realized it was a con-game and I didn’t want to play. I’ll never forget how shattered I was when I found out this KVAR shit doesnt work. We had David Wise on one phone and Steve Fish on the other and they both plee-ded ignorence when we couldn’t drop the watts on a circuit. Talk about being kicked in the balls, and what was there answer. “Tell them we’ll save them about 6 % and don’t worry about it.” Don’t worry about it!. What do you think my name is Angelo? Go read #201 page 59 & 67.
Rich:
Vince will have to tell us who the institution is and IF those numbers are verified to be true and accurate, then we will just have to accept the claim of Vincent in the interest of objective scientific testing. On the other hand, I have read the EnergyStar claims – and they were referring to “residential home” applications, and the claims of Vince on “industrial-commercial” applications are indeed different. So, let us just give Vince’s claims the benefit of the doubt.
On another note, I did read in their technical bulletins: http://www.myronzucker.com/capacitalk101.html
that Power Factor Correction from Capacitors INDEED saves kilowatts. In the interest of a better understanding of the subject matter, that should also be required readings IN ADDITION to documents issued by the DOE and EnergyStar on the issue. I believe the real issue should be HOW COST EFFECTIVE would a Capacitor Project be in a specific industrial or commercial facility – and certainly there are LOTS of other factors to consider. Ultimately the savings from the demand consumption of motors MUST be sufficient to pay off any investment in the capacitor project within a reasonable period of time.
James
James Your looking at results that have been compiled by a company that sells capacitors. This should automatically set off an alarm and disqualify them as being impartial participants to the test. Does that make any sense to you? Don’t you think this company would be trying to protect their own intrests and possibly omit information that could be detramental to there findings? In addition, no company would accept a before and after sinario thats been conducted in this manner. There are no references to average temperature? motor loads? what equippment was on or off. This report is invalid because it is incomplete and can’t be used to endorse a product.is report is as weak
This is what I can assure EVERYBODY reading this Blog about the following points:
1) The test was conducted by and in the premises – boiler room of a major healthcare institution in the USA – Northeast Corridor area;
2) The instruments that were used to do the metering operation were industry standard US manufactured devices – Extech Clamp On Meter AND the HOBOWare Pro Energy Metering System;
3) The PF optimization equipment/technology utilized was the KVAR – as assembled in Daytona Beach, Florida;
4) The people who were involved were REAL electrical engineers, electricians, Facilities Managers and Energy Consultants;
5) There is a Major Energy Consultant Firm in New York City that has already received the data on such testing results – and after their initial due diligence, has recommended that a further pilot testing on a larger facility-wide assessment scale be made to justify the full scale deployment of the PF optimization strategy in the entire organization (which is made up of different campuses and facilities);
At the proper time, the identities will be revealed. We are in the process of mapping out the facility-wide testing of the KVAR Technology.
As soon as that planning is completed, and when the legal limitations and restrictions on the project disclosure have been lifted, AND with proper permission from the institution involved, an official copy of the report WILL FIRST be sent to Mr. Robert Saucelli – Head of the EnergyStar, and he will be most welcome to come and visit the place – and see the testing operation and results for himself. Other entities that may be involved in the project funding process will also be furnished the same report BEFORE disclosures made in this Blog. I am sure all of you with the proper mindset will agree with me regarding this specific point.
Folks, as far as I am concerned, there is NOTHING to hide relative to those aforementioned test results because, as noted, the actual kW and kWh reduction reports have IN FACT been produced (downloaded from their system onsite), and are in the hands of the Facilities Management of that Major Healthcare Institution. I have and had NO influence whatsoever as far as the production and transmission of those test results are concerned.
In closing, I remember in history when and how Galileo Galleli was academically (even socially-politically) ostracized for claiming that “the world is round” – notwithstanding the prevalent thinking espoused by the Church, a very powerful institution at that time, about the “flatness of the world”. In due time, however, when science showed the contrary, a change in doctrine and understanding has been conveniently done by the Church to set the truth right.
In the interest of the scientific advancement of the technology of PF correction of AC inductive motors, therefore, whenever we look at that phenomenon of the relationship of PF Correction and kW-kWh reductions amidst equally valid diverse test operations, protocols, and results, there are really ONLY these objective conclusions that may safely be held at this juncture:
1) That the issue about PF correction as saving kW and kWh needs to be studied and re-studied in various ways and under different conditions to establish the theoretical merits of hypothetical conclusions made; and,
2) That diverse results from equally valid tests conducted by different entities will just have to respect the diverse statements claimed by those different entities respectively;
2) That it is indeed too early to have a “dogmatic pronouncement” that PF correction does NOT at all save kW and kWh. There is much more “theoretical refinement” that needs to be done.
I hope those 3-Points should be the parameters of understanding between myself and Rich and all others who may have conflicting beliefs as the one that I hold for now. Rest assured, in due time, however, IF and when enough tests and closer collaborations between the academe and in the real, industrial engineering world, merit a definite industry-wide conclusion that will be contrary to the claims I have at this time, then I will be the first one to change my position, and embrace the contrary.
I believe this is the 2010 challenge for the Power Factor Correction Technology within the power conservation, energy efficiency market sectors of society.
Vince
This report is invalid because it is incomplete and can’t be used to endorse a product. What would happen if they initially tested the equippment (which let’s say were air conditioners) and the outside air temperature was 100 degrees. Then the next month the outside air temperature dropped to 80 degrees and they tested the equippment again. Your electricity use was much lower but if you didn’t know about the drop in temperature you would have assumed that the equippment was responsible for the decrease in useage. Do you see what I mean? Thats why you need independaant third party verification like the tests found At #201 page 59 & 67. I hope this clears things up. Rich.
For your information, Rich, the OAT (Outside Average Temperature) was ALSO LOGGED together with kW and kWh attributes. The institution wanted to be sure that OAT factor was properly accounted for in the test protocol. So YES, the OAT was factored in.
So, Rich, what’s will it be aside from the OAT factor that will make you disqualify the integrity of such tests?
And those OAT changes were factored in MINUTE-PER-MINUTE when the 59-Minute Test was being measured on a per-minute basis, and HOURLY when the Extended Test was conducted and measured every hour. Period.
Vince this reminds me of the time Steve Fish was gonna have a success story about an Ice Cream company that saved millions of dollars on their power bill. To make a long story short after many repeated requests to see the proof, KVAR could never supply it. As a matter of fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen any success stories from anyone at KVAR. I wonder why? If I had a product that could save people thousands of dollars you couldn’t shut me up. Vince looks like your gonna be the first at KVAR to be able to save people money. I’ll alert the media as long as you promise to tell them to take a look at #201 59 & 67. Thanks Rich.
Vince In #237 I’m refering to the myron zucker website that you refered us to. I was explaining what bullshit this test was and how misleading it was. THATS WHY YOU NEED TO STUDY #201 page 59 & 67. Rich.
