> "CS" <idontw...@fcc.gov> wrote in message > news:13em2lvauie8vfd@corp.supernews.com... > "Politically Incorrect" <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message > news:t5OdnaEbQeOMaXfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com... > >I was going to post something similar regarding a different company which > > sells such a product. Was searching this newsgroup when I ran across this > > thread.
> > First of all, I understand the skepticism. There is far too much nonsense > > out there.But I am surprised at the outright dismissals made without more > > thorough investigation.
> >>So this device will make my coffee taste better? Make a TV run cooler? > >>Allow me to eliminate cooling fans on my computers?
> I'm sorry, but I dont recall making any such claims
The claims you do make are just as silly.
> >>You, sir, are a SCAMMER!
> I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
Don't bother. Doing business with a scammer would only encourage you.
> How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how about I > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
How about you show where an energy savings large enough to show up on a utility bill would come from? We talk science here, not scam.
> Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could assure > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone and > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all your > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
Yep, start moving the goal posts. Why not move them all the way to a group that doesn't know any better?
> You see - trust works two ways. You are a skeptic. Fine. I might be willing > to use you as a test case. Skeptics are the best for that. But I would have > no reason to trust that you would give an honest effort nor an honest > report, given your vested interest in maintaining your position as a know it > all..
Hey, it's Sunday. The goal posts are needed where they are!
> It occurs to me that there is something else you could do. Design an > experiment that would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the test and the > results are honest, and then approach Power-Save or KVAR yourself and run > the experiment in conditions you yourself have dictated. with witnesses. so > no one side could make claims that were not documented.
It occurs to me that you could show, scientifically where your "savings" is coming from. You can't because they don't exist.
> Of course, why would anyone believe what your experiments showed, given that > you have stated you wonder at what's going on in the demos you have seen.
Why would anyone believe a scam artist?
> Offer on the table. Any takers?
No. I didn't take the offer when my brother, and EE, gave me the same offer thirty years ago. It was a scam then and physics, nor apparently scammers, haven't changed one bit since.
> >>Intel would just love to quit worrying about heat holding back the speed > >>of > >>their CPU's. Since this device, according to you, would allow them to do > >>this without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D, why don't > >>you > >>throw your pitch at them?
> >>Because you are full of shit!
> As stated above, I am not making that claim. Nor have I seen such claims > elsewhere. I HAVE read the University of Santa Clara report. Want a copy to > read for yourself?
I've read it. Appeals to (very little) authority don't trump physics.
> >>You are also quite stupid, posting your nonsense to a newsgroup for > >>electrical engineers. I'm not even close to being an actual 'engineer', > >>and > >>even I know what a load of crap you are.
> See the offer above.
> >>Please die.
Indeed the fate wished on all scammers.
> I will, eventually. so will you.
Not soon enough.
> >>CS
> how appropriate, your initials.
How appropriate of a scam artist. Your From: is quite appropriate, as well.
> "CS" <idontw...@fcc.gov> wrote in message > news:13em2lvauie8vfd@corp.supernews.com... > "Politically Incorrect" <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message > news:t5OdnaEbQeOMaXfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com... >>I was going to post something similar regarding a different company which >> sells such a product. Was searching this newsgroup when I ran across this >> thread.
>> First of all, I understand the skepticism. There is far too much nonsense >> out there.But I am surprised at the outright dismissals made without more >> thorough investigation.
>>>So this device will make my coffee taste better? Make a TV run cooler? >>>Allow me to eliminate cooling fans on my computers?
> I'm sorry, but I dont recall making any such claims
You claim to be "surprised at the outright dismissals made without more thorough investigation", as you can see above in your last post. The video clearly explains that it somehow only supplies the power the devices in the home need, and that it's all the 'extra' power they don't need which causes heat. This is the same video and company I dismissed, and as you recall, you were "surprised" I dismissed it outright.
In fact, I did do a bit of research, as indicated in my first post. I was unimpressed by the results.
>>>You, sir, are a SCAMMER!
> I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
> How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how about > I > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
> Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could assure > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone and > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all your > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
That is a perfectly logical scenario, one that is impossible to argue against.
Oh wait, turns out you didn't offer to pay my electric bill. So for me to 'prove' your device doesn't work, I would have to make higher payments on my power bill for three months. However, I have no financial stake in either your sucess or failure, while you do. Turns out that whole paragraph is fluff and BS, which are scammers' favorate tools of the trade.
> You see - trust works two ways. You are a skeptic. Fine. I might be > willing > to use you as a test case. Skeptics are the best for that. But I would > have > no reason to trust that you would give an honest effort nor an honest > report, given your vested interest in maintaining your position as a know > it > all..
Don't claim to know "it all", but I do know bullshit when I smell it, and I know enough about this subject to tell when the bullshit is flowing heavily.
Again, I have no financial interest. I do have an interest in not seeing good folks get taken by scammers. It's called morality.
Also, in this case, trust does NOT work both ways. You are trying to get me to trust you. I, on the other hand, have no interest in getting you to trust me. If you like, call me a liar. It might make you feel better. I have nothing to gain either way.
I expect nobody to take my word as gospel. Folks here are smart enough to decide for themselves what's fact and fiction.
