Owl or Smart monitor reading - which to believe?

[JohnW2]

They are sold as an accurate way to measure power consumption which they do not do. Goods must be fit for the purpose which the Owl is not.

For a start, your claim as to "what they are sold as" is incorrect. From the documentation ...

Our products are designed to provide useful indication information showing both live and historic data and usage / generation patterns. It is not meant to be or to replace metering products. Due to the limitations of the current clamp sensors, all products of this type will have a level of inaccuracy. These sensors only measure the current flowing, they cannot measure the voltage or the power factor and assumptions therefore have to be made (Our defaults are 230v and PF 1.0) in the calculations. Equipment capable of such measurements would be relatively costly and have to be wired into the circuit by an electrician.

I would say that the product is more than 'fit for the purpose' that they describe.

John what you have done is beyond the capabilities of the average buyer.

I disagree. "What I have done" is no more than what is described under "Improving Accuracy" in their documentation.

The procedure is hardly rocket science. If one wants to bother with PF, one first observes one's meter over a period of time to ascertain one's 'average PF', and the programme the Owl accordingly. In the case of my installation, it's about 0.994 - so, if that is typical of domestic installations', there would only be a very trivial error if one stuck with the Qwl's default of PF=1 (e.g. if one'd meter did not provide PF information). One then runs the Owl for a period of time (a week or so is usually adequate) whilst simultaneously observing kWh consumption per the meter - and then simply adjusts the programmed voltage programmed into the Owl pro-rata to the ratio of Owl / meter kWh totals over the observation period in question.

However, as above, even if one stays with the default settings, the Owl will still "provide useful indication information" (the stated purpose) to an accuracy adequate for most people, and would certainly be more than accurate enough to indicate any significant 'changes'.

 

[JohnW2]

I asked you what "should be banned under Consumer Rights Act" means. Describe the legal procedure you will undergo to 'ban' them.

If he were to read what I've just posted about Owl's stated "intended purpose", he ought to realise that any attempt at legal proceedings dependent on a claim that it was not 'fit for that purpose' would presumably be doomed

... and all that is quite apart from the fact that, at least in my hands, it seems to be accurate enough for almost any purpose!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Vicario]

JohnW2..do your graphs indicate that your daytime and nighttime usage is broadly similar or am I reading them wrongly?

 

[denso13]

From the documentation ...

But documentation is frequently wrong...

 

[BS3036]

If he were to read what I've just posted about Owl's stated "intended purpose", he ought to realise that any attempt at legal proceedings dependent on a claim that it was not 'fit for that purpose' would presumably be doomed

Well, I agree that the Owl (and similar products) are useful tools. I wouldn't be without my Watson.
However my point was that I do not believe that there is any provision within the Consumer Rights Act to prevent the sale of a particular product; it has an entirely different purpose. I object to 'Winston' giving specious legal advice.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I object to 'Winston' giving specious legal advice.

..and the specious electrical advice too - electical too. Simple answer is to block the individual, to improve the signal to noise ratio.

 

[JohnW2]

JohnW2..do your graphs indicate that your daytime and nighttime usage is broadly similar or am I reading them wrongly?

Yep - exactly that. As the first graph below shows, i generally run at between 45% and 50% of consumption at night rate -which is why E7 is financially advantageous for me. [ The very brief excursions down to 30-35% every Christmas (and occasionally at other times) result from a very high daytime usage when entertaining at Christmas etc.! ].

The second graph shoes the saving (of E7) over the best comparable single-rate tariff from the same supplier. Although tariff changes in April 2018 resulted in a considerable reduction in the benefit of E7, in April 2019 I changed to a different supplier who offered a more attractive E7 deal, and (following a small detrimental deterioration of tariff in April 2021) today am still achieving something like a £200 pa saving as compared with my current supplier's single-rate tariff.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But documentation is frequently wrong...

No-one can deny that it sometimes is 'wrong' (even though most of us do not repeatedly remind everyone about that!)

However, when it comes to a manufacturer's statement relating to the iuntended purpose of their product (for which that believe the product is 'fit'), I'm not quite sure what 'wrong' would mean!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, I agree that the Owl (and similar products) are useful tools. I wouldn't be without my Watson.
However my point was that I do not believe that there is any provision within the Consumer Rights Act to prevent the sale of a particular product; it has an entirely different purpose.

I'm no lawyer, but I strongly suspect that you are right. However, I would be much less surprised if trading Standards legislation was able to prevent the sale of something that was clearly not 'fit for purpose' (or, at least, repeatedly prosecute someone who continued to sell such a product, which would presumably eventually have the same effect).

However, as I'm sure you will understand, my point was that even if someone were to attempt to invoke some legal process (if such a process existed) based on an accusation that a product was not "fit for purpose" then (even if a legal mechanism existed) their attempts would probably be 'doomed' in the face of a statement by the manufacturer (as per what I posted in relation to Owl) regarding the purpose for which they were claiming the product was "fit"!

I object to 'Winston' giving specious legal advice.

Same here - it's amongst the several things about his writings to which I personally object!

One thing hasn't been said. Unlike 'plug-in energy monitors (which do usually measure true kW / kWh, by utilising voltage and PF, as well as current), products like OWL are intended for use on a whole installation (or, as in my case, whole phases within an installation), usually over periods of time - such that the concepts of 'average voltage' and '#average PF' are reasonable. Where winston would be correct would be in saying that (again, unlike the plug-in monitors) they cannot be relied upon to necessarily give even remotely accurate readings for individual loads, which could have PFs very far from unity.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

However, when it comes to a manufacturer's statement relating to the iuntended purpose of their product (for which that believe the product is 'fit'), I'm not quite sure what 'wrong' would mean!

I couldn't find a joking emoji, it was a light hearted attempt to mock "you know who".

 

[JohnW2]

I couldn't find a joking emoji, it was a light hearted attempt to mock "you know who".

... and I hope you didn't think that I was unaware of that!! Mind you, a simple would probably have sufficed!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

 

[winston1]

I asked you what "should be banned under Consumer Rights Act" means. Describe the legal procedure you will undergo to 'ban' them.

I am not a lawyer. Ask one.

 

[winston1]

I object to 'Winston' giving specious legal advice.

I didn’t. I gave an opinion.

 

[winston1]

This whole discussion started because the OPs Owl was almost 50% higher treading than his smart meter and you are all saying they are accurate?