http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

it would mean my kettle and toaster would take longer,
and wouldnt cut my electric heating costs would it?
(whereas more insulation would)

The lights would be a bit dimmer
so I'd get higher power lightbulbs!

If the fridge pump gets less volts would it have to be on for longer
to pump out a certain amount of heat
(like when that salesman opened the fridge door?)

[g]

In article ,
Mark writes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

[device which reduces household mains voltage claims
significant energy savings]

There's a tiny bit of truth, but mostly you're listening to a
journalist who doesn't seem to understand the issues, probably
egged on by the manufacturer. The claims won't be realised.

I think most current fridge/freezer compressors contain energy
management circuits, so they're already doing this much better
internally than any external device can. Most TV's for the last
25 years have switched mode PSU's and hence have a constant power
draw irrespective of the supply voltage. A cordless phone (or any
other rechargable battery device) simply takes longer to charge
if you reduce the supply, assuming a crude linear PSU, so you
will be looking at 30% lower power consumption for 30% longer,
although the losses once charged are likely to be less too.
Lighting - filament lighting will become much less efficient,
requiring higher total power consumption to achieve the same lighting
levels, and it would be much more effective to reduce the wattage
of the bulbs fitted if you are happy to manage with less light.
CFLs - depends on the quality of the ballast circuitry, but they
will either run at constant power (defeating the device), or
reduce power and light output proportionally.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

george (dicegeorge) coughed up some electrons that declared:

Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

it would mean my kettle and toaster would take longer,
and wouldnt cut my electric heating costs would it?
(whereas more insulation would)

The lights would be a bit dimmer
so I'd get higher power lightbulbs!

If the fridge pump gets less volts would it have to be on for longer
to pump out a certain amount of heat
(like when that salesman opened the fridge door?)

[g]

Exactly. Ditto switched mode PSUs for electronic appliances.

More snake oil.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm


The savings seem to be calculated on an incoming mains voltage rated at
250v, but my supply seems to range between 230v and 240v, and usually more
nearer to the 230v mark than 240v, so reducing the voltage to 220v would
mean less savings in my case, and if proportionate, any saving would be
reduced by 33% at 240v and 66% at 230v, so more like a 3% to 6% saving than
the 10% quoted. To also quote that this device is similar to loft insulation
is misleading in my opinion, loft insulation is very cost effective, but
£250 for this device (plus installation?) for a potential 3% saving would
seem not to be the case, and as the device seems to be a transformer, I
would imagine that there would be losses through the transformer itself, but
it does not say if these losses had been taken into account when calculating
any savings. In theory, like most of these money saving devices, it looks
good on paper, but some careful calculations and cost comparisons need to be
made on the claims made before committing.

--
To help compile the Open Street Map, or if you just want to use copyright
free maps of the UK, or anywhere else in the world, visit
http://www.OpenStreetMap.org

The item mentions this type of device has been in use for some time in
commercial settings.

The only application I can think of that is power heavy and where this
sort of device would offer real savings - are places where there's
lots of large ac motors.

Which ain't most people's homes.

That clip is more like a (misleading) infomercial - does anyone
regulate this sort of thing?

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:53:31 +0100, "Harry Stottle"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm


The savings seem to be calculated on an incoming mains voltage rated at
250v, but my supply seems to range between 230v and 240v, and usually more
nearer to the 230v mark than 240v, so reducing the voltage to 220v would
mean less savings in my case, and if proportionate, any saving would be
reduced by 33% at 240v and 66% at 230v, so more like a 3% to 6% saving than
the 10% quoted. To also quote that this device is similar to loft insulation
is misleading in my opinion, loft insulation is very cost effective, but
£250 for this device (plus installation?) for a potential 3% saving would
seem not to be the case, and as the device seems to be a transformer, I
would imagine that there would be losses through the transformer itself, but
it does not say if these losses had been taken into account when calculating
any savings. In theory, like most of these money saving devices, it looks
good on paper, but some careful calculations and cost comparisons need to be
made on the claims made before committing.

Pretty much what I suspected. I would imagine that their "savings"
conveniently neglected to include losses in the transformer and allied
components.

