---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/11/09: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Chris Stone) 2. 06:41 AM - Explanation was Re: Power Opti-Miser (Ed Anderson) 3. 07:33 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Ron Quillin) 5. 08:24 AM - Re: Power Opti-Miser (Eric M. Jones) 6. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: Lopresti HID claims (Ed Holyoke) 9. 12:46 PM - Re: Lopresti HID claims (Eric M. Jones) 10. 12:55 PM - Re: Lopresti HID claims (XeVision) 11. 05:16 PM - Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR (Noplugs) 12. 08:35 PM - Re: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:10 AM PST US From: Chris Stone Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser Hmmmm... I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had anything to do with PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor correction" did get some hits for power factor correction on spacecraft. What am I missing? Chris Stone RV-8 -----Original Message----- >From: "Eric M. Jones" >Sent: Dec 10, 2009 1:55 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser > > >Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!). > >Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around 1980. > >The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on inductive loads as far as I remember. > >The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay off the device varies. > >-------- >Eric M. Jones >www.PerihelionDesign.com >113 Brentwood Drive >Southbridge, MA 01550 >(508) 764-2072 >emjones@charter.net > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034 > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:10 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Explanation was Re: Power Opti-Miser Ah, Thanks Jay, for the refresher course - it has been a long time since that bit of knowledge tried to take root in my brain. Excellent explanation, clear and concise! Yes, I can see where unless there is a constant load the phase angle would wander making it difficult to "match" with the right capacitor value. As usually, there is no "Free Lunch" in the real world and the number of "bull hockey baffles the brain" promises on the web truly boggles the mind. Unfortunately, a lot is swallowed by many folks who dish out there money for the devices. The old saying "... if it sounds too good to be true..." usually holds true. By the way, how would like to extend the range of your aircraft by 500%, I've got this design for a hydrogen catalytic stoichiometric mixer which will enhance your fuel efficiency by 300% - verified by laboratory test (conducted in my garage by me) Reasonably priced, cheap to operate and if dissatisfied, you can return it for a newer, more efficient model for only an 120% of the cost of the original - I mean how can you pass up a deal like this{:>) Thanks again, Jay Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:47 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser You are on the right track Ed, an inductive load, such as a motor, will produce a lagging current (the current phase angle lags, or is 'behind', the voltage phase angle). An ideal inductor will produce a lag angle of 90deg, and an ideal capacitor will produce a lead angle of 90deg, hence they cancel one another (should you have an ideal inductor and capacitor of the same size connected to your system) and the current is thus in phase with the voltage. The .... SNIP.... Another power saving device that one wants to steer clear of is something called the 'Magniwork' generator. It promises substantial power savings and a search of the web will get many hits that appear to verify the claim. A colleague of mine paid the $60 for the plans and asked me to evaluate them. They appeared impressive at first glance but it soon became apparent that it was absolute nonsense and that the author was working on the 'bullshit baffles brains' principle. At least the capacitors are based on real engineering knowledge... Jay -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: 10 December 2009 11:45 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser Just a wag, but from long ago, I seem to recall that an electric motor (inductor) had the voltage lagging the current by 90 deg phase (or perhaps it was the current lagging the voltage), in any case, you get the maximum efficiency out of the juice if the voltage and current are in phase. I can't recall the details, but seems I recall a capacitor was used to shift the phase of the current to be in phase with the voltage. Or perhaps something I dreamed as a youth {:>) Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M. Jones Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:55 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!). Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around 1980. The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on inductive loads as far as I remember. The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay off the device varies. -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:33:02 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser At 08:35 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote: > >Hmmmm... > >I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had >anything to do with PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor >correction" did get some hits for power factor correction on >spacecraft. What am I missing? I'm not sure the NASA based commercial off the shelf products were ever touted as "power factor" correction devices. WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they called "Tech Briefs". I used to read them as a young buck tech writer at Cessna about 1964. These were "ideas for design" offered into public domain when the idea was not critical to national security or some such. One could get a low or zero cost license to use the idea by petitioning NASA . . . a sort of back-door patent that only the government could pull off so slickly. I don't recall reading any briefs on "power saving" devices for AC motors but some guy name Nola at NASA probably published a very technical, properly disclosed and accurately described idea on some means of improving power distribution efficiency. See page 67 from this 1980 issue of Popular Science: http://tinyurl.com/y8hfqla Once you dump such ideas into the public domain, all manner of entrepreneur is free to exploit that information in the free market. Unfortunately, the human condition all but guarantees that some individuals will cherry pick, distort or even grossly mis-represent both source for and effectiveness of an idea. The corollary factor of the human condition is that the imagination of the ignorant and unwary consumer is tweaked by phrases like: "developed by NASA", "proven in independent laboratory tests", or even "Tiger Woods wouldn't be without one." The first flag to go up on any claim of power savings is to check the numbers . . . 