Voltage Optimiser adjustment

[ericmark]

The unit made years ago by a Cheshire firm had a low current limit, can't remember the figures, but seem to remember once the power used exceeded around 10 amp it auto switched to direct connection. It was designed to give around 220 volt output, i.e. Europe voltage at that time, came out I seem to remember in the 80's and were tested down South to show how they saved power, which to be fair in the 80's likely they did, but the figures did not match theory.

So if you take for example a kettle, in theory the faster it is boiled the less heat is lost to atmosphere so cheaper it is to boil the water, so and where heat is not lost to atmosphere then it makes no difference if you use 2.5 kW or 3 kW as the 2.5 kW will run for longer.

So there were in real terms two devices which would benefit from reduced voltage, one was the old type power supply, the other the old type fluorescent light control gear, both which are rarely used today.

Because the auto transformer was not rated at 100A if the control gear fails and does not auto switch out the auto transformer once the current draw rises then they present a very real fire risk, so I would recommend removal. The ones that I found in the past were not as @bernardgreen shows, they used auto transformers, and it switched taping very like an auto transformer motor starter.

I think the company has now gone, it was at Capenhurst near Ellesmere Port, I never understood why tested so far away from where made? Maybe some one else has now copied their idea, but today pointless.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think the company has now gone, it was at Capenhurst near Ellesmere Port, I never understood why tested so far away from where made? Maybe some one else has now copied their idea, but today pointless.

They were always pointless and yes, companies are still selling these things or were until quite recently.

There was a gadget which you installed on a fridge or freezer - which delayed the motor start for a while once there was a call, thus when it did start it ran for a bit longer. A longer run producing some economy, but I suspect that gadget caused more problems with marginal economy benefits.

The banking chain I worked for were persuaded that it was worthwhile to add cheap plug in time-clocks to every one of the thousands of printers they had, by an energy consultant, to have them switch off out of working hours. The clocks used more watts than the printers used in sleep mode, then there was total chaos when staff tried to print and found the clocks had got themselves out of sync with actual time, or when GMT changed to BST. Harry has been giving away surplus time-clocks for years, since that episode

All these schemes need to be thought through end to end, before declaring them worth while.

 

[ericmark]

Standard thermostat for a fridge delays the start, but nothing to do with saving energy, it is to ensure any pressure has dropped to zero before it tries to start, or motor will likely stall.

With ink jet printers every time you turn them off, they run a purge program so unless for a week or more should not turn them off. I don't think any problem with laser printer?

But we had same with TV, old TV's would keep the valves warm in stand-by mode, but new laws require under one watt in stand-by, so the biggest drain in stand-by mode is likely the Sky box which keeps the LNB powered up so it can adjust to recorded program changes. Non Sky satellite boxes my energy meter could not record how much they used as so low.

But at one time common to power computer monitor from the computer, so auto turned off with computer, and I had my dot matrix printer from the same supply.

British Gas supplied 6 outlet extension leads two switched and rest switched on when power used from switched supplies. But today it never switches off.

It seems many of the so called energy saving devices are flawed, when we first moved from tungsten bulbs to so called energy saving we found it was cool in the evening, we move around during the day, so 18°C was ample, in the evening we sat watching TV so wanted the equivalent of 20°C but since the radiant heat from the bulbs did not lift air temperature but did warm us, we could leave the heating at 18°C but it felt like 20°C.

So post the change to energy saving we had to also change to a programmable thermostat, so at 6 pm the room air temperature was raised, and at 11 pm back down, but at 1 am still had not most nights dropped to 18°C so that extra 2°C increased losses for far longer than 5 hours, it would depend on outside temperature but loses from house clearly increased with use of energy saving bulbs. During the summer central heating was switched off, and with the heat from bulbs it was often November before we turned on the central heating, where now switched on in October, I know in summer the heat from lights was wasted, but on average the only advantage of energy saving bulbs is they last longer.

As to wifi bulbs and leaving the lights switched on, the bulbs must use some power when off, so with an 8 bulb chandelier the question is how much? this report says 0.3 watt, so times 8 that's 2.4 watt, not a huge amount however when the light is used for 2 hours in summer, that means instead of 48 watt they used 76.8 watt once you add power used when off. Clearly a lot less in the winter, but in the grand scheme of things it is only a few quid and no one is really worried about spending a fiver a year to have the system.

