Hi everyone, I'm new to this site, so I hope I'm doing this right. I couldn't find a topic that best fits our research topic so it took me a while to learn how to figure out and navigate the site.
We've had fun these past few weeks experimenting with capacitors and induction motors. And have achieved remarkable results. Useing an Emerson 1HP, 1Ph, 60Hz @ 1725 RPM 14.2 amp at 115 Vac/7.1 amp at 230 Vac drawing on average about 7 amps without a load.
by placing capacitors in parallel across the primary coils have managed to get the amps-in down to .98 amp while the primaries are showing 7.18 amp and the capacitor bank has 9.52 amp.
We hooked the motor (without caps) up to a 60 lb. flywheel (useing gear reduction) and verified the flywheel RPM's with a digital RPM strobe meter at 697 RPM's. drawing a little over 7 amps. While strobe still running at 697 we shut down the motor. Clocking the time from a dead start to full RPM's at 5 seconds.
Then we added 219 uf 370 Vac capacitor's and ran the above test again. This time from a dead stop to full RPM's was 2.5 seconds at 1.34 amps. The primary coils were showing 7.30 amps and the capacitors were showing 8.35 amps. Providing more torque and 50% faster start-up speed using 80% less power "consumption".
After extensive testing and data research we discovered that this basic principal has been patented by Oscar McLane; US patent number 6,331,760 B1 on Dec 18, 2001.
I'm sure that probably alot of you people are already aware of this info, maybe not. So I decided to post it for all to see.
Follow up on above testing:
1) 1Hp Emerson 1PH 60Hz 1725 RPM motor (Normal 7+ amp draw)
2) 1Hp Delta 1Ph 60Hz 1725 RPM motor (Normal 5.5 amp draw)
3) Homemade water heater, 120 volt (normal 6.5 amp draw)
Total amp draw ..................................................... 19 amps
On #1 Motor we installed 219mfd cap's across one (#1P) of the two primary coils.
then we taped into the second primary coil (#2P) and ran power to the #2 motor. (start coil not used)
On #2 Motor we installed 150mfd cap's across both primaries in parallel.
Then we taped into the primary coils and ran power to #3 the heater. (start coil not used)
We applied household 120 volt (AC-In) current to #1 motor.
It drew 1.34 amps from AC-In; showed 3.74 amps on #1P coil; 3.65 amps on #2P coil;
and 7.39 Cap-amps. This is a 80.8% drop in amp "consumption" compared with normal 7 amp draw.
Then we turned on motor #2, which is hooked directly to #1 motor #2P primary coil.
AC-In for motor #1 increased from 1.34 to 2.32 amps (a .98 amp increase to carry both motors that would normally use 12.5 amps!)
OR this would be a 81.4% drop in amp consumption for both motors as apposed to 12.5 amps.
Then we decided to add #3 water heater to the circuit.
First, we removed the 150mfd cap's that were in parallel across #2 motor and installed them in series parallel in line with the
heater element. Then turned on #1 motor, #2 motor, and the heater. (Normal amp draw separately would total 19 amps plus OR
minus)
RESULTS FOR: both motors and heater wired "together" off the primary coils.
#1 Motor:
Total AC-In was 2.67 amps
#1P "primary" had 3.55 amps; #2P had 3.57 amp for a total of 7.22 amps "present"
the 219mfd cap circuit showed 9.15 amps "present"
#2 Motor:
Amps in from motor #1 was 1.15 amp
Primaries showed 3.05 amps "present"
#3 Heater:
amp in from #2 motor was 3.70 amps
amps across the caps were recorded at 4.09 amps "present"
Normal amp draw 19+/-; actual amp draw 2.67+/- ; this all translates to a 85.9% reduction in amp draw.
I would like to also mention that actual temperature readings of both motors as well as the water heater were all within normal operating range even after running for almost two hours.
Hi all ;D
this seems so incredibly simple with a major gain to boot - anyone tried attaching a gen and see if a loop can be achieved? and also could an ac gen be modded in this way with output/efficiency gain?
i would like to start experimenting with this it sounds simple enough - im uk, 240ac 50hz any particular recomended caps? is it a case of taking the motor housing off and applying a cap parallel to the primary winding? i dont know too much about induction motors but can work generally work it out, i can find loads of induction motors at the scrappy for a couple of pounds so might just do this one! hehe
keep up the good work guys - aka eel ;)
Greetings Aka eel,
I'm not to much on the algebra of capacitance, but what I did was simple but time consuming. On the Delta motor where both primaries were wired in parallel from the factory (with three leads; L1 L2 and Gnd) I simply placed a 100mfd cap between L1 & L2 and recorded the amps-in change with the cap. Then repeated this procedure in steps of 10mfd until I started to loose any "gain" in ac-amps in which was around 150mfd. Then I narrowed my search with 1mfd caps until I verified the "sweet spot" for that motor where it uses the least amount of amps. The starter coil/cap were not taped into but left intact. A good general rule to start with is about 22mfd per amp normal consumption.
The Emerson has a mechanical relay with the start cap inside the motor, it too was left intact and not taped into, except for monitoring only.
But on this motor, it has a small "circuit" board just inside the motor for easy switching from 115V to 230V. On this motor we just taped into these wires and ran them outside the motor for easier access and monitoring of amps. Again I used the exact same process as above to find the "sweet spot" for the correct amount of capacitance to achieve the lowest amp-in results. In this case it turned out to be 219mfd.
