Electric Energy Economizer !!

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <slrnc03fsa.go1.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:21 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

Why don't you draw yourself an ac circuit with a resistor and an inductor in
it and calculate VA, watts and VAR. If you use ideal transmission
lines you will find no wasted power but plenty of imaginary power.

....never seen an ideal transmission line, nor ideal generator. Where
do I buy one?

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.engr.electrical.compliance that Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote (in <MPG.1a6c6ceabf780a93989b64@enews.newsguy.
com&gt about 'Electric Energy Economizer !!', on Mon, 12 Jan 2004:

...never seen an ideal transmission line, nor ideal generator. Where
do I buy one?

http://www.ideal.idea-l.I_deal.con

The prices have been reduced; they are now only $aleph-null each, in
1000 quantities.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6c6ceabf780a93989b64@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <slrnc03fsa.go1.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:21 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net
wrote:

Why don't you draw yourself an ac circuit with a resistor and an
inductor in
it and calculate VA, watts and VAR. If you use ideal transmission
lines you will find no wasted power but plenty of imaginary power.

...never seen an ideal transmission line, nor ideal generator. Where
do I buy one?

--
Keith

Maybe it's imaginary.

Ken

 

[jk]

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

In article <slrnc03fsa.go1.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:21 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

Why don't you draw yourself an ac circuit with a resistor and an inductor in
it and calculate VA, watts and VAR. If you use ideal transmission
lines you will find no wasted power but plenty of imaginary power.

...never seen an ideal transmission line, nor ideal generator. Where
do I buy one?

Why at Ideal Electric Supply, of course.

http://www.idealelectricco.com/

Or Ideal Industries
http://www.idealindustries.com/

>

jk

 

[Fred Marshall]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6b6e1cc211489098aab2@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <GB6Mb.3635$1e.2645@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
beasleys@teleport.com says...

Keith,

Your posts would be more credible if you didn't say things like:

"current must be dissipated" - only power is dissipated.

"currrent must be wasted" - ditto.

Fred

 

[Isaac]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:38:09 -0800, Fred Marshall
<fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote:

Keith,

Your posts would be more credible if you didn't say things like:

"current must be dissipated" - only power is dissipated.

"currrent must be wasted" - ditto.

More credible, and a heck of a lot shorter to boot.

Isaac

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <tj2600hckfp1vssj16m3kolf7okkliq8pb@4ax.com>,
klessig@cox.net says...

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

In article <slrnc03fsa.go1.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:21 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

Why don't you draw yourself an ac circuit with a resistor and an inductor in
it and calculate VA, watts and VAR. If you use ideal transmission
lines you will find no wasted power but plenty of imaginary power.

...never seen an ideal transmission line, nor ideal generator. Where
do I buy one?

Why at Ideal Electric Supply, of course.

Yeah. I asked for that one. ;-)

http://www.idealelectricco.com/

Or Ideal Industries
http://www.idealindustries.com/

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <ErydnZL7LYKc0Z7dRVn-hA@centurytel.net>,
fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6b6e1cc211489098aab2@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <GB6Mb.3635$1e.2645@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
beasleys@teleport.com says...


Keith,

Your posts would be more credible if you didn't say things like:

"current must be dissipated" - only power is dissipated.

The current *is* the problem. If it would make your ass feel
better: The excess current caused bay the piss-poor power factor
passing through a real network will cause the wires to *heat*
more than normal. ENERGY IS WASTED! ...feel better now wus!

It's the excess *current* (of course you can do a Norton and make
it the excess voltage, I suppose) required by the generator
*THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK* to drive the given load that
causes the problem.

"currrent must be wasted" - ditto.

Current is being generated that isn't being used (sold). Isn't
that waste? Are you dense, or what?

--
Keith

 

[R.Lewis]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6d2d402a35999d98aabf@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <ErydnZL7LYKc0Z7dRVn-hA@centurytel.net>,
fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6b6e1cc211489098aab2@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <GB6Mb.3635$1e.2645@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
beasleys@teleport.com says...


Keith,

Your posts would be more credible if you didn't say things like:

"current must be dissipated" - only power is dissipated.

The current *is* the problem. If it would make your ass feel
better: The excess current caused bay the piss-poor power factor
passing through a real network will cause the wires to *heat*
more than normal. ENERGY IS WASTED! ...feel better now wus!

It's the excess *current* (of course you can do a Norton and make
it the excess voltage, I suppose) required by the generator
*THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK* to drive the given load that
causes the problem.