I am also unsure whether it has a fixed step-down ratio or if it is
variable dynamically.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Owain wrote:
On 29 July, 11:01, Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

The installation instructions make it clear the Vphase can only be
used on lower-power circuits, not cooking or heating, so there is a
need to split circuits within the CU to those controlled by Vphase and
those not controlled by Vphase. (This is in addition to any splitting
required by RCD discrimination.) The Vphase also needs its own 50A MCB
to supply it and its downstream load.

In many cases installing this is going to need a whole new CU because
the old one won't be splittable.

And I can see the install costs exceeding the purchase cost in the
majority of cases!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"george (dicegeorge)" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

it would mean my kettle and toaster would take longer,
and wouldnt cut my electric heating costs would it?
(whereas more insulation would)

The lights would be a bit dimmer
so I'd get higher power lightbulbs!

If the fridge pump gets less volts would it have to be on for longer
to pump out a certain amount of heat
(like when that salesman opened the fridge door?)

[g]

and there's the power the thing itself consumes as well as the £250 plus
installation charge...

on 29/07/2009, Andrew Gabriel supposed :
In article ,
Mark writes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

[device which reduces household mains voltage claims
significant energy savings]

There's a tiny bit of truth, but mostly you're listening to a
journalist who doesn't seem to understand the issues, probably
egged on by the manufacturer. The claims won't be realised.

I think most current fridge/freezer compressors contain energy
management circuits, so they're already doing this much better
internally than any external device can. Most TV's for the last
25 years have switched mode PSU's and hence have a constant power
draw irrespective of the supply voltage. A cordless phone (or any
other rechargable battery device) simply takes longer to charge
if you reduce the supply, assuming a crude linear PSU, so you
will be looking at 30% lower power consumption for 30% longer,
although the losses once charged are likely to be less too.
Lighting - filament lighting will become much less efficient,
requiring higher total power consumption to achieve the same lighting
levels, and it would be much more effective to reduce the wattage
of the bulbs fitted if you are happy to manage with less light.
CFLs - depends on the quality of the ballast circuitry, but they
will either run at constant power (defeating the device), or
reduce power and light output proportionally.

All agreed with. Mostly smoke and mirrors.

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

No idea if this is what it actually does.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
wrote

it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating,

Slightly more if you cool it in a bath of snake oil.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Andrew Gabriel formulated on Wednesday :
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

It seems to have one pair (for mains input?) and what looks like around
four or five tappings from the top right of the toroid.


No idea if this is what it actually does.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

It seems to have one pair (for mains input?) and what looks like around
four or five tappings from the top right of the toroid.

What picture are you looking at?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel formulated the question :
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

It seems to have one pair (for mains input?) and what looks like around
four or five tappings from the top right of the toroid.

What picture are you looking at?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

By stopping the video somewhere in the middle, where it shows a close
up of the toroid and pans across to the PCB. Two windings go to the
lower + middle part of the PCB close to what looks like a PCB mount
fuse, then the four or five go to upper LH corner of the PCB via a
multi way nylon molding.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:19:12 +0100, Alan wrote:

it will handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating,

Slightly more if you cool it in a bath of snake oil.

A lot more Snake Oil has a higher heat capacity than Hydrogen.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:46:25 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:


All agreed with. Mostly smoke and mirrors.

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

http://www.vphase.co.uk/HTML/Products/index.asp

an 'anti-phase voltage' apparently.

Whilst I'm generally in the snake oil camp on this one (as far as real
returns are concerned) I think I can see a little logic to some of it.

I think the key to this device working is if we are to agree that most
domestic electric devices were designed to run at (say) 220V or not.
If so then running them at a higher voltage isn't necessarily going to
yield any further performance (which is what I think the presenter was
trying to put over).

If you are used to an incandescent lamp giving off say 65W worth of
light (I know that's not how you measure the light output but you get
the idea) rather than it's designed 60 then you may need a brighter
lamp to compensate (not really the fault of the 'Magic box' though).

An electric kettle for example may boil the water that little bit
quicker with 240 over 220V but it may not be the same ratio quicker.
ie, The 'sweet spot' in the design for transferring the energy from
element to water may have been done at 220V?