20, 25 or even 30% savings? If a system that consumes say 10A at 120 VAC (1200 VAR) is LOOSING 30% of its consumed power, then 300 watts of LOST energy has to be coming off as heat. We know that the only way an electro-mechanical device can squander energy is by the diversion from useful output to heat (friction) + I(squared)*R. We know further that copper wire used to wind the motor has losses that cannot be "corrected for". So the nameplate efficiency ratings for any motor (Eff% = power-out/power-in) takes those losses into account AT THE NAMEPLATE current draw of the motor. An endeavor to reduce losses from outside the motor can only exploit our ability to correct power factor thus reducing the I(squared)*R losses for the same power output. While the efficiency of the motor may go up (you now need to use more gas to heat the shop) the effect on your power factor corrected light meter is minimal. To gain 30% savings in I(squared)*R losses, the current reduction for same power output has to be reduced by 16% (.84 x .84 = .7). This means PERFECT tuning of power factor (hard to do). Now, apply these savings to a device like a table saw, drill press or even your air compressor. Assume you can wipe out ALL power factor induced losses for a device with a 1% duty cycle over a month's period of time. What "savings" are there to be realized? The TV hucksters are fond of showing you before/ after meter readings on an unloaded motor. The REAL test is to put a 1 h.p. dynamometer load on the motor for say, 10 hours. Then do a before/after reading on your light-meter at the back of the house! This is why I asked for a test report from the promoter of the Opti-Miser. Any well crafted, properly conducted, honestly reported cost study of this product's effectivity would tell us exactly how the claims are justified. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:28 AM PST US From: Ron Quillin Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote: > WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they > called "Tech Briefs". And they still publish the Tech Briefs today... http://www.techbriefs.com/ Ron Q. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:35 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser From: "Eric M. Jones" I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is spelled a bunch of different ways. This will make it easier: Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992 Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe the government don't you???? -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277176#277176 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/alternatiff_printout_504.pdf ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:58:40 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser At 10:22 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote: > >I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is >spelled a bunch of different ways. > >This will make it easier: > >Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992 . . . and how does this article argue with anything I've written? >Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe >the government don't you???? What's NOT to believe? In the abstract for the patent (all pages posted here: http://tinyurl.com/yeq6pvr ) the operational description cites a REDUCTION of power to an unloaded motor. Okay, this is exactly how the Opti-Miser was demonstrated in the YouTube video. Now, we know that the thing was designed to work with induction motors. We know that it improves on efficiencies that manifest during an excursion from max operating load to some lower load (like between cuts of lumber on your table saw). We read further in the Popular Science article that wattage reductions (translated into realized savings) were most evident during no load conditions . . . but still manifest during high load situations. The article ends with the a caveat: "Power savers work but you have to use them wisely." Gee, do you suppose using them on a table saw, drill press or air compressor is not especially wise? Okay how about the compressor motor on your air conditioner? That's a higher duty cycle, higher energy load. But does it not run pretty much constant load? And do you suppose that the capacitors already bolted to the side of the machine have been selected for pretty good operation out of the box? Further, an examination of the circuitry in the patent suggests why Mr. Nola called it a "controller" as opposed to a "corrector". The classic approach to power factor correction in an LCR network calls for incorporation of good guy reactions (capacitors) complimentary to bad guy reactions (inductors) so that wasteful losses (in resistors) can be mitigated. Mr. Nola's patent offers no complimentary reaction. It simply watches for situations of light loading and reduces applied power (with duty cycle switching) to some lower but still useful value that keeps the motor spinning. It is indeed a controller . . . not a corrector. I have yet to read ANY article wherein the author compares real-watts-out (horsepower of a motor) with real-watts-in and demonstrates a positive return on investment as recorded on your light meter. If you're aware of any such study, I'd be pleased to read it. Do you have access to the reports cited in the footnotes of the energyexperts.org article? This isn't about what I believe. It's about what I or anyone else can demonstrate. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:58:46 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser At 10:07 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote: >At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote: >> WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they >> called "Tech Briefs". > >And they still publish the Tech Briefs today... > >http://www.techbriefs.com/ cool. thanks! Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:41:01 AM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lopresti HID claims HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How about lumens/$ ? Pax, Ed Holyoke XeVision wrote: > > > Eric M. Jones wrote: > >> Thanks, >> Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary. >> >> BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED >> High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy" >> >> Amazing. >> > > > Yes, I agree with your first comment. > > The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at higher drive levels. > > We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now, but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle. > > It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially 50 watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively. 