When I was a boy my mother walked down to the shops every day, or sent me with a note, today those shops are gone, so for me to shop means 8 miles, did jump on train in summer, but with the virus train service not running a service where I can actually get off the train and walk into town, so only way is car, so every shopping trip = 16 miles so 50p for fuel alone. So freezer cost less than that a day to run, so we today do a monthly shop. With milk delivered.

The whole idea has changed, and to mess around trying to save a couple of pence by fitting a fire hazard is crazy.

 

[winston1]

If you believe tungsten bulbs save 5 hours of additional heating in winter, though electricity cost four times as much as gas, have you gone back to them?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It seems many of the so called energy saving devices are flawed, when we first moved from tungsten bulbs to so called energy saving we found it was cool in the evening, we move around during the day, so 18°C was ample, in the evening we sat watching TV so wanted the equivalent of 20°C but since the radiant heat from the bulbs did not lift air temperature but did warm us, we could leave the heating at 18°C but it felt like 20°C.

That is flawed logic. At a guess, a 100w bulb will be 10% efficient in producing light, 90% or 90w of heat. 90w of heat in a room will make very little difference in autumn and cost around 4 times as much as gas, for heating.

 

[JohnW2]

That is flawed logic. At a guess, a 100w bulb will be 10% efficient in producing light, 90% or 90w of heat. 90w of heat in a room will make very little difference in autumn and cost around 4 times as much as gas, for heating.

Whilst that is certainly true in terms of space heating, eric may be partially right in saying that the radiant heat from an incandescent bulb could make people feel warmer than the air surrounding them, possibly allowing, as he suggests, one to reduce heating of the room's air (to a lower temp), hence saving some gas.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

have you gone back to them?

Never left them........

Incandescent lamps provide a warm light ( both in colour and thermal radiance ).

eric may be partially right in saying that the radiant heat from an incandescent bulb could make people feel warmer than the air surrounding them

I believe Eric is right, both from my own experience and observations. There was at least one trial to discover the difference in perceived comfort levels between incandescent incandescent and non incandescent lighting ( LED, fluorescent and other non thermal light sources ),

All I can remember is that incandescent lighting created a higher perceived level of comfort. Not just thermal effects but also the quality of light and effects like flicker and diffusion from a spot source.

( I will try and find an abstract of the results that is in the public domain )

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Never left them........

Incandescent lamps provide a warm light ( both in colour and thermal radiance ).

You can get modern LED's in various colour temperatures, including warm white. I defy anyone to tell the difference between my warm white LED's and tungsten ones, except by feeling the coolness of the lamp when running.

I agree that colour temperature can make quite a difference to perceived thermal temperature.

I interpreted Eric's post as him suggesting that his lighting actually contributed some heat in a worthwhile way.

 

[JohnW2]

I believe Eric is right, both from my own experience and observations. There was at least one trial to discover the difference in perceived comfort levels between incandescent incandescent and non incandescent lighting ( LED, fluorescent and other non thermal light sources ). All I can remember is that incandescent lighting created a higher perceived level of comfort. ...

I've certainly seen trials that showed that different spectrums of light create different perceived levels of comfort (for a given air & skin temp), but they were generally 'fair' trials, in that they compared different light spectrums from sources which radiated similar amounts of heat.

That's that's a bit different from what eric appeared to be suggesting, which I understood to be that the radiated heat from an incandescent (but minimal from an LED) would actually raise skin temperature (without appreciably changing room/air temp) - and, as I said, I think that has to be true to some extent.

In contrast, a non-incandescent light source which produced the identical light spectrum to an incandescent, but much less radiant heat, (if one could be found) would presumably feel 'less comfortable' (well, less warm) than the incandescent, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's that's a bit different from what eric appeared to be suggesting, which I understood to be that the radiated heat from an incandescent (but minimal from an LED) would actually raise skin temperature (without appreciably changing room/air temp) - and, as I said, I think that has to be true to some extent.

