Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On 9/25/2010 5:51 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy

You may find a better source than this but confirms what I had heard
about lighting being only about 10% of a home's electricity consumption:

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html

Also for lighting you could save more than 30-40% with cfl's.

I say, thumbs down on this device.

Caesar Romano wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
Cut
Are you the spammer, (re)displaying that URL??

Dont re-display obvious criminal URL's.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Frank
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

On 9/25/2010 5:51 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy

You may find a better source than this but confirms what I had heard
about lighting being only about 10% of a home's electricity consumption:

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html

Also for lighting you could save more than 30-40% with cfl's.

I say, thumbs down on this device.

Yes, I think the CFLs make much more sense; particularly since the
"lumismart" device would have to be applied to the entire house. I
wonder what effect would it have on non-light loads?
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:51:00 -0500, Caesar Romano
wrote:

It looks like a scam to me.

"Run Forrest! Run!"

On 9/25/2010 7:16 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Frank
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

On 9/25/2010 5:51 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy

You may find a better source than this but confirms what I had heard
about lighting being only about 10% of a home's electricity consumption:

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html

Also for lighting you could save more than 30-40% with cfl's.

I say, thumbs down on this device.

Yes, I think the CFLs make much more sense; particularly since the
"lumismart" device would have to be applied to the entire house. I
wonder what effect would it have on non-light loads?

Likely it would lighten your wallet about $2,000 independent of how it
was installed.

In article , wrote:

Yes, I think the CFLs make much more sense; particularly since the
"lumismart" device would have to be applied to the entire house. I
wonder what effect would it have on non-light loads?

It obviously would reduce power consumption by 30-40% -- which means, in the
case of resistance heating, for example -- that it also reduces power *output*
by the same 30-40%. Since the amount of energy needed to heat the house, dry
laundry, cook, etc. doesn't change, reducing the power available for the task
means increasing the time required to do it, meaning, for example, that your
furnace will have to run 43-67% longer to keep your home warm. It will take
43-67% longer to make toast, brew coffee, boil water for tea, cook your meals,
or dry your clothes. In short, it won't save a damn thing on anything *but*
lighting -- and probably only on *incandescent* lighting at that.

Another poster cited the figure of lighting being 10% of total electricity
cost - that depends a lot on (a) the type of lighting, and (b) what other
purposes electricity is used for. With a gas boiler, gas oven, gas water
heater, and gas clothes dryer, incandescent lighting represented over 30% of
my total cost for electricity. Switching over to CFLs reduced that to around
10-15%. In a home that had CFLs to begin with, and electric heat, water
heating, cooking, and dryer, I'd imagine the proportion to be a lot less than
that. But let's be generous to the purveyors of this device, and assume that
it's 20% on average. Further assume an average total cost of $125/month.
That's $25/month for lighting. If this device can save 40%, that's $10/month,
making it 200 months = 17 years before you recover the cost of purchasing it.
Add another couple hundred bucks or so for installation by a licensed
electrician, and you're looking at a payback period of pretty near twenty
years. At the lower end of their projection (30%), the period approaches 25
years. And if your lighting costs are only 10% of your total, instead of 20%,
it's nearly 50 years.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 01:56:16 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

But let's be generous to the purveyors of this device, and assume that
it's 20% on average. Further assume an average total cost of $125/month.
That's $25/month for lighting. If this device can save 40%, that's $10/month,
making it 200 months = 17 years before you recover the cost of purchasing it.
Add another couple hundred bucks or so for installation by a licensed
electrician, and you're looking at a payback period of pretty near twenty
years. At the lower end of their projection (30%), the period approaches 25
years. And if your lighting costs are only 10% of your total, instead of 20%,
it's nearly 50 years.

Good analysis. That sure looks like a scam to me.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Hell, who knows? What's the rep of the originator of the information? Do a
little research.



In news Caesar Romano typed:
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam
to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot,
it turns out, when the light bulbs are attached to a
LumiSmart Intelligent Lighting Controller. The
shoebox-sized solid state controller, developed by Cavet
Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to install
(with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can
figure out. It's similar to compression algorithms used in
MP3s, where cutting out select bits to decrease file size
still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy

responding to
http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...am-532556-.htm
sjerome wrote:
Simon Jerome wrote:

The Lumismart is an intelligent lighting controller for commercial,
Industrial
and Retail locations. It uses waveform modification to remove sections of
power
from the electrical sine wave. It is connected between the electrical
lighting
circuit breaker and a dedicated fluorescent lighting circuit, in essence
dimming florescent lights that were not originally designed to dim. This
device is not
intended for residential home use, as lighting is a small portion of the
actual
power cost and most residential electrical circuits are not dedicated to
lighting.

The product has been validated by lighting test houses around the world,
both in
North America and Europe, as well as at Underwriter laboratories.
Furthermore,
just this week, Cavet Technologies were announced as winners of the the
Deloitte
Clean 15 (Fast 50) companies in Canada with the Lumismart ILC. The concept
of
waveform modification to reduce lighting associated costs is not new and
has
been out for many years. However, Lumismart increases the amount of
potential
savings by over double, and is designed more as a commodity purchase
rather than
system sale.