Anybody else can take a gander at the claims of this miracle box saving you money by lowering the power factor. They can also do 10 seconds of research and find that electric companies in the US do NOT charge residential customers extra for power factors. Once they catch you in one lie, they can easily and rightfully assume you are lying about everything else.
> It occurs to me that there is something else you could do. Design an > experiment that would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the test and > the > results are honest, and then approach Power-Save or KVAR yourself and run > the experiment in conditions you yourself have dictated. with witnesses. > so > no one side could make claims that were not documented.
> Of course, why would anyone believe what your experiments showed, given > that > you have stated you wonder at what's going on in the demos you have seen.
I have seen no "demos". That video was a marketing tool, not a scientific study, which is of course the whole point, because a scientific study would show exactly what was in this $300 metal miracle box, which is what, $30 worth of parts?
But hey, I try to be fair, and I'll be fair to you. You were kind enough to post some links, so I'll take a look and we'll see. I'll skip the video link for now.
Basically the home page, though it had one bit that approached the mere concept of honesty.
"Savings on energy will vary by location, amount of inductive equipment, line losses, and how your electric company bills you. Talk to a representative or yourauthorized distritutors for more information."
Basically it's a disclaimer and a link to people who can lie or tell the truth to you, but proves nothing either way.
Several links to pages that supposedly explain how electricity works. First page is a highly technical mess that is certain to confuse those potential customers this product is aimed at. The skeptic in my believes this is the goal, while the soft, fuzzy side of me thinks, well, the same thing. Next page is more mellow, explaining how electricity is generated and used, including a bit of history. Next page is a few pictures showing power lines.
The page after that is a tad more interesting, making the claim:
"Here is how we at KVAR save money and energy with the KVAR Energy Controller (KEC)."
"It is installed anywhere power is consumed and the KEC unit sends the extra UNUSED power back to the power company."
Unused power? After all that technical jargon on the first page? Ok, maybe not a lie, but kind of strange.
Last page has to do with system losses, but doesn't explain much beyond vague, mean-nothing numbers attributed to various vaguely described devices.
Cleaner and Greener Certified, with a logo that shows a little plug on a green background. Somewhere on the logo appears to be writing, but it is unreadable, as the letters are dark green with a light green background, and quite small. A quick Google search came up with http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/, which does indeed certify companies who participate in their program. I did NOT see the same logo on their site, and while they list the companies that are certified, KVAR was NOT on the list. The search function did not work on this site.
NASA tested, with a little NASA logo. While this is on the "certifications" page, to my knowledge NASA does not certify anything. If fairness, it says NASA tested. Ok. So? No doubt they've tested a wide assortment of things, from floor wax to deoderant. What was the result of their "test"? Who cares what they test? They've allowed two space shuttles to explode through their own worthlessness. Hardly the trustworthy organization we knew in the 70's.
Underwriters Laboratory tested, with a UL logo. Again, what were the results of the test? They've tested many things, some of which undoubtedly caught on fire, blew up, or otherwise failed their tests in entertaining ways. Well, to my surprise, some of their products are in fact listed on UL's database. The product, of course, is a Power Factor Correction Capacitor, which is exactly what I described in my first post. Also, on the same page the company is listed on is this disclaimer:
"The appearance of a company's name or product in this database does not in itself assure that products so identified have been manufactured under UL's Follow-Up Service. Only those products bearing the UL Mark should be considered to be Listed and covered under UL's Follow-Up Service. Always look for the Mark on the product."
None of the pictures on KVAR's web site clearly showed a UL Mark, but again I'll be fair, more than fair, and give you the benefit of the doubt. For purposes of this thread, I'll agree that these products are UL listed. So? It probably won't kill you, which is pretty much ALL being UL listed means.
The Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, RoHS for short, with their logo and, real surprise here, an actual link to a PDF document. The surprise I felt was short lived, however, when I clicked on that link and a new page opened up saying "The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." Sure it is. Every other page works just dandy on the site, but this one somehow doesn't. Ok, again with the fairness, somehow one page of this site got messed up, and it's really RoHS compliant. And? All this means is the goo inside the capacitor won't eat your hand off.
CSA, just the logo which, according to Wikipedia, is often forged. Their web site http://www.csa.ca/ is a pure pain in the ass, and I was unable to check whether or not KVAR was legit or not. Seems this organization is more interested in getting visitors to fill out forms and pay money for seminars than actually doing their job. This, of course, is CSA's failing, so KVAR cannot be blamed, so again, to be fair, we'll just say
> "CS" <idontw...@fcc.gov> wrote in message > news:13em2lvauie8vfd@corp.supernews.com... > "Politically Incorrect" <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message > news:t5OdnaEbQeOMaXfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com... > >I was going to post something similar regarding a different company which > > sells such a product. Was searching this newsgroup when I ran across > > this > > thread.
> > First of all, I understand the skepticism. There is far too much > > nonsense > > out there.But I am surprised at the outright dismissals made without > > more > > thorough investigation.
> >>So this device will make my coffee taste better? Make a TV run cooler? > >>Allow me to eliminate cooling fans on my computers?
> I'm sorry, but I dont recall making any such claims
The claims you do make are just as silly.
> >>You, sir, are a SCAMMER!
> I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
Don't bother. Doing business with a scammer would only encourage you.