Rich:
On your Post 240, NOT everyone shares success stories with KVAR. I do not do that.
On your Post 241, how sure are you that the OAT has NOT been factored into their (Myron Zucker) test? FIRST of all, I would get ALL details of the test BEFORE I make any conclusions based on unfounded assumptions, otherwise, I will look funny.
Now let me ask this question DIRECTLY to Rich: What IF those data from the 59-Minute and Extended Tests are validated as true, accurate, by the Healthcare Institution itself, what would be your comments? Please do NOT give me an answer based on: “…because so and so said it or wrote in in their so and so document…”. I want a real, hypothetical answer from you based on that hypothetical question.
Vince if these reports are validated as true and accurate and you can significantly reduce kw I’m coming to work for you!!!!!!!! I’ll apologize to you on national T.V. and we can start saving the world together, and I mean this. Vince I’ve paid my dues, and I’ve experienced what I’m talking about. Do you think I’d be such a cocky asshole if I couldn’t prove what I say? I’m gonna give you a break and not mention #201 page 59 & 67. Rich.
First of all do not compare me to anyone that conducts business in that manner. Couldn’t drop the amp and threw out a number like that. Now let me ask you this. Did you have a licensed electrician performing the sizing? Was this licensed electrician trained in proper sizing by flying into Miami and being trained in an actual sizing seminar? Please let me know what the circuit you were having sized was? Did you or the company you were working for install a system anyway and what happened? Did you take into consideration reactive amp going back into the grid fooling in some situations an amp meter? That is common if over capacitating occurs. There are a lot of variable Rich to take in. Now you couldn’t drop the watts on one circuit? What about other sizing’s? Don’t half ass your next comment to me. I feel like I am the only one doing work and you just are offering layman rebuttals.
Angelo Of course we had a licensed electrician who was trained by Kvar conduct the sizings. We performed over 100 sizings, and all we could prove was that when we optimized the system we raised the watts the system was drawing. You asked “Did you install a system anyway?” Why would we install the system when we proved it couldn’t save them any money? Would You? Only a fool would expect to get diferent results when the system was installed? Right Angelo? Do the numbers change when the check clears? Angelo when your installing these systems what do you show for proof when your con-ing these poor idiots. Isolate a circuit with an iductive load. Measure the draw. Optimize that circuit. Measure the draw. Now be honest with everyone did the watts increase or decrease? If you go to #201 pages 59 & 67 you’ll see the Department of Energy couldn’t drop any watts. Angelo you must have a magic wand that you wave over the equippment after the check clears? Because your able to do something that no one else can do. Rich.
100 sizing’s huh? Give me the list and I will go do them all again. You are obviously doing something wrong. Everyone on here that states they bought the system says they are saving money? Everyone that doesn’t have a system is arguing. Huh? Capacitors have been around for hundreds of years. It’s a private patent so when that expires these websites will be dinosaurs. 5 maybe 10 years from now all these companies that don’t have the patent on the sizing equipment now will be making these systems, and they will just say “we found away to make it work.” If we sold all these systems to every person, there would be nothing left when the private patent expires, leaving no money for big government. The companies that say it doesn’t work are in bed with the power companies, so that is why cfl’s are so popular now. Lighting has little to do with the power bill compared to inductors. I am not the only one that says I can do this; there are a lot of distributors throughout the world. They are just not one dimensional!
Angelo, What the ?uck are you Talking About? “Private Patent” Angelo, I’m really starting to wonder if your a licensed electrician like you claim. After reading what you wrote #246 I’m really starting to wonder if your all-right in the head. Angelo virtually any data-logger will tell you how much capacitance you need to bring a motor to unity. Let’s stop the bull-shit on December 3rd Blog #103 you were challanged to prove that you could drop watts while optimizing a circuit you never provided any results why not? From now on I’m not only gonna mention #201 pages 59 & 67 but I’m also gonna point out that’s it’s one month later and you still can’t provde any results for # 103 Rich.
Gregory Taylor owns the rights to the sizing equipment. That is what I was saying. Not energy star, so when the patent is up then the country will be swarming with these systems.
I did the test that you said to do but you will argue that it is not valid. Give me the 100 sizing’s list that you say was done and I will show you then. You can come along and watch a professional company fix your mistakes.
Angelo, What happened when you did the test??????. Before you post your reults let’s make sure were on the same page and the test was conducted in a fair and valid manner, so the results cannot be questioned. What we want to create is the same test scenario that KVAR uses to demonstrate and validate with their DEMO-KIT, the only difference being, we want to do this in an actual setting under real conditions showing real results. You, yourself admitted that the KVAR demo-kit was rigged to exagerate their claims, and all that extra wire hidden in the KVAR housing was intentionally and deliberately put there to create I squared R loses that would be impossible to find in a real life setting. Right? All we want to do is create the exact same scenario with out the extra wire. You say your a licensed electrician if you are you know that everything has to be done “according to code” and when you stick to code you’ll almost never encounter loses like those created by the demo kit. That’s why the tests from #201 Pages 59 & 67 are so important because they confirm real life scenarios and not fictious KVAR crap. I’m not gonna mention #103 again. Rich
Two days and not a peep out of you. Looks like you guys did the test. Welcome to the real world. Rich.
So I am dicking around putting some test together for Rich’s big upset. Low and behold I am reading some of the blog entries and this is what I find. WTF! I thought you did 100 sizings and no positive results. You can find this post on youtube, along with Rich,defending KVAR! A 1 year old post!
sbrn33 This is Rich, one of the “total liars” in the video. Did you see the reduction in average kwh in the video? The numbers don’t lie! On 9/24 we went before the Deptartment of Public Utilities in the state of Connecticut to prove how effective this technology can be in eliminating electrical waste through power factor optimization. We have additional meetings scheduled. stay tuned. P.S. If you ever call me a lier again I’m gonna punch you right in the mouth and I’m not lying!
Notice the misspellings it’s definitely him! Welcome to the real world bitch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIDOsD_3uQQ
Here is another one Rich,
Another sizing at the YMCA. I just want to know why you need a test from me. You were doing so well. Did you ever get the Y? I will be glad to take that 30,000 off your hands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvVyVrJmAo
And Another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1xvXPT0p4
I am reading the shit talkers that are arguing the validity of your work and they sound familiar like the copy and paste bullshit that you say throughout this blog. I just thought that everyone should know who they are siding with. LOL Poser!
sbrn33 This is Rich, one of the “total liars” in the video. Did you see the reduction in average kwh in the video? The numbers don’t lie! On 9/24 we went before the Deptartment of Public Utilities in the state of Connecticut to prove how effective this technology can be in eliminating electrical waste through power factor optimization. We have additional meetings scheduled. stay tuned. P.S. If you ever call me a lier again I’m gonna punch you right in the mouth and I’m not lying!