Similar with the fridge / freezer. Once the pump is spinning the extra
torque available (it wouldn't pump faster would it as it's a
synchronous motor) isn't necessarily going to make the fridge cool
down faster? Wouldn't the 'extra' voltage simply be consumed by
producing more waste heat from the pump? (Aside: Aren't there already
add-on products that capitalise on this, providing sufficient starting
torque then backing the current (power) off once running?)

Anything thermostatic or temperature adjustable (like a hob) would be
less effected as it would generally turn off when up to temperature
(but may still get to that point less efficiently [1], depending on
the thermal mass and element to object conductivity etc).

Like trying to boil an egg faster by turning the gas up on the already
boiling water.

shrug

T i m

[1] I guess there is a balance with energy input for much of this
where you have to apply the energy fast enough to minimise any losses
over not forcing the load to absorb energy too fast.

After serious thinking T i m wrote :
I think the key to this device working is if we are to agree that most
domestic electric devices were designed to run at (say) 220V or not.
If so then running them at a higher voltage isn't necessarily going to
yield any further performance (which is what I think the presenter was
trying to put over).

Modern tech devices are made to work over a range of voltages. As the
voltage rises to maximum, the current demand falls.


If you are used to an incandescent lamp giving off say 65W worth of
light (I know that's not how you measure the light output but you get
the idea) rather than it's designed 60 then you may need a brighter
lamp to compensate (not really the fault of the 'Magic box' though).

These types of lamps need to run at very close to their rated voltage.
It is a careful balance between efficient conversion of current into
light versus lamp life. Decrease the voltage and their light output
becomes much less. Increase the voltage and light output rises
disproportionaly, but the life decreases. I accidently bought some 230v
500w TH's for flood lights and they lasted just a few weeks instead of
the couple of years or so I would expect on our 240v supply.

An electric kettle for example may boil the water that little bit
quicker with 240 over 220V but it may not be the same ratio quicker.
ie, The 'sweet spot' in the design for transferring the energy from
element to water may have been done at 220V?

Within wide margins, I would not expect it to make much difference to
the Kwh consumed. Decrease the voltage sufficiently and time to boil
will increase due to heat loss.


Similar with the fridge / freezer. Once the pump is spinning the extra
torque available (it wouldn't pump faster would it as it's a
synchronous motor) isn't necessarily going to make the fridge cool
down faster? Wouldn't the 'extra' voltage simply be consumed by
producing more waste heat from the pump? (Aside: Aren't there already
add-on products that capitalise on this, providing sufficient starting
torque then backing the current (power) off once running?)

That feature is included I believe in all modern units.

Anything thermostatic or temperature adjustable (like a hob) would be
less effected as it would generally turn off when up to temperature
(but may still get to that point less efficiently [1], depending on
the thermal mass and element to object conductivity etc).

As per above, the kettle loosing heat through its surface. Longer to
get hot, more heat radiated or lost into the room while you wait for it
to attain temperature.

Like trying to boil an egg faster by turning the gas up on the already
boiling water.

Not quite, all (almost all) the energy from electricity is delivered
into where it is needed.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield pretended :
These types of lamps need to run at very close to their rated voltage. It is
a careful balance between efficient conversion of current into light versus
lamp life. Decrease the voltage and their light output becomes much less.
Increase the voltage and light output rises disproportionaly, but the life
decreases. I accidently bought some 230v 500w TH's for flood lights and they
lasted just a few weeks instead of the couple of years or so I would expect
on our 240v supply.

I meant to point out that dimmers, can reduce the light output of a
lamp down to around say 5%, yet that light will still be consuming say
75% of the wattage.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:28:31 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

After serious thinking T i m wrote :
I think the key to this device working is if we are to agree that most
domestic electric devices were designed to run at (say) 220V or not.
If so then running them at a higher voltage isn't necessarily going to
yield any further performance (which is what I think the presenter was
trying to put over).

Modern tech devices are made to work over a range of voltages. As the
voltage rises to maximum, the current demand falls.

Understood, anything with a SMPSU for example.


snip


Like trying to boil an egg faster by turning the gas up on the already
boiling water.

