|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
#8410 - 09/29/11 01:28 PM
Re: AMPilizer - The Power Optimizer
[Re: Bryan Holland]
|
Secretary
   
Registered: 10/05/04
Posts: 1622
Loc: City of North Port
|
I received this resposne from UL: Bryan, Here is some information that may be useful, see attached article. This type of equipment is typically nothing more than capacitors. Here are two manufactures of similar equipment that have a UL Listing that I am aware of; http://www.kvar.com/1000/Home http://www.power-save.com/1200.html Keep in mind that UL does not evaluate or validate any manufacturer’s claims of energy usage reduction or energy cost reduction due to the use of power factor correction equipment. UL evaluates and Lists power factor correction equipment only for the risks of fire, electric shock, or injury to persons. These units are intended to be installed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70, "National Electrical Code," you may want to visit Article 460. Specifically section 460.8(A) &(C) require both the conductors and disconnect shall not be less than 135 percent of the rated current of the capacitor. Also 460.12 as it requires that each capacitor shall be provided with a nameplate giving the name of the manufacturer, rated voltage, frequency, kilovar or amperes, number of phases, and, if filled with a combustible liquid, the volume of liquid. Where filled with a nonflammable liquid, the nameplate shall so state. The nameplate shall also indicate whether a capacitor has a discharge device inside the case. Hope this helps Jeffrey A. Fecteau CBO, ECO Lead Regulatory Engineer ---------------------------------- Underwriters Laboratories Wyoming, MN. 55092 M: (952) 838-5453 F: (847) 313-3869 W: ul.com
_________________________
Bryan P. Holland, MCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#8418 - 09/30/11 12:24 PM
Re: AMPilizer - The Power Optimizer
[Re: Bryan Holland]
|
Apprentice Member
Registered: 05/30/07
Posts: 47
Loc: Marathon, Florida
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#8419 - 10/01/11 11:10 AM
Re: AMPilizer - The Power Optimizer
[Re: Bryan Holland]
|
Apprentice Member
Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 5
|
Gentlemen,
Give it a rest for a number of reasons:
Investigate a little more into a product before you post your comment and get UL involved. The Ampilizer is backed with an ETL listing which also conforms to the UL 810. But even without the UL 810, The US recognizes ETL. Each box is high pot tested under 2500 volts before it leaves the factory. IF we weren’t allowed to sell this product we would not have been approved to sell it. If you have access to the NEC Handbook hardcover you can learn a little more about capacitors and how important they are under section 460, plus there is a picture of the box opened up.
We have been in the PFC business for many years mostly commercial but we found an industry in residential too. We are helping them as well. If it did not work we wouldn’t have a customer base that we do and we have cities and states that are pushing these products. We have the proper sizing equipment to temporarily introduce capacitance into the system then customize boxes for each individual load. Energy Start had some concerns in the past as well and when we sent them the data they requested they took the “bad press” off their website. You are much smaller than Energy Star I can promise you that.
I understand your concerns about the technical page on Amplilizer’s webpage and that is understandable but we are in the business of sales not confusion. It is hard to describe to people what intrinsic and extrinsic line losses is, voltage drop, reactive current, real current, btu loss, and when we do face to face sales and talk about it, the customer usually just says, “I don’t want to hear that crap!” “Is this going to save me money and if not will you refund it?” The website is designed for leads not sales. You don’t need to make a cringe in the industry because someone didn’t spoon feed it to you.
Now it is common sense not to get FPL involved because if you are driving down any major road and looking up upon their poles and see these banks that are not transformers. Those banks are capacitors designed to free up capacity. Anytime you free up capacity you reduce heat. Heat and light is watts. FPL is in business to sell power and they are a private company. They have more money than you can count, and they will tell you that. FPL won’t tell you this though, our boxes plus the other companies that are in the PFC business, easily found online, are hurting their bottom line.
Again I understand your concerns about the technical page but there are many published documents with formulas that would satisfy even the most educated of you. My goal is not to make you believers but we would like to save you money. Be nice to Danielle she is trying her best. She’s in sales, not in some classroom, and we appreciate her.
Best,
I^2R
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#8442 - 10/04/11 08:43 AM
Re: AMPilizer - The Power Optimizer
[Re: Bryan Holland]
|
Secretary
   
Registered: 10/05/04
Posts: 1622
Loc: City of North Port
|
Here is some REAL math posted on the Mike Holt Forum: I agree with the industry claims that reducing reactive power flow > reduces circulating amps on the wiring > reduces wiring I2R losses. I disagee with claims that wiring I2R losses from excess VAR flow is 10% or more of the bill.
To attempt to validate or illustrate the claims made, here is the calculation backwards:
Known variables from claims or assumed for the excercise:
1: average home electric bill = $150. 2. assumed kwh billing rate = $ .12 3. assumed pfc correction: from .8 to 1.0 , assumption of 20% VAR mitigated by device 4. claimed savings is 10% or $15. monthly
Known constants: 1 month = 720 hours
Claimed savings method: reducing kw = I2R loss by reducing I, current flow from VAR flow
Solve for the unknown variable R, the resistance of the wiring that is causing I2R, conversion of current flow to heat
By dimensional analysis, the customer's electric bill of $150 / month at .12 kwh solves to 1.736 kW average continuous, 7/24. Since this is .8 of kVA. kVA = 2.17 average and KVARs = .434
434 VARs at 240 volts = 1.8 amps flowing, average continouosly. The claim made is this VAR flow can be mitigated (yes) and result in saving 10% on the electric bill (no).
1.8 useless amps are flowing on the customer's wiring. If there were 100% conversion of this flow to heat, the customer would have to pass the 1.8 amps over a suitable resistance to convert this flow to heat. What wiring would be necessary?
434 VARs = I2R, amps = 1.8, solving for R = 133 ohms. From NEC chapter 9, table 9, #12 gauge home wiring has a resistance of 2.0 ohms / thousand feet. To get to 133 ohms, and to convert 434 vars entirely to heat billed as kW, the customer would need 66,000 ft of #12 wire with 1.8 excess amps on it.
If you find such customer, and he has any money left, have him sign something immediately relieving him of his excess capital. Better you get it than FPL
_________________________
Bryan P. Holland, MCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Registered: 03/20/10
Posts: 0
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|