I trust this answers your questions, however you can find more information
at
www.cavettech.com

Regards

Simon Jerome
VP Global Sales
Cavet Technologies Inc.

In article .com,
(sjerome) wrote:

Here we go with another ****ing bull**** spam post. Phony question about
a product, supposedly "answered" by someone affiliated with the company
that makes the product.

The source of this horse****? The ****ing homeowner website again.
Please, homies, don't participate in these fake threads (virtually all
of them) from this spam/scam site.

And, in the nano second where the bulb isn't noticing the blink.
Neither is your electric meter, which continues to bill at full rate.

I question the effectiveness of this gadget.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
news Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.


The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010

LumiSmart lighting controller

What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.

The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
(sjerome) wrote:

Here we go with another ****ing bull**** spam post. Phony question about
a product, supposedly "answered" by someone affiliated with the company
that makes the product.

The source of this horse****? The ****ing homeowner website again.
Please, homies, don't participate in these fake threads (virtually all
of them) from this spam/scam site.

Yeah...strange coincidence.

Jim

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:35:35 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

In article .com,
(sjerome) wrote:

Here we go with another xxxxing bullxxxx spam post. Phony question about
a product, supposedly "answered" by someone affiliated with the company
that makes the product.

The source of this horsexxxx? The xxxxing homeowner website again.
Please, homies, don't participate in these fake threads (virtually all
of them) from this spam/scam site.

I don't understand. You don't want us to participate, but you
participate. Oh!... I see. You are just participating to warn us.

Got it. Thanks
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

The Stucco site is not a help forum, it's an
*advertising* forum that invades real forums
(like "alt.home.repair", part of "usenet")
parasitically in order to generate free
advertising for itself, which continually
advances its search engine placement, thereby
increasing its own revenue through its click-
through advertising commissions.

So the first thing you should do is write them
an email and tell them to quit spamming.

Then try to find your way here through proper
channels. Please do a google search on "Usenet"
and post the regular way.



--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"sjerome" wrote in message
oups.com...
responding to

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:35:35 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

In article .com,
(sjerome) wrote:

Here we go with another xxxxing bullxxxx spam post. Phony question about
a product, supposedly "answered" by someone affiliated with the company
that makes the product.

The source of this horsexxxx? The xxxxing homeowner website again.
Please, homies, don't participate in these fake threads (virtually all
of them) from this spam/scam site.

I don't understand. You don't want us to participate, but you
participate. Oh!... I see. You are just participating to warn us.

Got it. Thanks

You've been around a.h.r for quite a while, and IMHO asked an honest
question. You unfairly got caught up in the annoyance at the parasite
site, which I share. But you did not post through the parasite.

My guess is that the manufacturer watches the internet for references to
their product, and found a hit at the parasite.

It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

--
bud--

In article , bud-- wrote:

It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:53:09 -0500, bud--
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

You've been around a.h.r for quite a while, and IMHO asked an honest
question. You unfairly got caught up in the annoyance at the parasite
site, which I share. But you did not post through the parasite.

My guess is that the manufacturer watches the internet for references to
their product, and found a hit at the parasite.

It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Thanks for the comments Bud.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket.

There's a Costco in my g.f.'s city that uses zero lighting during the
day. The roof is riddled with skylights. Since Costco closes fairly
early, I'd guess their entire lighting bill is very small.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.

I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed, in which case the 'device' would be pointless. If you had, for
example, skylights that added solar light (the Costco I go to does) you
could vary the electrical lighting, and some installations do. You
couldn't necessarily reduce the lighting on a whole circuit.

And IF the 'device' works, and is cost effective. I have no opinion on that.

--
bud--

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket.

There's a Costco in my g.f.'s city that uses zero lighting during the
day. The roof is riddled with skylights. Since Costco closes fairly
early, I'd guess their entire lighting bill is very small.

Do they close on cloudy days? Or at 4:30pm in the winter?

Their lighting bill is a lot larger than you think.

In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.

I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed,

Probably a correct assumption...

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.

... but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.

In most lighting applications, a sufficiently brief interruption of the
current will have negligible effect on the light output. Consider an
incandescent lamp on a 60Hz AC power source. 120 times a second, the voltage
is *zero*. But since it takes longer than 1/120 of a second for the filament
to cool to the point where it no longer emits visible light, there's no
flicker. It's no stretch to imagine that an electronic controller could chop
30 or 40% out of the total power with nowhere nearly a 30-40% reduction in
lighting levels.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket.

There's a Costco in my g.f.'s city that uses zero lighting during the
day. The roof is riddled with skylights. Since Costco closes fairly
early, I'd guess their entire lighting bill is very small.

Do they close on cloudy days? Or at 4:30pm in the winter?

Their lighting bill is a lot larger than you think.