"currrent must be wasted" - ditto.

Current is being generated that isn't being used (sold).

Where does this current go then?



Isn't that waste? Are you dense, or what?

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bu1evp$dkn$1@thorium.cix.co.uk>, "R.Lewis" <h.lewis-not
this bit-@connect-2.co.uk> says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6d2d402a35999d98aabf@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <ErydnZL7LYKc0Z7dRVn-hA@centurytel.net>,
fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6b6e1cc211489098aab2@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <GB6Mb.3635$1e.2645@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
beasleys@teleport.com says...


Keith,

Your posts would be more credible if you didn't say things like:

"current must be dissipated" - only power is dissipated.

The current *is* the problem. If it would make your ass feel
better: The excess current caused bay the piss-poor power factor
passing through a real network will cause the wires to *heat*
more than normal. ENERGY IS WASTED! ...feel better now wus!

It's the excess *current* (of course you can do a Norton and make
it the excess voltage, I suppose) required by the generator
*THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK* to drive the given load that
causes the problem.

"currrent must be wasted" - ditto.

Current is being generated that isn't being used (sold).


Where does this current go then?

It's phase angle at the load is such that the current isn't useful to
the customer, however the power company still has to transmit the total
current.

Put a one-ohm resistor in the transmission line and figure out what the
dissipation is. You'll see the power dissipated by the in-line
resistor is proportional to the (vector) current in the line, where the
power dissipated in the load is ~COS(theta).

Isn't that waste? Are you dense, or what?

It certainly is a waste. No. Are you thick as a brick? Please note
that power companies don't like whacked PF, for exactly this reason.
They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

--
Keith

 

[Isaac]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:15:09 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

This statement is complete nonsense. Power companies eat the cost of
generating watt-hours. But some of those watt-hours are dissipated
during transmission while others are consumed on the load side of
consumer power meters and are thus metered.

The energy consumed by the utility company is NOT proportional
to the VAH generated so saying that the utility company is paying for
VAH is just false. You could see that yourself by doing a some sample
calculations.

Isaac

 

[Peter]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:32:59 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:15:09 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

This statement is complete nonsense. Power companies eat the cost of
generating watt-hours. But some of those watt-hours are dissipated
during transmission while others are consumed on the load side of
consumer power meters and are thus metered.

The energy consumed by the utility company is NOT proportional
to the VAH generated so saying that the utility company is paying for
VAH is just false. You could see that yourself by doing a some sample
calculations.

It depends on what usual residential power factor is. I am used to

230/400 volt systems serving tens of houses per transformer with very
little air conditioning load. Power factor was unity at peak loads
and we designed the distribution network on that basis.

There was one city with no gas and open fires discouraged which was
awash in surplus MVAr's because of almost unity residential power
factor and the capacitance of its extensive 66kV and 11kV cable
networks.

 

[daestrom]

"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:slrnc09e3b.7m.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org...

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:15:09 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net
wrote:

They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

This statement is complete nonsense. Power companies eat the cost of
generating watt-hours. But some of those watt-hours are dissipated
during transmission while others are consumed on the load side of
consumer power meters and are thus metered.

What you say is true as far as you go.

But another aspect of it is the utility must buy equipment rated for the MVA
while only the MW portion of the apparent power generates revenue (in most
cases). So they also have a larger capital outlay for this 'oversized'
equipment that has to be funded. They wouldn't need larger equipment if
they were able to have only unity loads. This goes into the considerations
for pf correction at load-centers/substations instead of supplying the
MVAR's from generating stations. (pf correct at load-end, or upsize
transmission *to* the load-end by 20-40%).

daestrom

 

[Peter Dettmann]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:32:59 GMT, Isaac
<isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:15:09 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

This statement is complete nonsense. Power companies eat the cost of
generating watt-hours. But some of those watt-hours are dissipated
during transmission while others are consumed on the load side of
consumer power meters and are thus metered.

The energy consumed by the utility company is NOT proportional
to the VAH generated so saying that the utility company is paying for
VAH is just false. You could see that yourself by doing a some sample
calculations.

Isaac

Isaac you first need to do your own calculations. The utility has to
generate and supply, and have amp capacity in excess of what they need
to just supply the amps necessary to produce the real power. Not
forgetting that it is the real power that is being paid for by the
customer. There is of course an actual increase in the losses in
power lines and transformers which waste more heat than otherwise
needed due to the higher line current due to the vars presence.
OK now who pays for this unnecessy enery loss? Basically it must be
the customer loaded with higher cost per watt-Hour whether he was the
cause of increase or not. In some cases metering is done to assess
vars to a individual consumers and they pay accordingly.

