Challenge To krw, Salmon Egg, CS, charles Perry Re Power-Save, KVAR and Power reduction

I have a KVAR device installed in my home. I have been saving 15% all summer long. Just by saying this much, I fear I have placed myself in danger of being scolded for being foolish; however, I know I am saving money.

Could it possibly be that the distance between my breaker box to the points of use are not significant enough to reduce my power factor and thereby negate any savings? Or, in terms I sometimes understand for this device's functionality, since I'm correcting backward through the meter, maybe it's actually better not to place the device at the motor as has been suggested? Perhaps it's a combination of both?

Then again, it's difficult to understand how I'm seeing any savings at all (I really haven't changed my energy habits at all) if residential services do not get billed for this non-productive current. Could this assumption be incorrect? How, after all, can an electric company know how you are using the power they sell you?

I'd appreciate civil responses. You see, my parents have become an outlet of KVAR controllers and I hate to see the likes of them be labeled as scammers, something which I know they are not.

Thanks,

Rob Schwenck

Obviously your electric bill will tell you if your kwh usage is lower, and since you say your electric bill is lower (i.e. you're saving money), we can assume your kwh usage is in fact lower.

But, how do you know you're running all the equipment the same amount as before? This summer wasn't as hot as last year here in NY, so I 'saved' a lot of money without installing any pf correction. At least my bills are a lot lower this year.

That's one of the problems with this sort of thing. Unless you have accurate run-time and details about the loads, it's hard to have any meaningful data.

Now, if you can switch your device in/out of the circuit with a simple circuit breaker, then an afternoon of running some loads like A/C and 'fridge with the unit in circuit and out of circuit could tell you a lot.

I've never heard of any place that *didn't* bill residential service based on kwh alone. If you had other than residential billing, I think you'd know it.

The power company 'knows how you are using the power they sell you' only in the sense that the meter is designed to be sensitive to only the real power component and to not respond to reactive loads.

To realize any savings from pf correction, one of two things has to be true. Either you are being billed for reactive load and reducing that will reduce that portion of your bill (not likely in residential service in North America), or you have a tremendous amount of I^2*R losses in your wiring that can be reduced by correcting the pf *at the loads* (correcting at the main service does little to reduce home wiring I^2*R losses). This second issue seems unlikely as well since it would mean a lot of your wiring is undersized and overheating before you correct the pf.

daestrom

How do you know that you have been saving 15% all summer? Have you compared energy usage with and without the device- at the same load (e.g.. connect it and time the meter disc and then disconnect it and compare the disc speed)? Comparing last year (month or day) to this ear isn't really that useful as there are too many other factors involved. Now, how are you billed and how large is the motor? Do you have a heavy air conditioning load and a 3 phase service and KVA demand as well as energy charges? Where is the device located- at the motor or at the panel?

If ,as is the case for most domestic services, your meter is a conventional KWH meter, then all you may save is the losses between the motor and the device because the meter will only respond to the real power and not to the KVAR load. You won't even do this if the device is at the panel.

Power factor correction makes sense in many situations-but generally not for residential applications. One promotor uses a mix of fact and fiction to promote his product -the fiction is the operative selling basis.

For any trial to be effective, it has to be a "blind" trial - you may not have *consciously* changed your energy habits but that doesn't mean that they haven't changed.

The electric company domestic meter measures true power consumed. The company neither knows nor generally cares about how you are using it.

Belief is a wonderful thing. If someone has bought a KVAR controller, they will want to find that it is saving them money. Subconsciously it will influence their consumption habits and energy consumption will reduce. Thus, it can be argued that it was a worthwhile purchase.

-- Sue

You *are* foolish and you are *not* saving money, no matter what you think you're seeing. Science isn't with you.

Meters measure WH, so VARS don't matter, except for the minisule difference in heating on the wiring between the meter and the device. That is, if the device actually is doing *anything* (if you're going to commit fraud, why not go all the way?).

No one out here in Usenet land can tell what you are or are not seeing but the device cannot make lemons out of lemonaid.

Well, my brother, an EE and at the time VP of a relatively large power company, got scammed the same way. In fact, it helped ruin his life. Scams are powerfull things, almost religious. By chance is this an MLM deal too? Maybe you can work at that end of the scam. It *IS* a fraud.

On another tack... Do you really think scientists and engineers are so ignorant that such a cheap "solution" goes unnoticed or ignored? The only other alternative is a conspiracy theory so large it would make the Area-51ers blush.

