Dirty Electricity

**It's from Queensland, right?

Kinda says it all really.

What an absolute load of crap. I hope the ACCC crucifies these bastards.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction infrastructure, so it's understandable that the CSIRO and governments would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying for the devices themselves.

I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly reduce electricity bills.

I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote

"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but billable in the U.S"

so its context is entirely unclear.

Greg's very

Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for sure.

On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more" mean?)

Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off the output from the Earthwise device, with the result that the only energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to the device.

Ah - finally an explanation. If only I'd been using clean power all these years.

Er, what?

Sylvia.

Very credible NOT. Real universities have a url ending in .edu*USA( or .edu.(country code).

Another mates product being promoted.

You may hope, but don't hold your breath. I've sent off a complaint, but I expect it'll be filed in the "too hard" basket. Some of the technical statements are completely untrue, and some are half-truths, but the claims about monetary savings contain weasel words.

Sylvia.

Quote: "Welcome to Panacea University and the faculty section of the main Panacea-BOCAF website. Here you will find, via free access, the most current versions of educational semi-textbooks and reports of experiments having to do with alternative engineering that are not currently taught in the accepted universities. Our aims are to protect and provide studies and archives of information dealing with, for instance, free energy technology, suppressed energy technology, mileage boosting, lowering emissions, alternative fuels, interesting motor modifications and studies in rotors and magnets=97sometimes called experimental magnetic motors or experimental magnetic generators."

It's just a PF correction cap in a fancy case for $1300 What a hoot.

Dave.

On 2/02/2011 1:10 PM, David L. Jones wrote: ...

You can buy them on Ebay from $30 (in fancy case), no need to spend $1300-1700.

Tom

I was suspicious the minute I saw the mains input. For a second there I thought it might be a solar panel/wind generator controller. :)

"Panacea university". LOL.

-- [the diff between proving a positive and negative:]

[...] You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" - the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the scientific method. -- Peter Webb , 23 Nov 2010

Have you seen their web site? Kook central. No really, it's one thing to say it, and another to see there's that large a collection of nutjobs who actually believe it.

--
There's no future in time travel

I googled the above expression and found more such devices, like:

lol

Yep, just checked that out. Also, there was already such a device reported to the ACCC:

"Federal Court declares consumers misled over Power Saver device

Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd and its former marketing manager Nagarajah Rajkumar made misleading claims about the power-saving ability of its Enersonic Power Saver device, the Federal Court has found.

In 2008 and 2009, Auscha marketed and sold the Power Saver, a device which plugs into a standard electricity outlet and which was purportedly designed to reduce the user's electricity consumption.

In court proceedings instituted in July 2010, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleged that Auscha had made a number of false or misleading representations about the Power Saver in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The ACCC's case centred on the fact that the Power Saver, a power factor correction capacitor, does not actually reduce the real electrical power consumed by a domestic user. Retail electricity suppliers generally only charge domestic consumers for their use of real electrical power (also known as active power), as recorded by domestic electricity meters. As the Power Saver is not capable of reducing the amount of real electrical power consumed by domestic consumers, domestic consumers cannot save money by using the Power Saver.

The court declared by consent that Auscha contravened sections 52 and

53(c) of the Act, by representing in promotional material to customers that :

• by using the Power Saver, domestic consumers could save up to 24% on their electrical power consumption * by using the Power Saver and saving on their electrical power consumption, domestic consumers would thereby save money, and * the Power Saver was designed and engineered in Australia,

when in fact:

• the Power Saver was not capable of reducing the amount of electrical power consumed by domestic consumers as measured by retail electricity suppliers, and therefore domestic consumers could not save up to 24% on their electrical power consumption by using the Power Saver * use of the Power Saver could not lead to domestic consumers saving on their electrical power consumption as measured by retail electricity suppliers, and therefore domestic consumers could not save money by using the Power Saver, and * the Power Saver was not designed and engineered in Australia.

The court also declared by consent that Mr Rajkumar was knowingly concerned in each of the contraventions.

Furthermore, the court issued injunctions restraining Auscha and Mr Rajkumar from engaging in similar conduct in the future and made orders that Auscha:

• publish a corrective notice on its website
  formatting link
  * send a letter to customers affected by the conduct, and * pay a contribution towards the ACCC's court costs.

Earlier this month the ACCC accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Bronze Swan Pty Ltd, a reseller of the Power Saver, in relation to similar misrepresentations made by Bronze Swan about the Power Saver device.

ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel said today: "These actions demonstrate the ACCC's concern to ensure that consumers are not misled into believing that products will save them money on energy costs when this is untrue. Suppliers of these types of devices are on notice that the ACCC is on the look-out for those who want to make spurious energy saving claims and should take immediate steps to review their marketing material or they may face similar action."

"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive "

** Absolute bollocks.

If applied to every house in Australia, the AC supply system would collapse from all the extra ( reactive) current being drawn.

** That is a massive lie.

** No one cent in savings even then.

Cos domestic customers here are only charged for actual energy consumption - and the devices offered do nothing to reduce that.

.... Phil

"Tom"

** No Australian approval for permanent connection to the AC supply - so no electrician can install one legally nor you.

..... Phil

Why would it increase the current. It's intended to do the opposite. I doubt it's as simple as sticking a supercap across the mains.

If the device presents equal but opposite reactance to that of the load, then it forms a parallel turned circuit, which presents infinite impedance. So no current will pass through the meter, and there will be no power bill.

Without the device, there is current passing through the meter, but it's not exactly 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage because of the resistance of the meter winding. So power is dissipated in the meter itself, and the meter measures it, thus creating a non-zero power bill.

Whether it amounts to a 1 cent saving over a billing period, I don't know, but it would be some amount, which given that the bill would be zero with the device present, represents a huge (indeed infinite) proportional saving.

So their 35% claimed saving (on power charges, not the availability charge) might be supportable, albeit in a totally unrealistic scenario.

Sylvia.

"Stupider than Anyone Else Alive"

** Wrong.

Applied in the absurd and crude way that the scam device is intended to - it will.

** My god you are TOTALLY INSANE.

Should be put down like a mad dog.

..... Phil

If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also reduce its efficiency at what it does, and it will likely have to be used longer to get the same result, negating any "savings". (Ie if you reduce the energy available to your fridge, it will have to run longer to maintain the same temperature.)

Excepting maybe incandescent bulbs - if you are happy to put up with the reduced brightness - but it would be cheaper to use a dimmer, or a lower wattage bulb.

les/today-tonight-po...

Many of which are caused by other factors - including ageing. Would be easy enough to prove by testing for these things in countries that have limited or no electricity - though under such conditions you would probably find other nastier diseases and hunger related issues.

Well, it's not reducing the current used by the appliance, it's merely correcting the power factor, which necessarily reduces the current upstream of the correction circuit (otherwise energy would not be conserved). That is, the currents upstream and downstream of the device are different.

It won't do anything when loads are resistive.

Power factor correction is worthwhile when considered from the perspective of the overall system. But as things stand, a consumer who installed one would pay the cost of the device, but the benefits would accrue to the power supplier in the form of reduced infrastructure requirement and lower resistive losses in supply cables.

Sylvia.

Shame they didn't try this first

"kreed"

If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also reduce its efficiency at what it does,

** Simple capacitor based PFC correction has NO effect on the current flowing in the actual device - how can it since the device is still connected directly to the AC supply ??

Think about it.

.... Phil

lol

They'd have no more stories:)