Not quite, all (almost all) the energy from electricity is delivered
into where it is needed.

Well yes, but my point was no matter how *hard* you boil the water it
will still take the same time to cook the egg. ;-)

T i m

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:31:16 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Harry Bloomfield pretended :
These types of lamps need to run at very close to their rated voltage. It is
a careful balance between efficient conversion of current into light versus
lamp life. Decrease the voltage and their light output becomes much less.
Increase the voltage and light output rises disproportionaly, but the life
decreases. I accidently bought some 230v 500w TH's for flood lights and they
lasted just a few weeks instead of the couple of years or so I would expect
on our 240v supply.

I meant to point out that dimmers, can reduce the light output of a
lamp down to around say 5%, yet that light will still be consuming say
75% of the wattage.


Indeed and your para above confirms my (and the TV presenters) point
about using appliances at their design voltage.

Of course 'multi voltage' devices will cope so they don't really count
in any case, it's the stuff being designed to run on a fixed 230 being
run on 240 (as it is here right now) where I think they think there
could be a saving.

T i m

T i m presented the following explanation :
Indeed and your para above confirms my (and the TV presenters) point
about using appliances at their design voltage.

Agreed, but other than incandescent lamps, there are not many (if any)
other items which have an absolute design voltage or not able to work
as efficiently at a range of voltages.


Of course 'multi voltage' devices will cope so they don't really count
in any case, it's the stuff being designed to run on a fixed 230 being
run on 240 (as it is here right now) where I think they think there
could be a saving.

Such as? You buy lamp bulbs to match your supply voltage, so they
should already be working at their best efficiency. Kettles simply need
to run for less time to boil the water on the full voltage. Ovens
similarly. None of your tech equipment cares about the voltage and will
simply increase their current draw for the decrease in voltage, so what
am I missing?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Jul 29, 11:01*am, Mark
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

--
(\__/) *M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. *If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

The interviewee is VPhase Chief Exec Dr Lee Juby; his parents had a
sense of humour, or perhaps he was born in 1977.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

No idea if this is what it actually does.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Looks like you're spot on.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090008997
Probably a Triac feeding that buck winding. Their main worry (rightly!)seems
to be overheating of the core.
Myself, I wouldn't have one given.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:31:00 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

T i m presented the following explanation :
Indeed and your para above confirms my (and the TV presenters) point
about using appliances at their design voltage.

Agreed, but other than incandescent lamps, there are not many (if any)
other items which have an absolute design voltage or not able to work
as efficiently at a range of voltages.

Well, if you are going to exclude incandescent's g I can't think of
many specifics but I was playing devils advocate re the theory that
'*some* savings could be made by using said product. Like, Our fridge
and freezer are quite old and therefore probably wouldn't have the
energy saving bits in them. The washing machine, and dishwasher have
induction motor pumps that may be drawing more current than they need
and kettles and toasters that *may* not be running as efficiently as
designed (hearing the water less efficiently (too fast)) or burning
the toast slightly more than it might at a lower voltage etc.


Of course 'multi voltage' devices will cope so they don't really count
in any case, it's the stuff being designed to run on a fixed 230 being
run on 240 (as it is here right now) where I think they think there
could be a saving.

Such as? You buy lamp bulbs to match your supply voltage, so they
should already be working at their best efficiency.

If you do, you didn't so who know how many other people have?

Kettles simply need
to run for less time to boil the water on the full voltage.

Of course, but you can't say they are as efficient (to the .001 of a
%) until you did the tests. For any given thermal loss and energy
transfer there would be an optimum heating rate. Too slow and thermal
loss would overcome the heating effect and too fast would simply
instantly boil the water around the element, possibly affecting the
energy transfer. shrug

Ovens
similarly.

Ovens would probably suffer less as they are generally thermostatic
and the usage times are longer.

None of your tech equipment cares about the voltage and will
simply increase their current draw for the decrease in voltage,

I agreed that one.

so what
am I missing?

The spirit of my reply? ;-)

Did I mention I wasn't going to buy one.

T i m

john jardine brought next idea :
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

No idea if this is what it actually does.

-- Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Looks like you're spot on.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090008997
Probably a Triac feeding that buck winding. Their main worry (rightly!)seems
to be overheating of the core.

...judging by the thermal trip.

Myself, I wouldn't have one given.

I would guess they have based there figures on short term measurements
of the reduction in current demand, rather than any longer term
measurement of actual reduction in consumption.

All resistive loads will use less if the voltage is reduced (Ohms Law),
but they will make up for it by running for increased periods to
produce the same work output.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield explained on 30/07/2009 :
T i m presented the following explanation :
Indeed and your para above confirms my (and the TV presenters) point
about using appliances at their design voltage.

Agreed, but other than incandescent lamps, there are not many (if any) other
items which have an absolute design voltage or not able to work as
efficiently at a range of voltages.


Of course 'multi voltage' devices will cope so they don't really count
in any case, it's the stuff being designed to run on a fixed 230 being
run on 240 (as it is here right now) where I think they think there
could be a saving.

There is no stuff designed to be run on a fixed voltage any more, just
check the specification pages of equipment. My electric razor will
happily charge itself up on anything between 12v and 240v. My desktop
PC will run on anything between 105v and 245v. The exceptions are old
style lamp bulbs and heating elements, though the later usually have a
little wider tolerance than lamps.

Older PC power supplies had a switch on the back to select 220/110 volt
input. The fuse to protect the PSU at 110v was double the amperage
rating of the 240v one, because as the voltage was reduced by 2 the
current had to double to produce the same output to the PC.

The video mentioned many of these gadgets being installed in lots of
commercial premises to good effect. I get around lots of these places
and I have never seen one.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

T i m was thinking very hard :
Did I mention I wasn't going to buy one.

No :-)

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking T i m wrote :
Like, Our fridge
and freezer are quite old and therefore probably wouldn't have the
energy saving bits in them.

True, but if they are that old then they were probably designed to work
on 230 -250v. Reduce the voltage to 220v and your risk them not being
able to start at all and burning out the motors.

The washing machine, and dishwasher have
induction motor pumps that may be drawing more current than they need

Motors draw the current they need to do the work. Reduce the voltage
and they draw more current to make up for the decreased voltage.

and kettles and toasters that *may* not be running as efficiently as
designed (hearing the water less efficiently (too fast)) or burning
the toast slightly more than it might at a lower voltage etc.

Due to the design of kettle elements almost all of the heat will be
drawn out of the element by the water. If you watch the element when
switched on from cold, there will be localised steam created on the
element, until convection gets going, then steam bubbles created again
around the element as it gets nearer actually boiling. The bubbles
burst, imparting there heat into the water.

Pretty efficient already this trickery, once it gets to where it is to
be used :-)

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
k...
john jardine brought next idea :
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

No idea if this is what it actually does.

-- Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Looks like you're spot on.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090008997
Probably a Triac feeding that buck winding. Their main worry
(rightly!)seems to be overheating of the core.

..judging by the thermal trip.

Myself, I wouldn't have one given.

I would guess they have based there figures on short term measurements of
the reduction in current demand, rather than any longer term measurement
of actual reduction in consumption.

All resistive loads will use less if the voltage is reduced (Ohms Law),
but they will make up for it by running for increased periods to produce
the same work output.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Exactly.
Snake oil indeed.
They would have every right to call it and sell it respectably as a 'mains
voltage stabiliser'. Technical kit with perfectly valid applications in a
number of areas. But they don't. They know there's only a small market and
profit for this kind of gear, so they show themselves as disingenuous
marketing scum by calling it a 'money saving device', tagging on the
Green/Enviro' ticket and keeping their fingers crossed, hoping no one can
look deeply into the somewhat arcane technical aspects.
As per the Mony Python sketch ...'it makes me sooo mad'.
(the newsgroups win out yet again!

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:55:16 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

After serious thinking T i m wrote :
Like, Our fridge
and freezer are quite old and therefore probably wouldn't have the
energy saving bits in them.

True, but if they are that old then they were probably designed to work
on 230 -250v. Reduce the voltage to 220v and your risk them not being
able to start at all and burning out the motors.

Understood.

