I wondered how long it would be...

[securespark]

....before I saw these being touted.

Image removed as it may be considered advertising.

Flyer was inviting customers to have a "Voltage Optimiser" fitted to save energy for the miserly sum of £829 and promising a saving of up to 20%.

 

[Notch7]

WTF is a voltage optimiser?

 

[securespark]

Dunno, but that's what it's called.

No doubt bigclive has picked one to bits.

 

[winston1]

It is a variable transformer that stabilises your voltage to 220v. That of course is not optimal for UK appliances and they don’t save energy. Heaters will use less but be on longer to achieve the result. Modern LED and CFL Lights are constant power over a large voltage range.

 

[ericmark]

Oh those were sold back in the 80's before switched mode power supplies came in, it was to correct the voltage to fluorescent lights with wire wound ballasts, but as we went to HF ballasts they no longer worked.

 

[ericmark]

variable transformer

The ones I saw used an auto transformer and auto changed the tapping, and were built into the consumer unit, however they were limited to around 10 amp, so as the current draw increased they would auto disconnect. Seem to remember the firm was in Cheshire, some where near Ellesmere Port.

 

[securespark]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2011/12/energy-saving-trial-report-for-the-vphase-vx1_0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ-5fb6PH6AhVNZMAKHXFOAt0QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KvJzXQTuWPCvaiHRJPtBz

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

WTF is a voltage optimiser?

An expensive bottle of snake oil.

 

[SimonH2]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2011/12/energy-saving-trial-report-for-the-vphase-vx1_0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ-5fb6PH6AhVNZMAKHXFOAt0QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KvJzXQTuWPCvaiHRJPtBz

Interesting that in one of the appendixes it mentions (without actually saying it) that the house needs re-wiring so that the snake oiloptimiser only supplies light loads and things like heating, ovens, showers aren't supplied by it. Reason being that thermostatically controlled loads like heating and ovens don't get any benefit, and putting them through the snake oiloptimiser will make it go into bypass mode.
Wonder what that would do to the cost of installation !
And there's a cost in energy to power the unit - around 8W/50VA - to subtract from any savings, which the report found could be negative to start with.

 

[ericmark]

The early ones I saw did work, mainly with fluorescent lamps, in the 90's I worked at Sizewell 'B' and I did simple maths, 110 volt 60 watt lamps approx 0.5 amp each, so 25 should run on a 16 amp supply without a problem.

However the overload tripped, so returned with clamp on meter, and drawing around 22 amp.

So in the workshop started to test them, and they had an auto transformer, which could have either 127 or 110 volt input. The current dropped from around 0.8 to 0.6 amp without any noticeably drop in light.

It seems 17 volt makes a huge diffrence with magnet ballasts.

However today we don't use magnetic ballasts, the electronic type auto adjusts, so the optimiser no longer helps. The switched mode power supply has resulted in them no longer working.

However they did work, so can't really call them snake oil.

 

[JohnW2]

The early ones I saw did work, mainly with fluorescent lamps ... However they did work, so can't really call them snake oil.

For a start, fluorescent tubes with inductive 'ballasts' are a very special case, probably verging on the unique, in that something is deliberately put in series with the load which will inevitably waste some energy - and reducing the supplied voltage will reduce that wastage (until supply voltage reduces so far that the tube stops working!).

However, even in the case of a fluorescent tube with an inductive 'ballast', I would have thought that the energy wastage would be very small. The great majority of the current-limiting impedance of the 'ballast' is inductive reactance, which will use no power - the only power used (and wasted0 by the ';ballast' will be that due to its resistance, which I imagine is probably pretty low.

One cannot get around the Laws of Physics. Reducing supply voltage will either make no difference (e.g. if the load is thermostatically controlled) or else will result in the production of less light/heat/mechanical/whatever energy output. There is, in general, no way that one can get the same energy output from something if one reduces the energy input.

I therefore reckon that 'snake oil' is pretty accurate!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

However, even in the case of a fluorescent tube with an inductive 'ballast', I would have thought that the energy wastage would be very small.

It was 22 amp down to 14.5 amp, on 110 volt, I would not call that small. Measured not calculated.

The same with apply to old type power supplies, my problem was too much volt variation, select 240 volt on transformer and got very hot regulator transistors, and select 220 volt and at times transmitting mains hum. And at that time the switch mode power supply would not cope with the sudden increase in power output when PTT pressed.

My way around the problem was a lead acid battery, but an auto changing auto transformer would have done same job.

However today switch mode power supplies can cope with the transceiver, not that I still use one anyway, only use a handy today, packet radio long gone.

However still when the optimiser was introduced it worked, but no longer required, and now just a memory like the old valve volt meter.

 

[JohnW2]

It was 22 amp down to 14.5 amp, on 110 volt, I would not call that small. Measured not calculated.

That's just current (without considering phase) - so, yes, VA will be substantially reduced.

However, the only power/energy dissipated in the ballast will be that due to the current flowing through the resistance of the ballast. If, as I suggested, that is low, then so will the energy dissipated in it be low, leaving little scope for a reduction in current to substantially reduce that 'wasted' power/energy ... so, yes, VA will reduce considerably, but I don't thin W will reduce very much, because of the very low PF.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Florescent tubes exhibit negative resistance. Reduce the current and the voltage across them increases (that is why a ballast is required). Over a small range the power tends to remain the same which is why you didn’t see a noticeable drop in light output.

 

[ericmark]

The power used by a fluorescent tube is not linear to voltage, the tube would without the ballast run away and allow a huge discharge.

The same with a non switch mode power supply, a 12 volt output from a transformer, diode, and capacitor into a 7812 voltage regulator would produce no heat from the 7812, but increase the voltage to 14 volt and the regulator starts to produce heat, depending on the load, so again power used not linear to voltage.

The big change was the switch mode power supply, be it built into a ballast for a fluorescent or supplying any other device, it did the same job as the optimiser, so today they are not required. But back in the 80's they did a good job.