My energy bills are about 5% less than last year. I have not changed my consumption patterns either. In fact, I have added a new high-def TV in that time. I did not add a "gee-whiz-golly" energy saving device. What could be the cause. Hmmm. I did get a new pocket knife last year! That is it, my new pocket knife saves energy!

First, you cannot look at "last year's energy use" and compare it to "this year's energy use". The weather is different. You have to have a controlled test. In a controlled test I can predict the results quite simply. I do not even need a sophisticated computer model. Some basic info on your loads, exactly where you plan to install the capacitor relative to the meter and it is an easy calculation.

If the cap is close to the meter, the savings are negligable. If you put caps at each motor load (that does not have an adjustable speed drive), you might see a real savings.

Simple physics...simple electrical engineering....ole P T was right "one born every minute."

Charles Perry P.E.

There is a limit to my civility. Your first paragraph is a run-on sentence that makes no sense to me. The otyher sentences are not all that clear either.

It needs to be broken up into at least three grammatical sentences in order to communicate something. I am guessing that you bought something that claims to reduce your electric bill by some magical process. I doubt that that is the case.

It would help if you clearly stated what kind of loads you are using. What are your runs from the meter to your loads? Have you measured the current in the line with and without this device in place? You can use a true rms clamp-on meter for this purpose.

Bill

For $50 USD I'll send you the plans for a modification that will save you

100% of your electric bill. It will be perfectly legal and easily accomplished. It will be in effect free because you can then sell your KVAR box on e-bay as it will no longer be needed.

My authentic Swiss army knife saves me energy every time I use it simply from not having to open up a toolbox.

I thought the real savings comes from a lower rate given to heavy industry in return for buying and installing pfc.

Inspired by reading your posts yesterday, I conducted a test last night. Leaving the rest of the house with the fans running, various lights on, I opened all our windows and put the set point considerably lower than normal. I did this to ensure that even within the short duration of a 1 hour test we would see an appreciable amount of energy use. After noting the meter reading, I set the air conditioner to run for 30 minutes and then ran the heater for another 30 minutes. Another check to the meter allowed the test to be repeated with my KVAR box turned off. A final meter reading gave me my results.

During the test, no additional amount of electricity was used. We rely on city water and do not have a pump, the dishwasher, washing machine, and clothes dryer were all idle during these 2 hours. It may be important to note, however, that I was occupied toward the end of the test and cannot confirm if the blower fan for the heating system was running the entire 30 minutes. This would skew the results against the KVAR box because less electricty was used in the second hour.

With KVAR on, I found that I am saving about 12.4% from my electric bill. You say it is impossible. I concede that a 1 hour test may not be 100% accurate and am planning weeklong tests in the coming fortnight. I'll keep you informed. In the meantime, my hope is that we can agree that something is happening as 12.4% is a large enough savings to make a purchase worthwhile and is outside any kind of margin of error for the test.

At least I'm not the only one with no fear of looking foolish. My first paragraph contained 3 periods, marking the end of 3 separate sentences. Further, the final sentence is separated into two clearly defined clauses by what's called a semi-colon. That's the comma with a period above it, in case you just skip over symbols you don't understand. Oh, and "other" isn't spelled with a "y." No, the "y" is not silent.

Here, you're continuing your last paragraph while starting a new thought. The first sentence should be part of your first paragraph as the thoughts conveyed are similar. To answer your assumption, I have not purchased anything; it was a gift. It is unclear, as you've written your message, whether you doubt that I bought something, that the something reduces my electric bill, or that it does so by some magical process. Your syntax implies that you doubt the magical process and I agree that no magic is involved. What's more, using the word "that" in succession is just bad form.

Please see my reply regarding the 2 hour test I conducted.

In the future, Bill, it may help your writing ability if you re-read your message after leaving it for an hour or two. Hope that helps. ;)

Rob

What you need to do is to get a friend/neighbour to disconnect (or not) your KVAR device as you conduct your tests and to physically hide the connection/disconnection point so you can have no idea whether it is on or off. Then, after you have all your test results in, say about 20 one hour sessions should do, you tell him which tests were conducted with the KVAR on. If he confirms that you were right significantly more that the 50% random chance would give you (with the sort of savings you are mentioning, you should be right 100%) - then you will have proved something worth mentioning.

-- Sue

How are you getting any readable meter change in 1 or 2 hours? You need to run long enough for several dials to change, which takes much longer than that. There is no way you are resolving things to the level you are reporting (12.4%) by reading the dials! There is a way to do it, however. What procedure did you use?

I also agree with everything the others have told you. Your meter does not respond to a kVA change, so there is no meaningful difference due to the power factor correction.