The washing machine, and dishwasher have
induction motor pumps that may be drawing more current than they need

Motors draw the current they need to do the work. Reduce the voltage
and they draw more current to make up for the decreased voltage.

And there is no resistive 'loss' for that increased voltage and fixed
load, ever?

and kettles and toasters that *may* not be running as efficiently as
designed (hearing the water less efficiently (too fast)) or burning
the toast slightly more than it might at a lower voltage etc.

Due to the design of kettle elements almost all of the heat will be
drawn out of the element by the water. If you watch the element when
switched on from cold, there will be localised steam created on the
element, until convection gets going, then steam bubbles created again
around the element as it gets nearer actually boiling. The bubbles
burst, imparting there heat into the water.

So, what if the initial phase continued throughout the entire process,
do we know it that would be more or less efficient? (I'm not
suggesting such a minor change in voltage would have that effect btw).

Pretty efficient already this trickery, once it gets to where it is to
be used :-)

As long as you remember to turn clockwork timer on your toaster down a
tad and don't mind you toast done as the designer intended. ;-)

T i m

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
k...

The video mentioned many of these gadgets being installed in lots of
commercial premises to good effect. I get around lots of these places and
I have never seen one.

It is probably still true though.
"Many" doesn't have a definition to tell you what percentage of premises
have these devices so you can't know what the odds are of you seeing one.
Many could be 10, 100, 1000,.. you just don't know.
Its one of the weasel words used by marketing folk.


--
The newsgroup idiot aka TMH will be posting shortly to say whatever I post
is wrong.
He is *always* wrong.
Its due to his mental problems and I have stopped reading his posts so if
you really want to know why he is wrong you will have to quote him,
personally I would just killfile him and forget about him.

In article ,
"john jardine" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:

I would though like to know what method they use to reducing the
voltage, That toroid doesn't look capable of delivering more than about
300w.

If it's an auto-transformer, then for a 30V buck, it will
handle a load of about 8 times its VA rating, but that's
still not much (say, 2,500VA). What it could do is reduce
the buck voltage as the load increases above 2,500VA, e.g.
to 10V max at 7,500VA, but that would somewhat mitigate
the object of having the device.

No idea if this is what it actually does.

Looks like you're spot on.

oooer...

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090008997
Probably a Triac feeding that buck winding. Their main worry (rightly!)seems
to be overheating of the core.

Actually, it's not as clever as I guessed. I can think of better
ways to do what they are aiming to do, but I'm not going to give
them ideas for free (except unfortunately the one I already gave
above;-), for them to go and try to patent!

Also, it's a surprisingly poorly produced patent, unnecessarily
restricting it's scope to some of the poorer design decisions,
which means it's likely someone else can fix those and patent a
better design -- that's something you try to avoid when writing
a patent. Maybe the better ways are already patented? (Perhaps
I've been spoilt by having really good patent attorneys, who I
could never afford if I was paying myself.;-)

OTOH, buck/boost regulators have been around for donkey's years
and are commonplace in areas of the world with poor mains
regulation. I'd be surprised if there's much this basic still
left to patent, and wouldn't be surprised if much of this patent
has already been covered by earlier patents and/or prior art.

Myself, I wouldn't have one given.

Me neither. The principle of regulating voltage to save energy
is broken from the off.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
After serious thinking T i m wrote :
Like, Our fridge
and freezer are quite old and therefore probably wouldn't have the
energy saving bits in them.

True, but if they are that old then they were probably designed to work
on 230 -250v. Reduce the voltage to 220v and your risk them not being
able to start at all and burning out the motors.

In general yes. However, domestic fridge and freezer motors are
actually both designed and expected to fail to start on occations,
and include the necessary protection and retry circuitry (even very
old ones).

The washing machine, and dishwasher have
induction motor pumps that may be drawing more current than they need

Motors draw the current they need to do the work. Reduce the voltage
and they draw more current to make up for the decreased voltage.

and become less efficient with more slip.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .


Also, it's a surprisingly poorly produced patent, unnecessarily
restricting it's scope to some of the poorer design decisions,
which means it's likely someone else can fix those and patent a
better design -- that's something you try to avoid when writing
a patent. Maybe the better ways are already patented? (Perhaps
I've been spoilt by having really good patent attorneys, who I
could never afford if I was paying myself.;-)

It is a requirement for a patent to be specific.
If you try and make it too broad you wont be able to enforce it latter.
You couldn't patent the idea of saving money by dropping the mains voltage
for instance.
You could patent the way of dropping the voltage unless its obvious like
using a transformer.


OTOH, buck/boost regulators have been around for donkey's years
and are commonplace in areas of the world with poor mains
regulation. I'd be surprised if there's much this basic still
left to patent, and wouldn't be surprised if much of this patent
has already been covered by earlier patents and/or prior art.

I'm surprised how trivial some patents are..
like dyson putting cyclonic separators in household vacs and getting patents
by copying existing technology.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

None of your tech equipment cares about the voltage and will simply
increase their current draw for the decrease in voltage, so what am I
missing?


Well, that's not true Harry. Anything with a transformer and a linear
regulator is going to use less energy as the mains voltage falls right
down to the point where the dropout voltage in the regulator is reached.
The regulator will then shut down and your tech kit won't be using any
current at all...

IOW Up to a point, for linear regulated power supplies, reduced mains
voltage will reduce unnecessary heat dissipation (and more than likely
prolong the life of the electrolytic caps to boot.)

Dave Osborne was thinking very hard :
Well, that's not true Harry. Anything with a transformer and a linear
regulator is going to use less energy as the mains voltage falls right down
to the point where the dropout voltage in the regulator is reached. The
regulator will then shut down and your tech kit won't be using any current at
all...

IOW Up to a point, for linear regulated power supplies, reduced mains voltage
will reduce unnecessary heat dissipation (and more than likely prolong the
life of the electrolytic caps to boot.)

Agreed, but I can't think of any item of equipment in this house which
is in regular daily use, which still uses a linear regulated PSU. Even
my phone charger is a SMPSU. I do of course have lots of test gear and
lots of home built stuff which uses linear supplies, but these are not
in what I would call regular domestic usage.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:16:19 +0100, Dave Osborne
wrote:

Well, that's not true Harry. Anything with a transformer and a linear
regulator is going to use less energy as the mains voltage falls right
down to the point where the dropout voltage in the regulator is reached.
The regulator will then shut down and your tech kit won't be using any
current at all...

IOW Up to a point, for linear regulated power supplies, reduced mains
voltage will reduce unnecessary heat dissipation (and more than likely
prolong the life of the electrolytic caps to boot.)

I once mistakenly plugged a stage amplifier into a dimmer-controlled
circuit (why a stage lighting outlet was a 13 amp socket rather than a
15 amp is a whole other story of misunderstood building regulations).

It didn't quite let out smoke, but things were getting that way. The
resident electrician explained it quite simply. The power supply had
excellent regulation. As it couldn't get enough volts, it tried to
take too many amps.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:24:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Dave Osborne was thinking very hard :
Well, that's not true Harry. Anything with a transformer and a linear
regulator is going to use less energy as the mains voltage falls right down
to the point where the dropout voltage in the regulator is reached. The
regulator will then shut down and your tech kit won't be using any current at
all...

IOW Up to a point, for linear regulated power supplies, reduced mains voltage
will reduce unnecessary heat dissipation (and more than likely prolong the
life of the electrolytic caps to boot.)

Agreed, but I can't think of any item of equipment in this house which
is in regular daily use, which still uses a linear regulated PSU. Even
my phone charger is a SMPSU. I do of course have lots of test gear and
lots of home built stuff which uses linear supplies, but these are not
in what I would call regular domestic usage.

Much of our background 300W is just that, old linear_heavy_wall-wart
type PSU's for all sorts of kit that is on 24/7, including 6 x DECT
phone PSU's, 4 (of the 5) router / switch / APs, the electric curtain
opener, portable DAB radio / recharger, a SCART to TV UHF modulator
and (3) Kenwood PMR handset / cradles to name but a few. There is
even a Nokia charger that seems to get left in quite a bit and that's
for my 6310i. ;-)

T i m

Would you trust any gadget sold by someone who thinks electricity comes
from a nucula power station?

Andy