> How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how about > I > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
How about you show where an energy savings large enough to show up on a utility bill would come from? We talk science here, not scam.
---> http://renaissance-pacific.net/KVAR_OMC_Information.pdf I refer you to page 10 - the NASA testing. You, of course, will immediately dismiss this as a fake. You would not think to research the name of the individual who signed the document, discover he still works for NASA, call him (as I did) and discuss the finding. You, after all, know everything there is and therefore could not be convinced by "science"
> Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could assure > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone and > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all your > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
Yep, start moving the goal posts. Why not move them all the way to a group that doesn't know any better?
---> moving golaposts? if you were as smart as you think you are, you would have noted that a far more effective way to sabatage any such test would be to disconnect the device the next day. sorry, my closed minded friend, but you are blinded by your own prejudice. I refer you to a DOE document http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc60405.pdf
--> us all again just how much science you are using. I never realized that name calling was science.
--> I hear that bread mold might be medicine. souds like a scam to me.
> You see - trust works two ways. You are a skeptic. Fine. I might be > willing > to use you as a test case. Skeptics are the best for that. But I would > have > no reason to trust that you would give an honest effort nor an honest > report, given your vested interest in maintaining your position as a know > it > all..
Hey, it's Sunday. The goal posts are needed where they are!
> It occurs to me that there is something else you could do. Design an > experiment that would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the test and > the > results are honest, and then approach Power-Save or KVAR yourself and run > the experiment in conditions you yourself have dictated. with witnesses. > so > no one side could make claims that were not documented.
It occurs to me that you could show, scientifically where your "savings" is coming from. You can't because they don't exist.
> Of course, why would anyone believe what your experiments showed, given > that > you have stated you wonder at what's going on in the demos you have seen.
Why would anyone believe a scam artist?
> Offer on the table. Any takers?
No. I didn't take the offer when my brother, and EE, gave me the same offer thirty years ago. It was a scam then and physics, nor apparently scammers, haven't changed one bit since.
> >>Intel would just love to quit worrying about heat holding back the speed > >>of > >>their CPU's. Since this device, according to you, would allow them to > >>do > >>this without spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D, why don't > >>you > >>throw your pitch at them?
> >>Because you are full of shit!
> As stated above, I am not making that claim. Nor have I seen such claims > elsewhere. I HAVE read the University of Santa Clara report. Want a copy > to > read for yourself?
I've read it. Appeals to (very little) authority don't trump physics.
> >>You are also quite stupid, posting your nonsense to a newsgroup for > >>electrical engineers. I'm not even close to being an actual 'engineer', > >>and > >>even I know what a load of crap you are.
> See the offer above.
> >>Please die.
Indeed the fate wished on all scammers.
> I will, eventually. so will you.
Not soon enough.
---> unlike you hate filled people, I do not wish the worse for anyone, even people like you.
> >>CS
> how appropriate, your initials.
How appropriate of a scam artist. Your From: is quite appropriate, as well.
> "Salmon Egg" <salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:C310A679.9C677%salmonegg@sbcglobal.net... > On 9/14/07 1:51 PM, in article > t5OdnaEbQeOMaXfbnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@comcast.com, > "Politically Incorrect" <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote:
> > I was going to post something similar regarding a different company > > which > > sells such a product. Was searching this newsgroup when I ran across > > this > > thread.
> > First of all, I understand the skepticism. There is far too much > > nonsense > > out there.But I am surprised at the outright dismissals made without > > more > > thorough investigation.
> > Let me provide a few places people can go to do further research:
> >>I gave up watching and reading at this point. I did watch the videos at > >>this > >>site, and I do believe they are probably accurate and not intended to > >>deceive. Unfortunately, a patent was issued. There is nothing new about > >>the > >>technology being explained.
> >>First, I noticed that the motor had no mechanical load. Thus, the only > >>power > >>getting fed into the motor was that required to make up the mechanical > >>and > >>electrical losses consumed by a motor when it is running at full speed > >>bun > >>not doing anything. Energy saved for such a motor by turning the motor > >>off. > >>An automobile engine idling does no useful work, but you do not > >>ordinarily > >>let it idle between trips.
> >>The technology displayed is over a hundred years old. It is power factor > >>correction obtained by using capacitors. Induction motors, the most > >>widely > >>used type for ac will have a poor (low) power factor when run unloaded. > >>It > >>is this lagging current that is being corrected by adding a capacitor. > >>The > >>loss goes to heating up the conductors. According to the measurement, > >>the > >>device lowered the consumed energy by 3 parts out of 150 (Count the > >>seconds.) If the motor ran at full load, the current measured in the > >>conductors would be, as a guess, about 10A. That would cause several > >>(maybe > >>ten) times as much power to go into heating the copper (You do use > >>copper, > >>don't you?) conductors than the uncorrected unloaded motor.
> Given what little I know about electricy and electrical mechanical motors, > I > can't say.
Yout you insist on selling crap to the unsuspecting? You are a criminal!
> Got a question for you, though. Let us assume that the testimonials are > true, that the published electric bills are true and not fabricated. If > the > only change was the addition of the power reducer units, what would a > reasonable conclusion be?
The assumption is false, therefor the conclusion is meaningless. The only meaningful conclusion is that you're a crook.