This one was my favorite quote from Rich and another dissappointment was my Colts beating the shit out your Jets Tonight. 30-17 :-)
“Spoon Feeding is not available at this time!”
Everyone wants a test? All in good time, I mean why I would ruin the fun we are having with Rich. I don’t want to be the one he commits suicide to.
After watching his YouTube episodes, I know why he quit because he let people with no common sense get to him. Rich I get on here to get ammunition, because I do my selling in the real world and make some really real money. So when the consumer gets on these blogs and has a list of questions, I am readily prepared to have the answer. That is what saves people money, because if I don’t have an answer they won’t buy. That is what happened to you except, you said, “If I can’t beat them, join them.”
Remember, “The reason the Indian rain dance worked is because they wouldn’t stop dancing until it started raining.”
That‘s all these blogs are, just uneducated people waving their arms and kicking their feet. This is their dance, and I am their hurricane.
Plus I think you got fired. lol
What’s funny is I based part of my decision to get into this watching your video’s. I never read the comments people were making towards you, and that was your mistake.
Good Luck Rich. You are starting to have a cloud form over your head.
Electrical meters only measure real energy or kwh (Kilowatt per Hour), a power factor correction device only reduces the reactive current fooling electrically analphabet people, the real current vector is exactly the same except for a very little portion that goes in losses in the conductor or I square R losses, I have a portable energy quality monitor from FLUKE, it is very accurate , it also measures power factor, KVAR , etc, I defy any magic box seller to make a real test in a home I’ ll probe to anybody that the KWH will be the same and that the box they bought is only another possible source of fire if the dielectric of the chinese low quality capacitor inside fails as mexican capacitors failed in some public lighting mercury lamps I bought once.
The truth will make you free!
Robert nobody cares. You might as well get your 25 bucks back you paid for that meter. This subject is exhausted. You are 259 comments too late. You are also just regurgitating what Mr. Novella already said. But he also wrote this:
“Some companies, like KVAR energy controller, appear to make devices that actually work, in that they may reduce reactive load. They have to be installed by an electrician at the circuit breaker box – the point at which electricity enters the house.”
Can you calculate line loss since you say it’s very little on let’s say a single phase air handler: I=28.5 E=220 PF=.69?? Since you say it’s little I want to know how much?
Put that tester to work. I hope you researched the line loss in a home before you stated there isn’t much. That would be deceiving if you didn’t.
So let me break this down:
I=28.5
E=220
PF=.69
Wire: 6-2 Romex
Length: 90ft.
Breaker: SQD QO 50A
What is the resistance?
#6 Copper wire has a resistance of 0.3951 Ohms per 1000 ft (www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm).
A 90ft length of 6-2 will be 180ft of #6 wire, so wire resistance will be 0.3951 Ohms/1000ft X 180ft/1000 = 0.071 Ohms.
Manufacturers’s data gives a breaker resistance of 0.002 Ohms per pole, or 0.004 Ohms for both poles of a 2-pole breaker.
So the total resistance of cable + breaker is 0.075 ohms.
Using the formula Power = I x I x R, we can calculate the power dissipated in the cable + breaker at 28.5A as P = 28.5A x 28.5A x 0.075 Ohms = 60.9W. This is the power that is being lost in the cable and breaker, a portion of which will be saved by correcting the power factor.
The power drawn by the load is calculated by P = E x I x Pf = 220V x 28.5A x 0.69 = 4325W.
The percent saving, then, will be about 25W out of 4325W, or about 0.6%.
Thanks Paulus. You were a help! Now using what Paulus had to spoon feed to everyone here calculate using an amp meter on your own house everything run by a motor; fans, pool motors, dishwashers, washers and dryers, disposals, power tool, well pumps, irrigation systems, and using the website Paulus went out of the way giving you calculate all the line loss in your home. Now calculate it over a month’s time, years’ time, ten years time and for the life of the system 25 years. The power company loves ignorant people. Next time the power company is looking for a rate increase check out the capacitors that they install on their side of the meter. Hmmm??, you might find them unplugged to make it look like you are using more power. Use power, pay bills, use power, pay bills, sounds like familiar thinking huh? That Robotic thinking is why the power companies receive their rate increases. Read the newspaper or google the power companies requests. Read about magnetizing current and line loss, it’s more of a problem then what the power company leads on because you are the one paying the bill.
Further to the above :
1) If the power saving that was calculated/estimated above was maintained 24/7 for a year, and if you were paying $0.30 per KWh, the saving in dollars would be 25W x 24 h/day x 365 days/year x $0.30 $/KWh /1000 Wh/KWh = $65.70. In that time, the appliance on the end of the circuit will consume 4.3KW x 24 h/day x 365 days/year x $0.30 $/KWh = $11,300. That’s quite a power bill!
2) It needs to be understood that the current drawn by the appliance on the end of the circuit will be the same regardless of whether power factor correction is applied or not. The power factor correction will only affect the current upstream (ie towards the supply transformer) of the point where it connects to the circuit. What this means is that the estimated saving in copper losses will only be realised if the power factor correction device is connected at the end of the circuit, where the appliance is connected. If it is connected at the breaker panel, the power company will be thee only party that sees any benefit at all.
3) If you wanted to install power-factor correction on an appliance, you can buy suitable capacitors from any electrical supply house for just a few $ each. Why pay someone 100 x as much for the same items in a fancy enclosure?
The only problem with that is the ability to size. It is not good to over capactiate a circuit or not give the circuit enough capacitance. It’s the same reason you hire someone to fix the dent and paint your car. Your paying for the service, sizing, tests, insurance….Otherwise your back to conducting abortions with a wire hanger. Leave the PFC to the professionals because giving someone the ability to think they can hook these up without training, test, may lead to a house fire or death. Not good advice to save a few bucks. But if you have good life insurance what the hell????
I agree totally with Angelo’s comment above. If in any doubt at all, hire an electrician.
This is why I get aggravated with these blogs, because the creator (Mr. Novella) gave a reference website: http://www.nist.gov/cgi-bin//get_pdf.cgi?pub_id=903669
This was basically their summary.
Possible utility savings. For our central air conditioner example given above, let us estimate approximately how much energy is saved because of lower resistive losses in the distribution system when the customer installs the capacitor. The utility’s total resistance as seen looking back into the distribution system from the watt-hour meter is assumed for our rough calculation to be less than 0.05 ohms. The power consumed in the utility circuits for operating the air conditioner without the capacitor is about 28.8 watts (Irms2R), where Irms is the root mean square (rms) value of I1 in Figure 1(b), 24 A. With the capacitor installed, the rms value of I1 [Fig. 1(c)] becomes 22.1 A and the power consumed by the utility is reduced to about 4.4 watts. Therefore, installation of the capacitor reduces the energy from the utility by 4.4 watts multiplied by the running time of the air conditioner. If the air conditioning unit runs for 12 hours each day, the energy savings will be about 52.8 watt-hours per day. At 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, the money saved by the utility would be approximately 1 cent per day. Since in most parts of the United States air conditioners only operate for less than six months of the year, the utility’s annual savings would be about $1.80 for a single residence.
