Davebones
Senior Member
- Location
- North Of Tampa Fl
Was asked about this at work . Looked it up looks like another scam ..
Electric Saver 1200 , energy saver scam
- Thread starter Davebones
- Start date
- Status
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
From their site: https://www.electricsaver1200.com/
The installation instructions are a hoot: https://www.electricsaver1200.com/instructions-inside.jpg
Still sounds scammy to me.
The installation instructions are a hoot: https://www.electricsaver1200.com/instructions-inside.jpg
Still sounds scammy to me.
ptonsparky
Tom
- Occupation
- EC - retired
No hot links allowed is what I get.
drcampbell
Senior Member
- Location
- The Motor City, Michigan USA
- Occupation
- Registered Professional Engineer
Reload/refresh the page.
gar
Senior Member
- Location
- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Occupation
- EE
191201-0939 EST
It is a scam, snake oil salesman. Why do electricians fall for this? Do some analysis and experiments.
Some of the statements are true, but fundamentally the claim that there is a large reduction in the electric bill is false, and a fraud.
A number of years ago there was a "fire sale" on some of these power savers. So I bought one to have a real device to confront anyone that my experiment was not with a real product. I did not need more capacitors, but it is in a nice package. Convenient for demonstration.
In the video showing their experiment it appears that they used Kill-A-Watt meters. I might point out that the Kill-A-Watt EZ is a rather good instrument, except for manufacturing quality.
In the video experiment they had one meter at the input to a long cable, claimed to be about 40 ft, and another at the cable output where both the unloaded motor, and power saver were located. What is the resistance of the wire? Not mentioned. In their experiment without the power saver it was stated the power input at the motor input was 151 W and the input to the cable 172 W. That is 21 W power loss in the cable. A 100 ft loop resistance of 0.25 ohms would be about what to expect for #14 copper wire. It takes about 9.2 A at 0.25 ohms to dissipate 21 W. Likely a high current for the motor in the video.
It was never stated what the input power was with the power saver connected. I believe I read 162 W.
If we assume unloaded motor current is 5 A, more likely for the motor shown, then for 21 W dissipation the wire resistance needs to be 0.84 ohms. Closer to a #18 wire at a 100 ft loop.
Failure to define all parameters is a major problem.
Another problem with the experiment is that the power saver is at the motor, not at the main panel where they would have you install the power saver.
Results of my experiments with a cheap 1/3 HP induction motor. Montgomery Ward from possibly the late 1940s with no external mechanical load..
Instrument a Kill-A-Watt EZ. Motor is above, the power saver is a KVAR POWER SAVING unit, capacitance about 2.6 A at 123 V, Xc = 47.3 ohms, C = 55 mfd.
No KVAR ----- 122.2 V, 5.18 A, 163 W, 639 VA, 0.25 PF
With KVAR --- 122.3 V, 2.28 A, 163 W, 274 VA, 0.58 PF
If I had 100 ft loop of #14 copper my resistance would be about 0.25 ohms. Motor alone wire power loss is about 5.16*5.16*0.25 = 6.6 W, with PFCC at motor 2.28*2.28*0.25 = 1.3 W. But their normal installation of the PFCC is at the main panel. Thus, no saving. The resistance from the main panel to the meter is usually very low, short distance and large wire, not much power loss.
If you can get a PFCC box cheap enough, then it may be useful for its transient limiter, and its filtering of some noise. But it will have nil effect on your bill.
One local builder was charging ignorant customers about $1800 for this device included in their home.
.
It is a scam, snake oil salesman. Why do electricians fall for this? Do some analysis and experiments.
Some of the statements are true, but fundamentally the claim that there is a large reduction in the electric bill is false, and a fraud.
A number of years ago there was a "fire sale" on some of these power savers. So I bought one to have a real device to confront anyone that my experiment was not with a real product. I did not need more capacitors, but it is in a nice package. Convenient for demonstration.
In the video showing their experiment it appears that they used Kill-A-Watt meters. I might point out that the Kill-A-Watt EZ is a rather good instrument, except for manufacturing quality.
In the video experiment they had one meter at the input to a long cable, claimed to be about 40 ft, and another at the cable output where both the unloaded motor, and power saver were located. What is the resistance of the wire? Not mentioned. In their experiment without the power saver it was stated the power input at the motor input was 151 W and the input to the cable 172 W. That is 21 W power loss in the cable. A 100 ft loop resistance of 0.25 ohms would be about what to expect for #14 copper wire. It takes about 9.2 A at 0.25 ohms to dissipate 21 W. Likely a high current for the motor in the video.
It was never stated what the input power was with the power saver connected. I believe I read 162 W.
If we assume unloaded motor current is 5 A, more likely for the motor shown, then for 21 W dissipation the wire resistance needs to be 0.84 ohms. Closer to a #18 wire at a 100 ft loop.
Failure to define all parameters is a major problem.
Another problem with the experiment is that the power saver is at the motor, not at the main panel where they would have you install the power saver.
Results of my experiments with a cheap 1/3 HP induction motor. Montgomery Ward from possibly the late 1940s with no external mechanical load..
Instrument a Kill-A-Watt EZ. Motor is above, the power saver is a KVAR POWER SAVING unit, capacitance about 2.6 A at 123 V, Xc = 47.3 ohms, C = 55 mfd.
No KVAR ----- 122.2 V, 5.18 A, 163 W, 639 VA, 0.25 PF
With KVAR --- 122.3 V, 2.28 A, 163 W, 274 VA, 0.58 PF
If I had 100 ft loop of #14 copper my resistance would be about 0.25 ohms. Motor alone wire power loss is about 5.16*5.16*0.25 = 6.6 W, with PFCC at motor 2.28*2.28*0.25 = 1.3 W. But their normal installation of the PFCC is at the main panel. Thus, no saving. The resistance from the main panel to the meter is usually very low, short distance and large wire, not much power loss.
If you can get a PFCC box cheap enough, then it may be useful for its transient limiter, and its filtering of some noise. But it will have nil effect on your bill.
One local builder was charging ignorant customers about $1800 for this device included in their home.
.
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
- Status