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]

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.

"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...

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]

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

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.

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" 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.

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

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]

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

"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

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.]

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 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.

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

Andy

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

The devices would still need the same amount of power - they would draw
more current at the lower voltage. You would probably get more
transmission losses - there is a reason the national grid transmits at
40,000V - your house wiring would be warmer with the higher current
flowing through it.

How much energy is used to make the damned thing - refining all the
metals and plastics - vs how much it actually saves (which I would guess
is 0 anyway)?

And would you buy something from someone who says "nucyuller"? And
refilling it every month with snake oil would be expensive.

Bob

In message , Bob Smith
writes
Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

The devices would still need the same amount of power - they would draw
more current at the lower voltage. You would probably get more
transmission losses - there is a reason the national grid transmits at
40,000V - your house wiring would be warmer with the higher current
flowing through it.

If the device does what it says on the tin then there would be some
saving. Incandescent lamps would use less power, but would also produce
less light. Most other devices would just draw more current.



--
Bernard Peek

In message , Anthony R. Gold
writes
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:09:16 +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:

In message , Bob Smith
writes
Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

The devices would still need the same amount of power - they would draw
more current at the lower voltage. You would probably get more
transmission losses - there is a reason the national grid transmits at
40,000V - your house wiring would be warmer with the higher current
flowing through it.

If the device does what it says on the tin then there would be some
saving. Incandescent lamps would use less power, but would also produce
less light. Most other devices would just draw more current.

For some unusual value of "most". The theory is that European consumer
devices are designed to operate satisfactorily on 220V and so there is a
power saving opportunity in reducing supplies to that figure. Of course
there will always be some differences in performance. As you say,
incandescent lights will be dimmer and redder. Also electric kettles and
hot water heaters will simply run longer to use roughly the same energy.

As will fridges, freezers and anything else controlled by a thermostat.
That just leaves CFL lamps as possible sources for savings.


--
Bernard Peek

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:34:14 +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:

As will fridges, freezers and anything else controlled by a thermostat.
That just leaves CFL lamps as possible sources for savings.

CFLs are also switched power supplies and pretty independent of supply
voltage. I once saw an incandescent and a CFL on a single lighting cct
with a dimmer switch: the CFL stayed on at the same brightness while the
incandescent got dimmer, until you got to a point where the CFL suddenly
went out.

--
John Stumbles

Pessimists are never disappointed

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:09:16 +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:

In message , Bob Smith
writes
Mark wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8172850.stm

The devices would still need the same amount of power - they would draw
more current at the lower voltage. You would probably get more
transmission losses - there is a reason the national grid transmits at
40,000V - your house wiring would be warmer with the higher current
flowing through it.

If the device does what it says on the tin then there would be some
saving. Incandescent lamps would use less power, but would also produce
less light. Most other devices would just draw more current.

For some unusual value of "most". The theory is that European consumer
devices are designed to operate satisfactorily on 220V and so there is a
power saving opportunity in reducing supplies to that figure. Of course
there will always be some differences in performance. As you say,
incandescent lights will be dimmer and redder.
So what not just fit lower wattage bulbs and have done with it?

Bill