Well here is what I came up with and if I am wrong please fill me in.
28.8–beginning watts and dropped 4.4w = 24.4w
and it ran for 12 hours a day for 6 months of the year.
So I took 28.8/1000*12h*30(days)*6(months)=62.208KW $12.44
Then I took 24.4/1000*12h*30(days)*6(months)=52.7KW $10.54 .20c perkw
With a difference of 9.50KW $1.90
I tell everyone you will save at a minimum of 6% because that is what I guarantee to save which gives me .75 cents. But really the capacitors saved around 15% of that 6 month electric bill.
But my question to the website and the person that endorsed it? Who pays $12.44 for a six month air conditioning bill? The goal of that website is saying you will only save app. $1.80 on your annual electric bill but what they didn’t tell you is that is 15% savings.
I am hesitant on submitting this for fear that I made a mistake, but I looked at it twice and I think they made a mistake?
The problem is that you are looking at the copper losses in isolation, and not considering how much power is transferred to the load.
In the example that I worked through above, the effect of power-factor correction was to reduce the copper losses by about 25W, about 40% of the copper losses.
But the appliance on the end of the circuit, an air conditioner, draws about 4300W, and the 25W saving as a percentage of the total load is a little less than 0.6%.
Where did you get 4300 Watts? I just used the numbers they gave me. This is covered in comment #268 or the website. Not arguing with you just fill me in.
I was looking at your figures in comment #262.
Even if the air conditioner draw was different to the figure of 4300W, it should be clear that it will draw much, much more than the copper losses in the cabling.
If we assume a 220V circuit, and that the current drawn by the air conditioner was 22.1A with power-factor corrected to 0.95, the power drawn will be P = V x I x pf = 220V x 22.1A x 0.95 = 4620W, and the saving given of 4.4W is a little less than 0.1% of this.
The power consumed in the utility circuits for operating the air conditioner without the capacitor is about 28.8 watts (Irms2R), where Irms is the root mean square (rms) value of I1 in Figure 1(b), 24 A. With the capacitor installed, the rms value of I1 [Fig. 1(c)] becomes 22.1 A and the power consumed by the utility is reduced to about 4.4 watts.
You cannot use their watts dropped and changed the watts used. They state the air conditioner is using without the capacitor 28.8 watts. If you don’t use 28.8, then 4.4 are irrelevant. You can’t just start making up numbers. To compare the difference in watts you would use E*I*PF=P, Then you would use to find the difference in watts, E*I(PF/Optimized PF)= watts.
Using their numbers is my point of that whole comment. They made the watts so small that it made the savings almost null, which is trickery. That is my point and I parallel capacitors in circuits every day of my life. I’m not some high school degenerate who is researching something for my grandparents, because some salesman came to the door and promised 50% savings off their electric bill.
The NIST paper does not say that the air conditioner is using 28.8W. What it actually says is : “The power consumed in the utility circuits for operating the air conditioner without the capacitor is about 28.8 watts (Irms2R), where Irms is the root mean square (rms) value of I1 in Figure 1(b), 24 A.” They are talking about the losses in the cables, NOT the power used by the air conditioner.
Earlier in the paper they say : “Assuming the appliance is a central air conditioner with values for L, R, and Vo of 0.065 henries, 10.4 ohms, and 325 peak amplitude volts (230 volts rms) respectively…”.
They then go on to calculate the power factor : “Therefore the PF is cos(-23deg) or 0.92.”
So this air conditioner, we are told, is being fed by a 230V rms supply, it draws 24A, and it has a power factor of 0.92. Hence the power being drawn by the air conditioner is given by P = V x I x pf = 230V x 24A x 0.92 = 5078W. Sounds about right for an air conditioner, yes?
Touche!Back to comment 268 maybe I should of read it a third time.
I’ve spent a day reading this blog and am now more confused than ever.
I am considering a business opportunity with another unit that I believe is the same as the KVAR (I believe it is identical only with a different name on it).
I don’t want to get involved with anything that is unethical or dishonest so that is my dilemma. I have looked here and on a number of other sites and innumerable electricians and science “experts” time and again explain with precise logic why these units cannot accomplish what they purport and yet, after scouring the web, I was only able to find one person who was dissatisfied and that person only stated that they had returned a unit and had yet to receive a promised refund. They didn’t even say that the unit didn’t work.
I realize that anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid. However, when there is such a large body of it, it is hard to ignore. If the scientists are correct then there should be a lot of people who are seeing little or no reduction in their bills- where are they? I also recognize that there is often a major difference between the theoretical and real world applications. The real world is messy and there are many variables that cannot always be explained easily. I also realize that much of the positive information is coming from those who have something to sell. But I can’t really understand why there would be any negative bias towards these devices from the scientific or electrical communities.
Being a logical guy and trying to explain all of these seeming contradictions leads me to question the basic underlying assumption that we are only being billed for the actual “real” power we use. Is it possible that somehow there is a component of how the meters work that does, in fact, reflect wasted power? Could it be that this would explain the differences between the theory and the reality?
And this brings up another question I have been wondering about and have yet to see addressed as it pertains to KVAR and other similar devices. Utilities throughout the U.S. are rapidly replacing the existing meters with new “Smart Meters” which are digital and allow readings to be taken remotely and much more often. The company I am looking at for a business opportunity is targeting outfoxing these meters as their core business. It is clear to me that despite what the electric companies are claiming (that these meters will assist consumers in understanding their usage to help us better conserve and control our demand) they are there solely as a means to increase rates and begin charging for demand, especially at peak times.
This leads me to my question- Will using KVAR, even if correcting for power factor doesn’t produce savings now, in the future allow us to show the utilities a lower demand if they decide to start charging for it on the residential side? It seems to me that the answer, while only conjecture at this point, is likely “Yes”.
Lastly, I am not an electrical engineer or electrician nor do I have a science background, nor am I working for KVAR or any other similar company. I am really only trying to understand the contradictions and make a good decision.
If you want to flame me, well there’s nothing I can do about that. To me, it only reveals the weakness of your arguments. Frankly, both Angelo and Rich were so busy insulting each other that it only served to detract from any valid points either was trying to make.
Some of us just want to understand and find the truth.
Ted
Ted – the plural of anecdote is anecdotes – not data. Yes – people can systematically fool themselves. Part of it is the psychological phenomenon known as risk or expense justification – they spent the money and they want to think it was worth it. Plus, they don’t want to seem stupid and gullible. So generally speaking people don’t admit they were idiots on the internet.
Listen to the experts.