No I'm really confused. They use IR electric heaters, to warm surfaces (bodies) without warming the intervening air space, in factories, some shops and commonly in out door areas of pubs. They do work to some small extent if you are reasonably close to them, but they are 1.5Kw I guess(?). The 90w of waste radiated heat of a 100w lamp would maybe work over perhaps 6" at most, in a room space with its cooling airflow.

 

[JohnW2]

No I'm really confused. They use IR electric heaters, to warm surfaces (bodies) without warming the intervening air space, in factories, some shops and commonly in out door areas of pubs. They do work to some small extent if you are reasonably close to them, but they are 1.5Kw I guess(?).

Your guess may be right in terms of the sort of uses/locations you mention, but small ones for bathrooms are commonly 300W-350W, and make one's skin feel pretty warm/hot when 2-4 feet away.

The 90w of waste radiated heat of a 100w lamp would maybe work over perhaps 6" at most, in a room space with its cooling airflow.

As above, if a 300W heater high on the wall of a bathroom can make one's skin feel 'pretty warm/hot', then I don't think that eric is necessarily all that wrong in suggesting that 90W from an incandescent bulb in a pendant could raise skin temp by 1 or 2 degrees (which is all he suggested).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

90W from an incandescent bulb in a pendant could raise skin temp by 1 or 2 degrees (which is all he suggested).

All I am trying to suggest, is that the range would need to be very close, to notice any increase in warmth..

I appreciate those high wattage IR reflector lamps can radiate some heat, long ago we used to have one in the bathroom, there is a large difference between those and a simple incandescent who's primary design purpose is to produce light, rather than heat.

 

[JohnW2]

All I am trying to suggest, is that the range would need to be very close, to notice any increase in warmth.

And all I am trying to suggest (in fact, tell you) that my experience (my daughter has one) is that a ~300W one high up on a bathroom wall can result in a increase in skin temp of a good few degrees at 'waist height' or below, so it would not surprise me if 90W of radiated heat could raise one's temp (say, when sitting) by something approaching the 'degree or two' that eric suggested.

I appreciate those high wattage IR reflector lamps can radiate some heat, long ago we used to have one in the bathroom, there is a large difference between those and a simple incandescent who's primary design purpose is to produce light, rather than heat.

Well, you are the one who suggested (I don't think unreasonably) that a 100W incandescent bulb radiates about 90W as heat, and that doesn't leave much scope for an IR lamp to be much more efficient. Even if it were 100% efficient (which it clearly isn't, since it also produces some visible light) that 300W of radiated heat would be not much more than 3 times the amount you suggest that a 100W bulb would radiate.

I'm not suggesting that the bulb will do much radiant heating, but nor was eric claiming that it would. He's certainly right that, if it can be done, it's more energy efficient to raise the temp of a person's skin by a degree or two by radiant heating than to raise the temp of all the air in the room by the same amount.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Well, you are the one who suggested (I don't think unreasonably) that a 100W incandescent bulb radiates about 90W as heat, and that doesn't leave much scope for an IR lamp to be much more efficient. Even if it were 100% efficient (which it clearly isn't, since it also produces some visible light) that 300W of radiated heat would be not much more than 3 times the amount you suggest that a 100W bulb would radiate.

There is a rather large and obvious difference - the heat from an IR is directed and focused to one direction, than of a 100w lamp is near as matter omnidirectional therefore of very limited range in effect.

 

[JohnW2]

There is a rather large and obvious difference - the heat from an IR is directed and focused to one direction, than of a 100w lamp is near as matter omnidirectional therefore of very limited range in effect.

It's not all that 'directed/focussed' in that it will heat most of my body ('from head to toe', usually too much for the former ) to at least some extent.

However, we're quibbling about numbers and guesses. I was merely 'defending' the concept of what eric suggested (and, from the very start, only said that what he was suggesting would happen "to some extent") but, without doing experiments, neither of us really know the magnitude of that "some extent".

Eric is certainly making a more reasonable suggestion than the one which one sometimes hears - that incandescent bulbs can significantly alter the amount of energy required for space heating (in winter). Furthermore, the more 'useful heating' such bulbs do in the winter, the more of a problem would they become in summer (not to mention the increase, rather than saving, of summer running costs).

Kind Regards, John