The meter did turn within the hour. Over the course of two hours, the last dial of the meter spun from about 4.5 around to about 1.125. Estimating to an eighth is not difficult.

My initial reaction to a longer week long test was an over reaction. I cannot control the variables of weather, dishwasher demand, or laundry demand for two full weeks to any great extent in order to provide reliable results one way or the other. Even from one day to the next is not a possibility because we may not have a load of dishes one day, or all laundry may be done on another, not to mention whatever temperature variations may exist from day to day.

Having a friend disconnect and reconnect the KVAR is impractical due to the fact that it has to be installed at the circuit breaker panel. Performing 20 one-hour sessions is not a controlled test either, because different devices will be running in successive hours. The clothes dryer may run for one hour with the KVAR on and not while the KVAR is off, which you would claim as support for your argument, or the reverse would lend support for mine--both of which would be erroneous conclusions.

This test I already performed and will repeat if the opportunity arises (the wife was not happy about running not only the AC, but the heat as well with all the windows open), shows that there is a savings and it is not negligible. It supports the conclusions of a variety of other tests performed that several of you have claimed as junk for one reason or another. At some point, I would encourage you to revisit your assumptions and try to explain why these results keep coming up rather than dismissing them as not supporting the prevailing theories.

Rob

Nope. You wire the KVAR via a bypass/disconnect switch in a keybox. You give the friend the key.

Nope. Who said successive hours? You pick an hour of the day and then try to do much the same during that hour for the next 5 days. Then pick a different hour and repeat for another 5 days. etc.

I haven't claimed anything. ISTR that it was you that claimed that you could carry out meaningful comparisons. All I am saying is that those comparisons will only be meaningful if they are blind trials.

People believe in pixies at the bottom of gardens, tooth faeries, invisible sky creatures, the Loch Ness monster and UFOs. I don't try to convince them of anything either. I merely suggest that they carry out blind trials - to remove the possibility or unconscious bias. I assume nothing - I'd quite like a pixie to help with the gardening.

-- Sue

Regarding assumptions and theories, let's look at the engineering facts:

1) Almost all residential utility meters respond to kW hours only, and not kVA. Check your electric bill and verify that there is no kVA charge, just kWh. Even if it was being measured, kVA would not show up on the same dial that you read. It would be a separate register (most often done these days with electronic registers).

2) The "KVAR" reduces kVA, but has no effect on kW. Power factor correction capacitors are well understood. They affect only the reactive power (kVAR) and the apparent power (kVA), but not real power (kW). Also, they only work on inductive loads such as motors. There is no effect on heaters or incandescent lamps, which are already at a 1.0 power factor. Because it is connected at the panel, it will not even produce the small kW savings due to reduced wiring losses to the motorized appliances. If you disagree, provide information about what the "KVAR" does and how it does it. Can you post some technical information, operating manual, etc?

3) Based on 1) & 2), the "KVAR" has no effect on the utility meter. Show how you would reach any other conclusion.

I submit that your test may be flawed due to variable conditions and dial interpolation. Here is a more accurate test that only takes a few minutes and is better controlled: The KVAR should be connected to a circuit breaker in the panel. Assuming it is, then it is easy to connect and disconnect. First, turn on whatever loads you want to have running, preferably motorized. Turn off the KVAR breaker. Time one complete rotation of the meter disk, using a stopwatch. If it turns quickly, time several complete rotations for better accuracy. Now turn on the KVAR, leaving all loads as is, and time the same number of disk rotations again. Compare the two times. The old time divided by the new time x100 will give the % of energy consumption with vs without the KVAR.

So you let the "test" run long enough for one dial to move approximately

6/10ths of the way around. AND you are estimating the eighth? You do realize you have just estimated 20% of your reading? AND you are "measuring" a savings of 12%. Do you see the folly in this "calculation"?

I manage three electrical test labs. If any of my employees ran a "test" like this and tried to present the results as meaningful, they would need to find employment elsewhere.

Charles

ToMAYto, toMOYto. If an industry has a low pf, they get charged extra. So pf correction helps them avoid that cost.

Notice I didn't say 'saves energy', it 'saves money'. Not the same thing.

daestrom

So if I understand you, your usage was a total of 6.625 (11.125 - 4.5). To get the savings you reported (12.4%), that would mean the non-KVAR hour was something like 3.5 kwh and the KVAR hour was 3.1 kwh.

That's a pretty narrow difference to be hanging a lot on. Shift a reading or two by an eighth and things come out a dead heat.

I don't think your test is really conclusive given the measurements and the resolution of your readings.

daestrom p.s. And the engineering is against you, so you need some pretty conclusive evidence to refute the naysayers (including me).