WOW!! I wish these guys would have visited my home!! I’d be calling the police or something! Hopefully more people will understand what capacitors and AC is with the upcoming generation so this kind of scam will never happen again.
Capacitors inside a Nema3R type enclosure operate on a simple principle of power factor compensation, and are directed towards motor loads. If not that means the current will lag the voltage (for a 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage, this mean the current peak will occur up to 4.17 ms after the voltage peak). A typical motor may have a phase shift of 75 degrees, which corresponds to a power factor of cosine 75 degrees = 0.26. A pure inductor would present a phase angle of 90 degrees, for a power factor of 0.
A dual element to an inductor is a capacitor, which creates a current waveform that leads voltage (for a 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage, this mean the current peak will occur up to 4.17 ms before the voltage peak). An ideal capacitor will have a current phase angle of -90 degrees.
Resistive load presents a phase shift of 0 degrees and a PF of 1. Which means current peaks exactly synchronized to voltage peaks.
If an electrical device is required to deliver a specific amount of power (watts=volts*amps), then the amount of current that must be delivered to the device will be influenced by its power factor. For a load with a PF = 1, the current required is at a minimum. This is because the voltage and current waveforms are exactly in phase, thus the current peaks occurs with the voltage peak, thereby delivering power very efficiently. However, as power factor drops (as with an inductive load), power delivery becomes less efficient. This is because the current peaks begin to lag the voltage peaks. With this situation, the current peaks must be larger to achieve the same power levels. This is why a low power factor is undesirable.
Unless the PF=1, you cannot measure AC voltage, and then measure AC current, and simply multiply to determine power. This is because of the phase dependency described in a power of 0 watts, even though current and voltage are both non-zero. Power meters are helpful but you can determine by integrating the product of instantaneous voltage and current throughout one period of the AC waveform.
Now, as current peaks increase with falling power factor, the inefficiencies in the system grow with the square of increasing current. This is because power is dissipated in the wiring leading up to a load. This wiring acts as a resistor, with power loss calculated as I squared * R. Thus, if current increases by 4x, then the associated power loss increases by 16x, this is where the power saving lies with power factor compensation.
I do not endorse KVAR anymore! Not because it doesn’t work but the CEO (Steve Fish) is a criminal!
Steven,
I believe I said the same thing- anecdotal evidence is not scientific. However, just as one piece of circumstantial evidence is not proof of anything, when you have a preponderance of it pointing in one direction it becomes illogical to ignore it and it must be considered.
Assuming that tens of thousands of these have been sold and installed, it is absurd to believe that if none of them are working that there would not be countless people complaining and demanding refunds. Just as many people who would fall victim to “risk justification’ would also appear with “rip off syndrome”. Where are they? where are the complaints with BBB or state Attorney’s General? FTC, DOE, EPA? Hell, even rip-off report doesn’t have anything on them.
For people who are so logical, it seems that this very logical question is ignored. To me, there must be some other explanation. One that accepts the physical laws that say this cannot work and allows for the difficult to deny possibility that it actually does. Again, I wonder if something might be going on with the electric utilities themselves.
I would also like to get some response to my questions regarding the highly controversial ‘smart meters’ that are being installed by the millions across the country.
Again, I don’t have anything to gain here. I admit that I would love to find out this is legitimate as, if it is, I can see an opportunity to make a lot of money as electric rates soar, but I will not get involved with something I can’t believe in 100%.
Ted
Ted,
One reason for at least some of the positive endorsements of the power savers is down to the variability of electricity bills, and the difficulty for Joe Homeowner to accurately measure the power consumption of his home. Add to this the confirmation bias introduced by JH not wanting to admit that he has been suckered into buying an expensive doorstop, and you have all of the elements for a good crop of astroturf.
A question that springs to mind, in a similar vein, is this : Why, when there are any number of competent, accredited testing labs available, do not one of the purveyors of these power saver gadgets ever get a proper test report done? Think of the power such a report would have to dispel the skepticism with the inevitable flow-on effect on sales – it would be massive. Methinks that the lack of such reports is a very telling indicator of the integrity of these power savers and the people who sell them.
It’s not just that there are positive endorsements. I would expect that. Just as I would find testimonials on purveyor’s web sites suspect, I would put most of the positive feedback in the hype/salesmanship category. However, it is the dearth of negative feedback that I find compelling.
After I went to 2 meetings on this product, I came away very excited albeit with some questions. My first thought was- “can this work?”. I mean, does it make sense on a scientific basis? At first, all I found were sites telling me how great it was, but they were all selling it so I knew that wasn’t adequate proof of anything. Finally, I did a search on KVAR (remember, the unit I’m looking at isn’t KVAR, but I believe it is identical) and that’s when I began to find all scientific experts explaining how it can’t work.
But, if you Google KVAR complaints you will find virtually nothing. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a second if these have been around for 15 years with possibly millions in use that every person who’s bought one is embarrassed to come forward and say it was a mistake or that, given the variability of utility bills, no one has seen an increase or no change in their usage. It simply isn’t plausible. I defy you to find any product that has been around for 15 years that everyone is seemingly happy with. I don’t care what it is. Even good, solid products have their detractors.
As for a proper test, I too, would like to see one. However, just as the proponents of the device feel that there are ample examples of tests that have been done proving it’s performance, I kind of doubt that the skeptics will accept any test as valid.
Since there seems to be little argument that power factor correction can be effective in commercail applications, it would seem that some kind of controlled test performed in a residential setting would be needed. Just as the briefcase demonstration is suspect and easily manipulated, so too could a lab test be set up to obtain desired results (and I mean either for or against). Personally, I would love to see a carefully done video, or personnaly observe, the installation and operation of a KVAR or similar device on a house showing the effect on the electric meter while switching the device in and out of operation.
I still have my suspicions about the utility companies and what we are actually getting billed for.
Can some one point me to an explanation of how the meters work and whether it is possible that while we are being told we are only being billed for real energy delivered could it be that power factor correction does make a difference even in a residential setting.
Ted
“The power companies are not our friends!” When the power company is looking for a rate increase to fatten their wallets, they simply unhook their capacitors that they put on their poles during high demand hours to draw up the KVAR on their lines. When FPL goes before a board which are politicians and ask for the increase they simply get it. Well, the inventor of the KEC unit went to a meeting with over 300 pictures of unplugged FPL capacitors, their increase was denied. The power companies have more money than GOD and will do what it takes and tell you what they want you to hear. Lying is not illegal if you can’t catch them in it. If everyone had one of these systems, FPL’s KVAR would not increase during peak hours and it will if anything reduces the chance for a rate increase.
ATTN Distributors: The energy saving units will not work on demand meters, so if you see one, run! I am currently working with a team of engineers and bought a demand meter for test purposes to prove them to be a scam!
See Steven that’s how you do it, buy then write! Maybe I’ll send Mr. Novella my findings with demand meters so he can state something that is true? That will give him a little bit of back bone!