Peter Dettmann

 

[Isaac]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:23:49 GMT, Peter Dettmann <peter@aardvark.net.au>
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:32:59 GMT, Isaac
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:15:09 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

They eat the cost of generating VAH but charge (residential) customers
for WH. Where is the difference going?

This statement is complete nonsense. Power companies eat the cost of
generating watt-hours. But some of those watt-hours are dissipated
during transmission while others are consumed on the load side of
consumer power meters and are thus metered.

The energy consumed by the utility company is NOT proportional
to the VAH generated so saying that the utility company is paying for
VAH is just false. You could see that yourself by doing a some sample
calculations.

Isaac

Isaac you first need to do your own calculations. The utility has to
generate and supply, and have amp capacity in excess of what they need
to just supply the amps necessary to produce the real power. Not

I didn't say that there was no extra energy required, I said that
the energy required was not proportional to VAH.

Isaac

 

[Isaac]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:38 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:

What you say is true as far as you go.

But another aspect of it is the utility must buy equipment rated for the MVA
while only the MW portion of the apparent power generates revenue (in most
cases). So they also have a larger capital outlay for this 'oversized'
equipment that has to be funded. They wouldn't need larger equipment if
they were able to have only unity loads. This goes into the considerations
for pf correction at load-centers/substations instead of supplying the
MVAR's from generating stations. (pf correct at load-end, or upsize
transmission *to* the load-end by 20-40%).

Okay. I agree. Certainly I am not taking any of these real considerations
into account. But I don't think Mr. Williams argument does either.

Isaac

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <slrnc0c0hf.9t.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:38 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
wrote:


What you say is true as far as you go.

But another aspect of it is the utility must buy equipment rated for the MVA
while only the MW portion of the apparent power generates revenue (in most
cases). So they also have a larger capital outlay for this 'oversized'
equipment that has to be funded. They wouldn't need larger equipment if
they were able to have only unity loads. This goes into the considerations
for pf correction at load-centers/substations instead of supplying the
MVAR's from generating stations. (pf correct at load-end, or upsize
transmission *to* the load-end by 20-40%).

Okay. I agree. Certainly I am not taking any of these real considerations
into account. But I don't think Mr. Williams argument does either.

Now you know what I'm thinking? What an arrogant asshole you
are.

Let me ask you one question (I have before, but you don't see to
have the answer): Why is this "oversized" equipment needed?

--
Keith

 

[Isaac]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:55:42 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

In article <slrnc0c0hf.9t.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:38 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
Okay. I agree. Certainly I am not taking any of these real considerations
into account. But I don't think Mr. Williams argument does either.

Now you know what I'm thinking? What an arrogant asshole you
are.

I was referring to your posts and not to your thoughts.

I see the civil part of the discussion is over. For me that means
the entire discussion is over.

Isaac

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <slrnc0ggph.7q.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:55:42 -0500, Keith R Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:
In article <slrnc0c0hf.9t.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
isaac@latveria.castledoom.org says...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:38 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
Okay. I agree. Certainly I am not taking any of these real considerations
into account. But I don't think Mr. Williams argument does either.

Now you know what I'm thinking? What an arrogant asshole you
are.

I was referring to your posts and not to your thoughts.

I have *always* been talking about the "real considerations",
like line losses. ...and you *were* speaking for me.

I see the civil part of the discussion is over. For me that means
the entire discussion is over.

Bye.

--
Keith

 

[Gymmy Bob]

Looks like double talk in order to spread a virus.

"Economic Systems" <ninguna@123mail.cl> wrote in message
news:bt578b$3fofj$5@ID-174448.news.uni-berlin.de...

Hi friends:

I've developed an economizer of electrical energy for home o industrial
use, this device causes to the electric meter that no indication is
displayed o consumtion, there is very people has armed this system and
applying it
The web site with details for the assembly of this device is in:

http://members.fortunecity.com/chileno4/Ecoe.htm

Any question will be answered throught of the email indicated in that web
site, or writte to this mails deleting WITHOUT_THIS.

gigawattgratisWITHOUT_THIS@123mail.cl

jarayamWITHOUT_THIS@latinmail.com

Thanks, bye.

Johnny