--> not that the manufactuer has klew about marketing, proper documentation of references, etc. but on the other hand, you apparently are ot familiar with any of the research done by DOE and others regarding power factors, inductive loads, etc. sorry, but I have been busy reading, checking out references and detemining that this tehnology REALLY DOES work.
--> have there been scams in the past? absolutely. are there scams now? sure seems like those asian devices I see on youtube are scams. but I am also seeing far too many real people and operations saving money.
--> you can continue to rant and claim the folks a NASA are liars, and the folks at Honeywell are liars, and those whose electric bills are displayed at various sources are liars, or that all the evidence is made up. OR you could do a little work, and maybe learn something. not that I think you will, because, after all, you know everything already.
> ttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/power_factor.pdf - > note the placement of capacitors to optimize energy usage and draws.
Did you even read that document? It is for an industrial customer who is billed for poor power factor. Also, the caps are placed at the motor control centers, pretty darn close to the motors. Your device is to be placed near the meterbase for a residential customer. That would provide almost NO energy savings. The energy savings from a capacitor (assuming a load with poor displacement power factor) occurs by reducing the current in the wire from the location of the capacitor back to the metering point. There are no savings in the wire from the capacitor to the motor since the current level does not change (other than a very slight change possible due to increased local voltage in some cases).
Why have you not responded to any of my posts regarding real testing?
> > I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
> Don't bother. Doing business with a scammer would only encourage > you.
> > How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how about > > I > > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
> How about you show where an energy savings large enough to show up on > a utility bill would come from? We talk science here, not scam.
> ---> http://renaissance-pacific.net/KVAR_OMC_Information.pdf > I refer you to page 10 - the NASA testing. You, of course, will immediately > dismiss this as a fake. You would not think to research the name of the > individual who signed the document, discover he still works for NASA, call > him (as I did) and discuss the finding. You, after all, know everything > there is and therefore could not be convinced by "science"
You can't even read your own scam. Hell, you can't even get a news client set up properly (even Outhouse Excess takes work to screw up that badly). Or perhaps being the scammer you are, you're intentionally trying to obfuscate. Nah, a *crook* wouldn't do that, would he?
> > Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could assure > > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone and > > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all your > > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
> Yep, start moving the goal posts. Why not move them all the way to a > group that doesn't know any better?
> ---> moving golaposts? if you were as smart as you think you are, you would > have noted that a far more effective way to sabatage any such test would be > to disconnect the device the next day. sorry, my closed minded friend, but > you are blinded by your own prejudice. I refer you to a DOE document > http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc60405.pdf
You're not even a half-smart scammer. All I'd have to do to defraud you would be to leave my oven on for the month. I don't need to result to fraud to make you look bad. Science does that rather nicely for me. (BTW, I note that you can't even use a speel cheker).
Yes, I am rather closed minded about fraud. I've never met one I liked. You are no different.
> note the placement of capacitors to optimize energy usage and draws.
You stupid fraud, residential customers aren't charged for displacement current, even if your scam did something, which it doesn't.
> --> us all again just how much science you are using. I never realized that > name calling was science.
Fraud isn't either. You are a fraud and should be hung by your toes in the public square.
> --> I hear that bread mold might be medicine. souds like a scam to me.
There is some pretty sound science behind "bread mold". The science behind electricity is pretty well known. The science behind your capacitors has also been pretty well known for quite some time. Amazingly, this scam has been around at least thirty years. I suppose there is a new generation of stupid people. Even the Nigerian scam lives, so you may have a shot at the big time in a group that doesn't know any better.
<learn to snip, while you're learning about the Usenet thing>
> > >>Please die.
> Indeed the fate wished on all scammers.
> > I will, eventually. so will you.
> Not soon enough.
> ---> unlike you hate filled people, I do not wish the worse for anyone, even > people like you.
Hate Frauds? No, not really, I just want you to die an excruciating death. ...as soon as possible. It's the just reward for scammers and spammers, in general.
<do learn to snip, while you learn to set up your newsreader, while you learn some morals. Some engineering knowledge might help too.>
> > Got a question for you, though. Let us assume that the testimonials are > > true, that the published electric bills are true and not fabricated. If > > the > > only change was the addition of the power reducer units, what would a > > reasonable conclusion be?
> The assumption is false, therefor the conclusion is meaningless. The > only meaningful conclusion is that you're a crook.
> --> not that the manufactuer has klew about marketing, proper documentation > of references, etc. but on the other hand, you apparently are ot familiar > with any of the research done by DOE and others regarding power factors, > inductive loads, etc. sorry, but I have been busy reading, checking out > references and detemining that this tehnology REALLY DOES work.
I am quite familiar with PF. ...enough to know this fraud from a million miles away. You've been told *many* times why it doesn't/can't work, yet you insist on continuing your fraud.
> --> have there been scams in the past? absolutely. are there scams now? sure > seems like those asian devices I see on youtube are scams. but I am also > seeing far too many real people and operations saving money.
*THIS* exact scam, in fact. You certainly are bold in your fraud.
> --> you can continue to rant and claim the folks a NASA are liars, and the > folks at Honeywell are liars, and those whose electric bills are displayed > at various sources are liars, or that all the evidence is made up. OR you > could do a little work, and maybe learn something. not that I think you > will, because, after all, you know everything already.