Angelo,
Pardon my ignorance, but what are demand meters? Are these different than the new smart meters? Have you encountered the smart meters yet where you are?
I would like to talk to you directly if you have the chance. You can e-mail me at tedluk_2000@yahoo.com
Thanks!
ted
Just Energy currently has a wholesale price flexible plan plus 1 penny which comes with the option as a non-green plan. Green plans are always more expensive. This is a great plan and is not a scam as you state. Unfortunately not all independent agents explain the program properly to their customers. All agents must wear id badges when out in the field as fully identifying themselves as Just Energy Agents. All contracts signed in the field are verified from the customers phone and getting their agreement to the contract over the phone with the agent present. There is also a 10 day cooling off period, which gives the customer time to review the contract before reaffirming registration. The customer also has 30 days to cancel their contract with Just Energy after they receive their first bill if they are not satisfied. And on the non-green plans, there is only an exit fee of $100, not what has been stated in previous blogs. There is a higher exit fee for green plans, which is fully explained in the contract. It’s apparent from this blog comments that people don’t read their contracts and don’t read them within the time frame of cancellation.
Yes Ted, I have seen smart meters and they differ from demand meters…I will have more info when my tests are complete. The smart meters are just another way the power co. are screwing people. The smart meters recognize harmonic distortion and the power companies now have a way to charge for spikes on the 5, 7, 9 harmonic in a sinusoidal wavelength..
If you have a smart meter you will see a new charge on the bill for harmonic distortion and the reason for this distortion are all those electronic lights (i.e. CFL’s and electronic ballast). What that means is the lights that the power companies are pushing are just another form of revenue for them. You save money by having them in your home but with the charge it goes back to where it was, but the power your saving is being charged to someone else. So everyone has asked in previous quotes, if the energy savers do work why doesn’t the power company push for them? Well it’s simple, the energy savers are not electronic so they can’t charge for distortion. But ask yourselves why are the power companies pushing electronics and read about these smart meters!
Demand meters are similar in that it takes a 30 min window during demand peak hours and whatever that demand is it causes a needle in the meter to stick until someone from the power company comes and resets it.
What that needle means is ampere that will not adjust so if you have for example (1) 100 hp motor running for 10 minutes a day, and you have (2) 5 hp motors that take up the load for 24 hours. If that 100 hp motor turns on during peak window hours you will be charged for that usage for 24 hours even though you only have (2) 5 hp motors running the majority of the day.
Oh yeah I forgot back to the utility resetting the meters. I have been to about four of these types of jobs and all four had the same tag after 5 months which is impossible to reset and put the same tag back on because it has to be cut. The sun actually faded the tag red to a light pink, so these poor people have been being charged for usage when there wasn’t half being used!
I will hopefully have more on both.
I say again that the power companies are not your friends and you shouldn’t be so worried about being screwed over in the future if you are being screwed over as I type this.
Angelo in post #28 you say you are just concerned with being green , and NOT A SALESMAN -a few posts later came the hard sell you know when i read your post first i thought you where a reasonable person,now shit i dont know -i remember from a long time ago my dad said if you cant dazzle them with how smart you are baffle them with bullshit .
Im just a common man not well educated, its seems to me if this product does indeed work it would come with a 100% money back -does it .
P.S i dont know if it works or not -if there is no risk i will buy ,so long as i get all my money back if it dont work.
Ken,
At post 28 April 20, 2009, I was concerned with rising energy cost, but as months went on I found it to be a great business opportunity. I can care less anymore about what skeptics think because the bottom line is simple: I’m still in business and my customers are still saving and growing. The system does come with a 90 day money back guarantee if you don’t save 6 %, 12 yr factory warranty, and a 25 yr life expectancy. I don’t know where you are from and don’t know your power bill or Power Factor at the point of installation so you can probably find a local dealer to honor my sales pitch. If your bill is less than $150 I would say save your time and money. I am more or less looking for scams that the power company is sliding past the general public!
Thanks,
Angelo
I tested a unit from http://www.energysavermart.com which is like the KVAR in claiming huge savings. I bought 3 units from them – a 2401M which is the whole house unit installed at the breaker panel and (2) 2401S units which are installed at the A/C or heat pump and are wired on the output side of the power relay so that they are only energized when the A/C is running.
These units have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee so I figured “what the heck?” and bought them.
I have read reports from the skeptics saying these devices do not work and from the testimonials of users who say their electric bills were dramatically reduced. I figured the best and only way for me to decide whether these work was a controlled experiment, which I performed as follows:
I first turned off all of the breakers in my house except for one of my two A/C units and one of my two furnaces (for the blower motor). I then turned my thermostat up to 80 degrees and I checked my electric meter for 4 minutes to make sure that it did not move (which it did not) verifying that I had no electric load running.
I then turned my thermostat down to 60 degrees and used my stopwatch to time how long it took my electric meter to make 50 revolutions, which was 6 minutes and 30 seconds (390 seconds).
I then turned the thermostat back up and installed one of the 2401S units, removing the hard start capacitor (as per the written instructions). I then turned the thermostat back down to 60 degrees and used my stopwatch to time how long it took my meter to make 50 revolutions, which was now 6 minutes and 29 seconds (389 seconds, which was virtually the same as without the unit installed, but actually 1 second faster!).
I then turned the thermostat back up to 80 degrees and I removed the 2401S from my A/C, reinstalling the hard start capacitor. I turned the thermostat down to 60 degrees and again timed how long it took my electric meter to make 50 revolutions, which was now 6 minutes and 27 seconds (387 seconds).
So – my results were 390 seconds without the unit, 389 seconds with the unit, 387 seconds again without the unit. All trials were within 1% of each other which would be within a normal margin of error for no change, so I feel confident in saying that the 2401S made no difference in the metered electric usage.
All three trials were within a 40 minute period in the morning (10:00 am to 10:40 am) with the ambient air temperature virtually unchanged. My A/C is positioned so that it received no direct sun at any time during my experiment.
I did NOT measure the amp draw with or without the 2401S unit, since I was only concerned with saving money and my electric bill is based on the meter movement, not on the measured amp draw.
As a note of praise for http://www.energysavermart.com – the units seemed to be well built, the installation instructions were well written and easy to follow, and when I returned the units under the 30 day satisfaction guarantee my money was promptly refunded to my PayPal account with no problems or hassles. I was unable to check the internal wiring on the unit because it was sealed and opening it would have voided my warranty and voided my ability to exercise my 30 day satisfaction return.
In conclusion – do these devices save money on a residential electric meter? In my opinion – NO!!!! I admit that I did not test the KVAR brand though, but the principle of that device is the same.