A bold claim, given that you don't know how large I think their lighting
bill is. But if they run lighting an average of 2 hrs/day instead of 12
hrs./day, their lighting bill is probably 1/6 of what it otherwise would
have been.

You know, Doug, for a jesus freak, you're kind of a dick. Always
argumentative, always right, always sanctimonious, always the last word.
Sure those traits describe 99% of a.h.r. participants *some* of the
time, but you're always like that. And you aren't as damn smart as you
think you are, based on your idiotic misinterpretations of something as
simple as ohm's law.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:44:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.

.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.

The specs don't seem to support that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed,

Probably a correct assumption...

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.

.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.

So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out
is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?


In most lighting applications, a sufficiently brief interruption of the
current will have negligible effect on the light output. Consider an
incandescent lamp on a 60Hz AC power source. 120 times a second, the voltage
is *zero*. But since it takes longer than 1/120 of a second for the filament
to cool to the point where it no longer emits visible light, there's no
flicker. It's no stretch to imagine that an electronic controller could chop
30 or 40% out of the total power with nowhere nearly a 30-40% reduction in
lighting levels.

Electrical energy in is greater or equal to light energy out. Doe the
'device' increase the efficiency of the lighting? If not perhaps they
could win the Nobel prize. (I suspect your claims are greater than their
claims.)

--
bud--

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:30:44 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:

It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too.

Only in a universe where PWM doesn't work.

Here on earth, if you interupt the power for "nanoseconds at a time",
the average power will drop and so will the light output.

The device is simply an expensive dimmer. In a store like walmart,
it's far easier to use fewer bulbs or lower power ones then use an inline
dimmer.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:12:20 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

Here on earth, if you interupt the power for "nanoseconds at a time",
the average power will drop and so will the light output.

Can typical utility power meters "see" those brief interruptions? We
are assuming that they can, but I don't know for sure.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Sep 28, 2:12*pm, Caesar Romano wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:12:20 -0500, AZ Nomad
wrote Re Looks like a scam:

Here on earth, if you interupt the power for "nanoseconds at a time",
the average power will drop and so will the light output.

Can typical utility power meters "see" those brief interruptions? *We
are assuming that they can, but I don't know for sure.

Yes.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket.

There's a Costco in my g.f.'s city that uses zero lighting during the
day. The roof is riddled with skylights. Since Costco closes fairly
early, I'd guess their entire lighting bill is very small.

Do they close on cloudy days? Or at 4:30pm in the winter?

Their lighting bill is a lot larger than you think.



A bold claim, given that you don't know how large I think their lighting
bill is. But if they run lighting an average of 2 hrs/day instead of 12
hrs./day, their lighting bill is probably 1/6 of what it otherwise would
have been.

You know, Doug, for a jesus freak, you're kind of a dick. Always
argumentative, always right, always sanctimonious, always the last word.
Sure those traits describe 99% of a.h.r. participants *some* of the
time, but you're always like that. And you aren't as damn smart as you
think you are, based on your idiotic misinterpretations of something as
simple as ohm's law.

plonk

In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general,
skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those

gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed,

Probably a correct assumption...

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.

.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.

So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out
is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?

Didn't say that. But I expect there'd be a lower *heat* output.

In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:30:44 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:

It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too.

Only in a universe where PWM doesn't work.

Here on earth, if you interupt the power for "nanoseconds at a time",
the average power will drop and so will the light output.

And so will the heat output. I may be mistaken, but I suspect the heat output
will drop more than the perceptible light output.

The device is simply an expensive dimmer. In a store like walmart,
it's far easier to use fewer bulbs or lower power ones then use an inline
dimmer.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , bud--
wrote:
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general,
skeptical.
Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed,
Probably a correct assumption...

in which case the 'device' would be pointless.
.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
worthwhile.
So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out
is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?

Didn't say that. But I expect there'd be a lower *heat* output.

I don't see any reason why heat would drop more than light.

Take the case of slicing out part of the AC cycle (which is what happens
with the common phase angle control dimmers we all use). Apply that to
an incandescent lamp. If you reduce electrical power by 5% the lamp will
run cooler, which means that less energy comes out in light and the
percentage of the electrical energy that becomes heat increases. Light
energy goes down more than 5% and efficiency is reduced.

The 'device', if I remember right, is intended for fluorescents. I see
no reason to believe that heat will be disproportionately reduced. I
expect that light will fall by the same percentage as the electrical
energy.

I agree with AZ.

I really don't want to reread the propaganda (which may or may not be
true) but my recollection is the alleged virtue of the 'device' is that
you can put it on an existing whole branch circuit with existing
non-dimming ballasts and dim the lamps for energy savings (at a lower
light level). Someone may have read the propaganda closer than I did.

If dimming the lamps makes sense, like large window areas and daylight,
and if the circuits are arranged right, like parallel to the windows
instead of window to darker interior,
and if the 'device' dimming works,
and does not reduce the life of ballasts and lamps,
and does not change the lamp color characteristics,
then the device may make a lot of sense (or cents).

--
bud--