No rant. I'm simply calling you what you are; a FRAUD. I'm not the one who has to do work. I know how PF works. I also know that residential customers aren't charged for displacement current.
I defer the discussion of whether or not the devices have any usefulness to the average consumer (I'm quite sure that they don't), and instead point out the lack of professionalism of the average "Professional Electrical Contractor" as evidenced in:
Since the above posts show clearly that the average electrician will install such devices, probably without clearly informing their customer of their uselessness, it is no wonder that such scams continue to be perpetrated upon the public.
It seems, from my point of view, that the "professionals" a consumer would employ to install such a device (not the engineers to who I am speaking here) are scamming the public just as the sellers are.
So perhaps the real engineers here should be warning those who travel this way in search of more information, that both the sellers and the contractors will be very happy to take your money. Professionals? Phooey!!!
news:1190496750.744134.171340@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... I defer the discussion of whether or not the devices have any usefulness to the average consumer (I'm quite sure that they don't), and instead point out the lack of professionalism of the average "Professional Electrical Contractor" as evidenced in:
Since the above posts show clearly that the average electrician will install such devices, probably without clearly informing their customer of their uselessness, it is no wonder that such scams continue to be perpetrated upon the public.
It seems, from my point of view, that the "professionals" a consumer would employ to install such a device (not the engineers to who I am speaking here) are scamming the public just as the sellers are.
So perhaps the real engineers here should be warning those who travel this way in search of more information, that both the sellers and the contractors will be very happy to take your money. Professionals? Phooey!!! ----------------------------------
I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the concept, how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of post)
Now, folks like you, who think you know everything about something, apparently have done no research at all, and yet here you are, loudly proclaiming this a scam, despite the research by NASA, the Department of Energy, the University of Illinois, and many others.
First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to the research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves and ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will tell you that.
You COULD read up on reactive power. OR you can continue to be jackasses, braying and hee hawing and kicking up at something that "seems" to you to be a fraud even though you have done no research in the matter. I suggest it is YOU who are the fraud.
> ttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/power_factor.pdf - > note the placement of capacitors to optimize energy usage and draws.
Did you even read that document? It is for an industrial customer who is billed for poor power factor. Also, the caps are placed at the motor control centers, pretty darn close to the motors. Your device is to be placed near the meterbase for a residential customer. That would provide almost NO energy savings. The energy savings from a capacitor (assuming a load with poor displacement power factor) occurs by reducing the current in the wire from the location of the capacitor back to the metering point. There are no savings in the wire from the capacitor to the motor since the current level does not change (other than a very slight change possible due to increased local voltage in some cases).
Why have you not responded to any of my posts regarding real testing?
Charles Perry P.E.
---------------------------
I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the concept, how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of post)
Now, folks like you, who think you know everything about something, apparently have done no research at all, and yet here you are, loudly proclaiming this a scam, despite the research by NASA, the Department of Energy, the University of Illinois, and many others.
First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to the research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves and ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will tell you that.
You COULD read up on reactive power. OR you can continue to be jackasses, braying and hee hawing and kicking up at something that "seems" to you to be a fraud even though you have done no research in the matter. I suggest it is YOU who are the fraud.
> > I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
> Don't bother. Doing business with a scammer would only encourage > you.
> > How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how > > about > > I > > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
> How about you show where an energy savings large enough to show up on > a utility bill would come from? We talk science here, not scam.
> ---> http://renaissance-pacific.net/KVAR_OMC_Information.pdf > I refer you to page 10 - the NASA testing. You, of course, will > immediately > dismiss this as a fake. You would not think to research the name of the > individual who signed the document, discover he still works for NASA, call > him (as I did) and discuss the finding. You, after all, know everything > there is and therefore could not be convinced by "science"
You can't even read your own scam. Hell, you can't even get a news client set up properly (even Outhouse Excess takes work to screw up that badly). Or perhaps being the scammer you are, you're intentionally trying to obfuscate. Nah, a *crook* wouldn't do that, would he?
> > Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could > > assure > > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone > > and > > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all > > your > > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
> Yep, start moving the goal posts. Why not move them all the way to a > group that doesn't know any better?
> ---> moving golaposts? if you were as smart as you think you are, you > would > have noted that a far more effective way to sabatage any such test would > be > to disconnect the device the next day. sorry, my closed minded friend, but > you are blinded by your own prejudice. I refer you to a DOE document > http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc60405.pdf
You're not even a half-smart scammer. All I'd have to do to defraud you would be to leave my oven on for the month. I don't need to result to fraud to make you look bad. Science does that rather nicely for me. (BTW, I note that you can't even use a speel cheker).
Yes, I am rather closed minded about fraud. I've never met one I liked. You are no different.
> note the placement of capacitors to optimize energy usage and draws.
You stupid fraud, residential customers aren't charged for displacement current, even if your scam did something, which it doesn't.
> --> us all again just how much science you are using. I never realized > that > name calling was science.
Fraud isn't either. You are a fraud and should be hung by your toes in the public square.
> --> I hear that bread mold might be medicine. souds like a scam to me.