To any of the KVAR dealers (or to the sellers of any other similar devices) out there – if you believe that your units do actually work, send me one and I will promptly install your device and do a controlled test to determine the electric meter usage both with and without the device installed. If your unit does not save electricity, I will return it to you (you pay postage). Furthermore, if I am able to measure even a 5% reduction in electric usage (which is far less than the claims on your devices) I WILL GLADLY PAY FULL LIST PRICE for the unit and allow my name, photograph, and results to be used for free in any advertising and testimonials for your product.
ANY TAKERS???
”For all the use of the phrase ‘skeptic community’, there is no discernable central organisation or committee that regulates skeptic activities; you just sort of get acknowledged as a part of it and that’s it. This is by far the best possible system. If there were a central organisation you had to apply to, imagine the paperwork you’d have to fill in to prove your identity to a bunch of superskeptics?” Dean Burnett
Victor,
Take the unit apart and give me the uF of the two capacitors inside? The problem with these units that I am finding that Steve Fish is making these systems in accordance to Greg Taylor’s invention, and he was hooking capacitors to these little houses and then creating generic boxes for every application.
Problem: KVAR and these other companies are obsolete because houses are bigger now.
In other words depending on the PF in the main panel you will not bring the electrical system up to unity or even close using this dinosaur technology.
I can save you some time they are probably two 35 uF caps inside and an indicator light! No surprise!
I also will say that it is a case by case situation because there might not be enough inductive load to show savings! Case and point to your house!
I only deal with Industrial and Commercial now!
I do have customers in residential that are saving!
Angelo
What I do by using my PFC equipment which can bring the electric system to unity unlike these guessing game. In the “sizing equipment” that KVAR makes has switch 1 and 3 representing a PU1200 and switch 5 represents a 1400. (F*CK Steve Fish the CEO of KVAR) Now I have been to countless houses with that dinosaur equipment from KVAR and have used sw 1,3,4,5 and brought a pretty low PF up to unity using a PF meter. That’s roughly 332 uF. Now KVAR’s PU1200 is 70 Uf and the PU1400 is 140 Uf, which is a little shy of 332 uF??? I take my readings back to my factory and build a unit specifically for that panel and motor. Now with Energy Star real quick. Energy Star won’t back my panel units because it is not for one specific device but we are working with them in hopes to back our devices that are hooked to one specific motor. We’ll see, bc they are still not understanding on how it works! lol Remember that KWH is in direct correlation with KVA. All you have to do is find a KVA to KW calculator and it converts KVA to KWH but they have a built in PF so it varies. It looks to be and .85 to .90 PF.
Victor,
I just read your whole statement and didn’t know that you returned them. They are cookie cutter capacitors boxes and when you read 25% reduction, “that is the cap.” 6-10% is usually the average. So when a salesman says you will save upto 25 % that is the most you could ever save nothing more! The problem is with consumers is they get hung up on the wording which is a simple sales strategy of 25% savings. Very RARE!!
Now by shutting off everything in your house you took all the fans, inductive lighting, microwave, refrigerator, pool pumps, well pumps. With all those things running for 30 days then it is safe to say you will save that 6 %. No where on that website claims that if you turn everything off in your house and do a 50 revolution test they will they refund the money. They were nice I would of said you are a joke and the proof is in the pudding with your electric bills, not some random test! haha! You need to leave it on for 3 months (90 days) to show that it works or not!
What you should of done was “rig” the unit to be turned on and off by wiring it through a switch and turning everything on in your house. while everything running turn on the switch and if it is the right size capacitance that will bring your panel to unity you will see the meter slow down!
I do it everyday with proper equipment, not a stop watch which is easily misread with the meter. You took a lot of the KVA that will turn into heat in motors, when you turned everything off you eliminated I2R losses, Intrinsic motor losses, Extrinsic losses, stray load losses, outdoor circuit breakers, transformers, busway, low voltage switchgear, cable, lighting.
It’s 6% off your entire electric bill not one little AC motor, which may or may not had the compressor running while you did this test, and now we are dealing with the fan motor. lol A ampere meter would of told you if it were running at full ampacity, but I am starting to think you are not running at full ampacity!!
ANGELO
Steve Fish’s Criminal History! ENJOY and F*CKEM!
——————————————————————————–
Criminal History
——————————————————————————–
–FLORIDA CCH RESPONSE–
FC.DLE/1842001.PUR/P.ATN/ANONCCHINET/CCHINET
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 1
BECAUSE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME,
A NEW COPY SHOULD BE REQUESTED WHEN NEEDED FOR FUTURE USE
– FLORIDA CRIMINAL HISTORY –
NAME STATE ID NO. FBI NO. DATE REQUESTED
FISH, STEVEN BRUCE FL-01842001 02/15/2010
SEX RACE BIRTH DATE HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR BIRTH PLACE SKIN DOC NO.
M W 08/27/1961 6’03” 365 BLU BRO WI LGT
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 2
FINGERPRINT CLASS SOCIAL SECURITY NO. MISCELLANEOUS NO. SCR/MRK/TAT
PO 06 01 PO 22 XXX-XX-9912
14 AA 12 20 17
IN AFIS – 3
OCCUPATION ADDRESS CITY/STATE
CAR SALES 1696 TOWN PARK DR PORT ORANGE, FL
—————————————————————————–
AKA DOB SOC SCR/MRK/TAT
—————————————————————————–
FISH, STEVEN B XXX-XX-9912
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 3
——————————————————————————
ARREST- 1 01/17/1983 OBTS NO.-
ARREST AGENCY-HIGHLANDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (FL0280000)
AGENCY CASE-830120 OFFENSE DATE-01/17/1983
CHARGE 001-POSSESS STOLEN PROPSTATUTE/
ORDINANCE-FL812.014 LEVELBOOKING
STATUS-HELD
JUDICIALAGENCY-
STATE ATTORNEY BRANCH OFFICE – SEBRING (FL028105A)
CHARGE 001 -COURT SEQ COURT NO.-SA83156F
COURT DATA-LARCENYGRAND
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL812.014 LEVEL-FELONY
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 4
STATUTE DESCRIPTN-THEFT
DISP DATE-01/28/1983 DISP-DISMISSED
——————————————————————————
ARREST- 2 12/29/1997 OBTS NO.-0010658317
ARREST AGENCY-MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (FL0410000)
AGENCY CASE-9701753001 OFFENSE DATECHARGE
001-COCAINE-POSSESS- ,
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL893.13 LEVEL-MISDEMEANOR
CHARGE 002-MARIJUANA-POSSESSUNDER
20 GRM
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL893.13 LEVEL-MISDEMEANOR
JUDICIALAGENCY-
STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (FL041105A)
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 5
CHARGE 001 -COURT SEQ COURT NO.-97003616FA
SUPPLEMENTAL ARREST DATASTATUS-
LEVEL-FELONY ,
PROSC DATA- DRUGS-POSSESSPOSSESSION
OF COCAINE
PRINCIPAL ,
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL893.13(6A) LEVEL-FELONY ,3RD DEG
STATUTE DESCRIPTN-CNTRL SUB WO PRESCRIPTION
DISP DATE-07/29/1998 DISP-NOLLE PROSSED
COUNSEL-PRIVATE TRIAL- PLEACHARGE
002 -COURT SEQ COURT NO.-97003616FA
SUPPLEMENTAL ARREST DATASTATUS-
LEVEL-FELONY ,
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 6
PROSC DATA- MARIJUANA-POSSESSPOSSESSION
OF MARIJUANA
PRINCIPAL ,
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL893.13(6B) LEVEL-MISDEMEANOR,1ST DEG
STATUTE DESCRIPTN-NOT MORE THAN 20 GRAMS
DISP DATE-07/29/1998 DISP-NOLLE PROSSED
COUNSEL-PRIVATE TRIAL- PLEA-
——————————————————————————
ARREST- 3 10/09/2009 OBTS NO.-6402164650
ARREST AGENCY-VOLUSIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (FL0640000)
AGENCY CASE-806044 OFFENSE DATE-10/09/2009
CHARGE 001-PROB VIOLATIONPROB
VIOLATION – HARASSMENT
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 7
STATUTE/ORDINANCE-FL948.06 LEVELBOOKING
STATUS-HELD
VOL CO ON VIEW
——————————————————————————
THIS RECORD CONTAINS FLORIDA INFORMATION ONLY. WHEN EXPLANATION OF A CHARGE
OR DISPOSITION IS NEEDED, COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE AGENCY THAT CONTRIBUTED
THE RECORD INFORMATION. IF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT FINGERPRINTS, THIS RECORD IS
PROVIDED AS A RESULT OF A NAME INQUIRY ONLY. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION CAN ONLY
BE VERIFIED BY SUBMISSION OF A FINGERPRINT CARD AND COMPARISON BY FDLE. THIS
RECORD WAS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO 943.053(3), F.S.