35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from a 100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same 1600 lumens. > The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same lumens as a 35 watt HID. > > -------- > LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance). > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276789#276789 > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:46:00 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lopresti HID claims From: "Eric M. Jones" > HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How about lumens/$ ? > > Pax, > > Ed Holyoke Ed, Lumens per dollar is probably not an interesting number. The battery cost and power supply cost and replacement costs are more important. A magnesium flare excels in lumens per dollar. Light bulbs are usually classed in lumen-hours per dollar. For the pilot this is less important than factors such as lumens per pound (all other things being equal) lifetime, etc. What is best, is a matter of accounting. One more issue...the matter of "Throw". This is not a contemporary photometric unit, and is expressed in "Peak Beam Candlepower". It is the brightest spot on a far-field light beam. It is a function of the optics, not the lamp (or whatever you want to call the thing that makes light in an LED. To achieve the highest "throw" for given lumens, you need the tiniest source and the biggest reflector (or short-focus huge lens). It is also true that the lumens put out decrease on the sides if you send them to the middle, since lumens are what the lamp puts out, regardless of how they are steered. -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277211#277211 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:03 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lopresti HID claims From: "XeVision" Ed, Great question and glad you asked it. A better way to compare them (than cost per lumen) is cost per hour (actual usage). In the cost per lumen approach as you suggest, the INSTALLED cost for Halogen is about $0.05 per lumen, for HID INSTALLED cost it is about $0.15 per lumen so about triple the cost per lumen of the Incandescent option. Using $850 installed on HID (50 watt) ~5500 lumens and $80 installed on a 4509 with 1600 ~lumens. The incandescent lamps are good for 20-100 hours. Being liberal (optimistic) we will use 50 hours for this calculation as a safe avg. For a very common usage 100 watt GE4509 delivered (shipping) you can expect to pay at least $20 / 50 hours = $0.40 per hour. This does not consider down time costs or labor costs to install the GE4509 replacement, which likely raises this cost by a very significant factor. It might cost $60 for a mechanic to install the replacement 4509. This would now push the cost per usage hour to $1.60 For a 35 watt HID installed $500 HID + $300 (High estimated install cost) = $800 / 3000 (3000 warranty) = $0.27 per hour. (27 cents per hour). In all fairness, since the max warranty is 5 years, if you only fly 100 hours per year X 5 = 500 hours. $800/500 hrs = $1.60 per hour. That is assuming it fails at 5 years and 500 hours which is NOT very likely. The 100 watt unit only produces about 1600 lumens of light while the HID about 3200 lumens, about double plus it is a much whiter more useful light. Better contrast etc. Since LED in our opinion is not yet suitable as a landing light except for possibly VERY slow landing aircraft, I will not bother to compare them. They can be a very good taxi light at this time. When comparing these 2 technologies (HID & Incandescent) on a cost per hour basis, HID is a clear winner by a very large margin. And the performance comparison, there is "NO comparison". The 100 watt GE4509 is a "candle" compared to even a 35w HID. Dan [quote="bicyclop(at)pacbell.net"]HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How about lumens/$ ? Pax, Ed Holyoke XeVision wrote: > > > > > > > Eric M. Jones wrote: > > > > > Thanks, > > > Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary. > > > > > > BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED > > > High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy" > > > > > > Amazing. > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with your first comment. > > > > The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at higher drive levels. > > > > We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now, but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle. > > > > It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially 50 watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively. 35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from a 100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same 1600 lumens. > > The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same lumens as a 35 watt HID. > > > > -------- > > LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance). > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [b] -------- LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance). Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277214#277214 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:52 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR From: "Noplugs" I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice thing there is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it in stock. http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=1274376 http://www.texomajet.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT http://www.allaeroparts.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277253#277253 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dba_600percent20brochure_381.pdf ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:35:47 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR At 07:14 PM 12/11/2009, you wrote: > >I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice >thing there is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that >have it in stock. Yeah, they've really jumped up compared to their straight cousins. That's what prompted this article some years ago. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o======== < Go ahead, make my day . . . > < show me where I'm wrong. > ================================ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.