There is some pretty sound science behind "bread mold". The science behind electricity is pretty well known. The science behind your capacitors has also been pretty well known for quite some time. Amazingly, this scam has been around at least thirty years. I suppose there is a new generation of stupid people. Even the Nigerian scam lives, so you may have a shot at the big time in a group that doesn't know any better.
<learn to snip, while you're learning about the Usenet thing>
> > >>Please die.
> Indeed the fate wished on all scammers.
> > I will, eventually. so will you.
> Not soon enough.
> ---> unlike you hate filled people, I do not wish the worse for anyone, > even > people like you.
Hate Frauds? No, not really, I just want you to die an excruciating death. ...as soon as possible. It's the just reward for scammers and spammers, in general.
<do learn to snip, while you learn to set up your newsreader, while you learn some morals. Some engineering knowledge might help too.>
-- Keith
----------------------
I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the concept, how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of post)
Now, folks like you, who think you know everything about something, apparently have done no research at all, and yet here you are, loudly proclaiming this a scam, despite the research by NASA, the Department of Energy, the University of Illinois, and many others.
First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to the research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves and ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will tell you that.
You COULD read up on reactive power. OR you can continue to be jackasses, braying and hee hawing and kicking up at something that "seems" to you to be a fraud even though you have done no research in the matter. I suggest it is YOU who are the fraud.
> > Got a question for you, though. Let us assume that the testimonials are > > true, that the published electric bills are true and not fabricated. If > > the > > only change was the addition of the power reducer units, what would a > > reasonable conclusion be?
> The assumption is false, therefor the conclusion is meaningless. The > only meaningful conclusion is that you're a crook.
> --> not that the manufactuer has klew about marketing, proper > documentation > of references, etc. but on the other hand, you apparently are ot familiar > with any of the research done by DOE and others regarding power factors, > inductive loads, etc. sorry, but I have been busy reading, checking out > references and detemining that this tehnology REALLY DOES work.
I am quite familiar with PF. ...enough to know this fraud from a million miles away. You've been told *many* times why it doesn't/can't work, yet you insist on continuing your fraud.
> --> have there been scams in the past? absolutely. are there scams now? > sure > seems like those asian devices I see on youtube are scams. but I am also > seeing far too many real people and operations saving money.
*THIS* exact scam, in fact. You certainly are bold in your fraud.
> --> you can continue to rant and claim the folks a NASA are liars, and the > folks at Honeywell are liars, and those whose electric bills are displayed > at various sources are liars, or that all the evidence is made up. OR you > could do a little work, and maybe learn something. not that I think you > will, because, after all, you know everything already.
No rant. I'm simply calling you what you are; a FRAUD. I'm not the one who has to do work. I know how PF works. I also know that residential customers aren't charged for displacement current.
-- Keith
--------
I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the concept, how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of post)
Now, folks like you, who think you know everything about something, apparently have done no research at all, and yet here you are, loudly proclaiming this a scam, despite the research by NASA, the Department of Energy, the University of Illinois, and many others.
First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to the research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves and ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will tell you that.
You COULD read up on reactive power. OR you can continue to be jackasses, braying and hee hawing and kicking up at something that "seems" to you to be a fraud even though you have done no research in the matter. I suggest it is YOU who are the fraud.
> "CS" <idontw...@fcc.gov> wrote in message > news:13em2lvauie8vfd@corp.supernews.com... > "Politically Incorrect" <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote in message > news:t5OdnaEbQeOMaXfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com... >>I was going to post something similar regarding a different company which >> sells such a product. Was searching this newsgroup when I ran across this >> thread.
>> First of all, I understand the skepticism. There is far too much nonsense >> out there.But I am surprised at the outright dismissals made without more >> thorough investigation.
>>>So this device will make my coffee taste better? Make a TV run cooler? >>>Allow me to eliminate cooling fans on my computers?
> I'm sorry, but I dont recall making any such claims
You claim to be "surprised at the outright dismissals made without more thorough investigation", as you can see above in your last post. The video clearly explains that it somehow only supplies the power the devices in the home need, and that it's all the 'extra' power they don't need which causes heat. This is the same video and company I dismissed, and as you recall, you were "surprised" I dismissed it outright.
In fact, I did do a bit of research, as indicated in my first post. I was unimpressed by the results.
>>>You, sir, are a SCAMMER!
> I'll make you the same offer I made the other guy.
> How about I place one of these units in your home, 90 day, free? how about > I > pay for the installation? how about after ninety days we review your > electric bills and see what if any savings you experience?
> Wait a minute... I can think of a couple of ways in which you could assure > that this experiment would fail. Then you could come back to everyone and > say "see - I told you it was a scam" - that after having moved over to a > friend's place and running all your lights and all your HVAC and all your > appliances 24/7 to dramatically increase your usage?
That is a perfectly logical scenario, one that is impossible to argue against.
Oh wait, turns out you didn't offer to pay my electric bill. So for me to 'prove' your device doesn't work, I would have to make higher payments on my power bill for three months. However, I have no financial stake in either your sucess or failure, while you do. Turns out that whole paragraph is fluff and BS, which are scammers' favorate tools of the trade.
> You see - trust works two ways. You are a skeptic. Fine. I might be > willing > to use you as a test case. Skeptics are the best for that. But I would > have > no reason to trust that you would give an honest effort nor an honest > report, given your vested interest in maintaining your position as a know > it > all..