AS MANDATED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 119.071(5), FULL SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBERS ARE NOW EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
AND MAY BE DISCLOSED ONLY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND
–CONTINUED–
SID NUMBER: 1842001 PURPOSE CODE:P PAGE: 8
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ENTITIES (UPON A SHOWING OF BUSINESS
NECESSITY AS DEFINED BY THE LAW). FDLE WILL, HOWEVER,
RELEASE THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
EXAMPLE: XXX XX 1234.
THIS CONTAINS FLORIDA RECORD ONLY.
UNKNOWN AS TO NATIONAL RECORD STATUS.
END OF RECORD
http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4941&p_created=1204908170
Go to Energy Stars website now and see what a little persistence from yours truly can do for a product that does in fact work when the home has a large portion of their bill in inductive loads!
I wanted them to leave the KVAR name up there though so they can continue to get bad press. Steve FISH is a criminal!
ANGELO
Single Phase Voltage Optimisation is a scam
——————————————————————–
There is an energys scam going on in the UK at the current time:
You’ve only to put in voltage optimisation scam into any search engine and what you get is a great deal of forum material on the technicalities of the scam behind this type of equipment.
(Disclaimer;
There are some well established and respected companies in three phase voltage optimisation.)
Most people recognise that the claims being made on this technology are grossly exagerated. The problems start when people try and use what is essentially a three phase technology in a single phase application. . Taking one issue at a time:
The upto 13% reduction in electricity bill claims made in the marketing of these products is what most people believe it to be absolute snake oil. The term upto includes zero and the reduction is only applicable to a very small percentage of electrical equipment (in a single phase application such as a domestic premises are). This is because the voltage optimisation (VO) technology will not work with thermostatically controlled loads such as electrical heaters, refrigerators, ovens….etc.(most white goods) and it will not work with any electrical equipment supplied by Switch Mode Power Supplies (SMPS) like Low Energy lamps, computer equipment…etc (most post millenium brown goods). In fact in single phase application vo only really works with old incandescent lighting and equipment powered by old low frequency transformer based power supplies. This is why most of these companies nearly went bankrupt in the late nineties when companies started to replace their old choke base flourescent lighting units with electronic (SMPS) units.
The sad thing is that when people are sold on saving energy they will pay a lot of money to get their electrical installation up to the standard required by the electricians who are required to install these units. There in lies the rub these companies are mostly jumped up electrical contracting companies trying to turn a fast buck and queering the pitch for effective electrical energy saving technologies that are in the pipeline making their way to market.
Secondly, the VO fraternity when selling their three phase equipment are very quick to lunge into a sales patter that involves phase imbalance. What they do not mention is that in a single phase applicaiton the VO unit itself, by definition, introduces a potential phase imbalance e.g. at the substation supply (in the grid itself) where currents are caused to flow in the neutral conductor which cause a heating effect. This heating effect decreases the efficiency of the grid itself. Thence, installing VO units causes the the carbon footprint of the grid itself to increase which offsets any savings made at the consumer end. Arguably, these inefficiencies exceed any savings made! Unfortunately, the consumer is not able to see this.
After reading about 1/2 this blog I realized that I’d never buy anything that Angelo is promoting. Not because I think he’s right or wrong but because he shows a lot more interest in rhetoric, name calling, and insulting potential customers who have objections than he does in answering questions.
He shows considerable disdain towards those less educated in a particular body of knowledge then himself. In short I’d hate to be his customer.
Any person promoting a product who acts as though showing his superiority to a potential customer is more important than patiently educating that prospect with facts instead of a mixture of facts, rhetoric, and name calling, is not acting in the customers best interests nor will he when you need him most.
I have done a simple test to physically verify the theory that the power saver is a scam. Don’t buy it.
Oh my goodness! Awesome article! Thank you.
Secondly i really agree with you its dead important that we protect ourselves from such things! Last month i bought a product called DIY andit didnt even do anything closeto what was promised and i spent 50 bucks on that!
Thanks again!
Very nice topics. thanks for sharing this one.
Cheers!
________________________________
http://www.ozpoolsupplies.com.au
Oz Pool Supplies are your online pool supplies and equipment store. Pool pumps, pool cleaners, pool accessories and more.
I am an electrical engineer in the power industry.
Power meters do not charge for reactive power (kVAR) for residential customers. Commercial – maybe, Industrial, frequently, but adding power factor correction will not lower your bills. It will not even lower power drawn by the device being corrected. The correction can reduce current drawn from the utility (but usually only slightly) which will lower your power company’s costs slightly but if it were worth the investment, the power company would be putting these things on at the meter.
For residential customers, this is a scam. And Angelo is being very misleading.
as a consumer, i have two pieces of advice that will save everyone money and cost absolutely nothing. 1. turn of all unused lights at night. 2. unplug devices that use energy while not in use (computers, audio/visual equipment, etc.). easy, simple and costs you nothing.