Don't claim to know "it all", but I do know bullshit when I smell it, and I know enough about this subject to tell when the bullshit is flowing heavily.
Again, I have no financial interest. I do have an interest in not seeing good folks get taken by scammers. It's called morality.
Also, in this case, trust does NOT work both ways. You are trying to get me to trust you. I, on the other hand, have no interest in getting you to trust me. If you like, call me a liar. It might make you feel better. I have nothing to gain either way.
I expect nobody to take my word as gospel. Folks here are smart enough to decide for themselves what's fact and fiction.
Anybody else can take a gander at the claims of this miracle box saving you money by lowering the power factor. They can also do 10 seconds of research and find that electric companies in the US do NOT charge residential customers extra for power factors. Once they catch you in one lie, they can easily and rightfully assume you are lying about everything else.
> It occurs to me that there is something else you could do. Design an > experiment that would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the test and > the > results are honest, and then approach Power-Save or KVAR yourself and run > the experiment in conditions you yourself have dictated. with witnesses. > so > no one side could make claims that were not documented.
> Of course, why would anyone believe what your experiments showed, given > that > you have stated you wonder at what's going on in the demos you have seen.
I have seen no "demos". That video was a marketing tool, not a scientific study, which is of course the whole point, because a scientific study would show exactly what was in this $300 metal miracle box, which is what, $30 worth of parts?
But hey, I try to be fair, and I'll be fair to you. You were kind enough to post some links, so I'll take a look and we'll see. I'll skip the video link for now.
Basically the home page, though it had one bit that approached the mere concept of honesty.
"Savings on energy will vary by location, amount of inductive equipment, line losses, and how your electric company bills you. Talk to a representative or yourauthorized distritutors for more information."
Basically it's a disclaimer and a link to people who can lie or tell the truth to you, but proves nothing either way.
Several links to pages that supposedly explain how electricity works. First page is a highly technical mess that is certain to confuse those potential customers this product is aimed at. The skeptic in my believes this is the goal, while the soft, fuzzy side of me thinks, well, the same thing. Next page is more mellow, explaining how electricity is generated and used, including a bit of history. Next page is a few pictures showing power lines.
The page after that is a tad more interesting, making the claim:
"Here is how we at KVAR save money and energy with the KVAR Energy Controller (KEC)."
"It is installed anywhere power is consumed and the KEC unit sends the extra UNUSED power back to the power company."
Unused power? After all that technical jargon on the first page? Ok, maybe not a lie, but kind of strange.
Last page has to do with system losses, but doesn't explain much beyond vague, mean-nothing numbers attributed to various vaguely described devices.
Cleaner and Greener Certified, with a logo that shows a little plug on a green background. Somewhere on the logo appears to be writing, but it is unreadable, as the letters are dark green with a light green background, and quite small. A quick Google search came up with http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/, which does indeed certify companies who participate in their program. I did NOT see the same logo on their site, and while they list the companies that are certified, KVAR was NOT on the list. The search function did not work on this site.
NASA tested, with a little NASA logo. While this is on the "certifications" page, to my knowledge NASA does not certify anything. If fairness, it says NASA tested. Ok. So? No doubt they've tested a wide assortment of things, from floor wax to deoderant. What was the result of their "test"? Who cares what they test? They've allowed two space shuttles to explode through their own worthlessness. Hardly the trustworthy organization we knew in the 70's.
Underwriters Laboratory tested, with a UL logo. Again, what were the results of the test? They've tested many things, some of which undoubtedly caught on fire, blew up, or otherwise failed their tests in entertaining ways. Well, to my surprise, some of their products are in fact listed on UL's database. The product, of course, is a Power Factor Correction Capacitor, which is exactly what I described in my first post. Also, on the same page the company is listed on is this disclaimer:
"The appearance of a company's name or product in this database does not in itself assure that products so identified have been manufactured under UL's Follow-Up Service. Only those products bearing the UL Mark should be considered to be Listed and covered under UL's Follow-Up Service. Always look for the Mark on the product."
None of the pictures on KVAR's web site clearly showed a UL Mark, but again I'll be fair, more than fair, and give you the benefit of the doubt. For purposes of this thread, I'll agree that these products are UL listed. So? It probably won't kill you, which is pretty much ALL being UL listed means.
The Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, RoHS for short, with their logo and, real surprise here, an actual link to a PDF document. The surprise I felt was short lived, however, when I clicked on that link and a new page opened up saying "The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." Sure it is. Every other page works just dandy on the site, but this one somehow doesn't. Ok, again with the fairness, somehow one page of this site got messed up, and it's really RoHS compliant. And? All this means is the goo inside the capacitor won't eat your hand off.
CSA, just the logo which, according to Wikipedia, is often forged. Their web site http://www.csa.ca/ is a pure pain in the ass, and I was unable to check whether or not KVAR was legit or not. Seems this organization is more interested in getting visitors to fill out forms and pay money for seminars than actually doing their job. This, of course, is CSA's failing, so KVAR cannot be blamed, so again, to be fair, we'll just say that,
In article <U7udnVK8-PelyGfbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqn...@comcast.com>, Politically Incorrect <billma...@tastelessjokes.org> wrote:
> The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and > reactive power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search > using the terms "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information > explaining the concept, how it works, and how power is optimized by the > placement of capacitors in electrical systems where there is inductive > load. (a few links at end of post)
When I first joined the BBC back in 1970, there were some old Marconi SWB18, 100kW shortwave transmitters at Daventry, which had been installed pre-war.
When they were installed, if you wanted DC, apart from the six phase, steel tank Mercury arc rectifiers (11kV and 12A DC to the push-pull, class C, final RF valves) you used motor-generator sets.
The ones for the valve filaments could produce 20V (pure Tungsten filaments) at up to 2000A. [1] The two levels of grid bias were produced with a smaller set which had one AC motor and a dynamo at each end.
When you turned on the MG sets you also operated an OCB (manually) which connected the PFC capacitor. This capacitor was about 4 feet x 2 feet and 7 feet high.
Power factor correction of inductive loads using capacitors was well known back in the late 30s
Stuart
[1] By the time I arrived the pure Tungsten filament valves had been replaced with valves having Thioriated Tungsten filaments requiring less volts and current
-- Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
>> tp://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/power_factor.pdf - >> note the placement of capacitors to optimize energy usage and draws.
> Did you even read that document? It is for an industrial customer who is > billed for poor power factor. Also, the caps are placed at the motor > control centers, pretty darn close to the motors. Your device is to be > placed near the meterbase for a residential customer. That would provide > almost NO energy savings. The energy savings from a capacitor (assuming a > load with poor displacement power factor) occurs by reducing the current > in > the wire from the location of the capacitor back to the metering point. > There are no savings in the wire from the capacitor to the motor since the > current level does not change (other than a very slight change possible > due > to increased local voltage in some cases).
> Why have you not responded to any of my posts regarding real testing?
> Charles Perry P.E.
> ---------------------------
> I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I > have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who > think > they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about > something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
> The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive > power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms > "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the > concept, > how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in > electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of > post)
> First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to > the > research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what > the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with > inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves > and > ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent > lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is > where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will > tell you that.
Again you miss the whole point. Caps supply the reactive power to motors so the power system does not. However, to get savings on your bill, the cap has to be as close to the motor as possible. You only get savings in the wire to the cap. downstream of the cap you do not get savings. Very simple. I suggest you get a text book on power systems analysis. You might learn something. You keep avoiding the real questions and throwing smoke screens, like a true charlaton.
Judging from your posts, my dog knows more about power factor correction than you do. I know I do having spent the last 20 years doing research and consulting in power systems analysis.
In article <gPOdnVBolK3LyGfbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhn...@comcast.com>, billma...@tastelessjokes.org says...
<everything snipped because I have little time for obfuscating frauds>
> I've been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it. In that time I > have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think > they know what they are talking about, and people who know something about > something and therefore think that they know everything about everything.
You're a damned liar, on top of being a fraud. If you'd "been on the Internet since before Al Gore invented it" you would know how to set up a newsreader and know something about Usnet etiquette. You're not only a fraud but a liar, as well.
> The fact is, that there has been research in inductive motors and reactive > power going back 25 years at least. A simple Google search using the terms > "reactive power" will turn up plenty of information explaining the concept, > how it works, and how power is optimized by the placement of capacitors in > electrical systems where there is inductive load. (a few links at end of > post)
The fact is that you are a fraud and should be strung up in public, perhaps stoned.
> Now, folks like you, who think you know everything about something, > apparently have done no research at all, and yet here you are, loudly > proclaiming this a scam, despite the research by NASA, the Department of > Energy, the University of Illinois, and many others.
Folks like me *know* you're a scum-sucking fraud, worse than magic elixir peddlers.
> First off, do some research. Start reading and educate yourselves as to the > research and what is being claimed and how these devices work. Learn what > the claims are, and learn what is not claimed. These devices work with > inductive motors. They do no work with television sets, electric stoves and > ovens, incandescent lights (and have little if any effect with fluorescent > lighting ), toasters, etc. The DO work with electric motors. And THAT is > where the power reduction and savings come from. Reading the research will > tell you that.
First off, read a little about engineering. What you are selling *CANNOT* save significant money. It cannot do *ANYTHING* the way it's intended to be installed. It is a total *FRAUD*.
> You COULD read up on reactive power. OR you can continue to be jackasses, > braying and hee hawing and kicking up at something that "seems" to you to be > a fraud even though you have done no research in the matter. I suggest it is > YOU who are the fraud.
I know what reactive power is. I don't need to "read up" on it. As you have been told many times (though refuse to listen) residences do not pay for reactive power, only the real. Any *minute* savings would be from heating of wires in the home. Since your *fraudulent* product attaches to the entrance, it'll only save on (reactive I)*R loss of the foot or so of cable from the entrance panel to the meter; hardly worth the price of your fraud.
In article <8q2dnZ90wd3tyGfbnZ2dneKdnZydn...@comcast.com>, billma...@tastelessjokes.org says...
<everything snipped>
> have run into people who know what they are talking about, people who think
<here too>
I see you know how to send canned responses, fraud.
Perhaps everyone reading this fraud should start reporting him to his ISP as a fraud and Internet abuser. It won't stop him from scamming little old ladies but perhaps it'll get him TOSsed.
|