The heater, when caps were installed in Parallel (while not attached to the motors) the amp draw went off the scale. They have to instead be placed in series-parallel on the L1 lead only.
Another thing that I failed to mention was that the 60 Hz cycle remained consistant with all three while they were connected together.
Our next step in our experiments will be with an automotive alternator attached to the above flywheel, where we already know that it was charging a partially dead battery (11.5 volts) hooked up to a full sign wave inverter and plugged back into the motor. Our initial experiments has shown that while the alternator was charging at 5+/- amps to the battery and two halogen head lites, the Motor only saw an increase of .5 amp. But our inverter "was" a modified wave, which will not work on an induction motor, We have a 3000 W cont. 7000 Watt surge full sign wave inverter on order. Good luck! Kyoat
Hi Kyoat,
very good results, thanks for sharing these.
Have you heard of Hector's rotoverter activities? He makes 3PH motors resonant on 60 (or 50) Hz by tuning them by capacitor banks and then mechanically drives another originally 3PH motor to work as a generator, also tuned by capacitors. He also tries to utilize reactive power with interesting circuits. See this link:
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/RV.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Deliverance
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/rotoverter.htm
Problem is when they want load the generator or the prime mover, the system detunes and would need a continous control to keep it on resonance in the function of the changing load.
Keep up good work!
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 22, 2009, 07:02:30 PM
Hi Kyoat,
very good results, thanks for sharing these.
Have you heard of Hector's rotoverter activities? He makes 3PH motors resonant on 60 (or 50) Hz by tuning them by capacitor banks and then mechanically drives another originally 3PH motor to work as a generator, also tuned by capacitors. He also tries to utilize reactive power with interesting circuits. See this link:
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/RV.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Deliverance
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/rotoverter.htm
Problem is when they want load the generator or the prime mover, the system detunes and would need a continous control to keep it on resonance in the function of the changing load.
Keep up good work!
rgds, Gyula
I Know of their work, but have not followed it myself. We also are experimenting with a 5hp 3-phase 208Volt motor. We just finished rewiring it, and will be testing it sometime here in the next few days. We will be installing capacitors too see just how low we can "adjust" the in coming amps, and what configuration works best. We will be posting our results as soon as possible. Kyoat
Quote from: Anothertruthfinder on January 22, 2009, 12:38:25 PM
Hi all ;D
this seems so incredibly simple with a major gain to boot - anyone tried attaching a gen and see if a loop can be achieved? and also could an ac gen be modded in this way with output/efficiency gain?
i would like to start experimenting with this it sounds simple enough - im uk, 240ac 50hz any particular recomended caps? is it a case of taking the motor housing off and applying a cap parallel to the primary winding? i dont know too much about induction motors but can work generally work it out, i can find loads of induction motors at the scrappy for a couple of pounds so might just do this one! hehe
keep up the good work guys - aka eel ;)
Well being new at this forum thing, I just realized that I can answer your questions here instead of as a new "reply" please bare with me, this is all new to me. I will get the hang of it all in time. If you look at the next "reply" you will see my answer. Sorry! ??? Kyoat
Here are some pictures, the following description will be in consecutive order.
picture 1; #1 Emerson motor, 219mfd cap's wired to #1Primary coil. Power from #2Primary is wired to the #2 Motor on the left
picture 2; #2 motor shown with white wire from motor #1 and hooked into the power-in receptacle. As well as the black drop cord
wired into the primary coils of motor #2 which will provide power out to the Heater (#3)
picture 3; #3 Homemade water heater shown with 150mfd cap's wired in series-parallel, getting its power from the primary coils
of motor #2.
picture 4; #1 motor shown with NO CAP's, AMP DRAW: 7.34
picture 5; #3 Heater shown with NO CAP's and hooked up to AC-IN POWER AMP DRAW: 7.04
picture 6; #1 motor shown with 219mfd cap's (all by it's self, not connected to #2 motor or #3 heater) AMP DRAW: 1.19
picture 7; #1 motor shown with 219mfd cap's connected to #1Primary coil and
2 black wires connected to #2Primary coil to provide power to the #2 motor,
while the #2 motor is providing power to the #3 heater off its primary coils. AMP DRAW: 2.06
picture 8; #2 motor getting its power from the #1 motor's #2Primary coil,
while #3 heater is getting its power from the #2 motor's primary coils. AMP DRAW: 2.45
picture 9; #2 motor shown with 150mfd cap's getting its power from the #1 motor's #2Primary coil AMP DRAW: .48
(the #3 heater is NOT connected in this picture)
picture 10; #3 heater shown with 150mfd cap's wired in series-parallel to the incoming power from #2 motor primary coils
AMP DRAW: 2.97
Hope these pictures all come out. Kyoat
Interesting information Kyoat.
I'm very curious about the current consumption of the motors when they are placed under a reasonable working mechanical load.
I'm wondering how much mechanical or electrical load can be powered, before the consequent change in motor RPM affects the tuning of the LC circuits and thus the current consumption.
A reduction of approx 80% in current consumption with a light load (flywheel) is astounding.
A reduction of just 50% under high loading would be even more astounding !
I'm very interested to see what sort of "working" data your experiments produce.
Thanks for sharing your results so far, and good luck with your experiments.!
Cheers and KneeDeep :)
@hoptoad
a watt meter reading might be very instructive. if i understand the cct he has a cap in parrallell with the coils. this dose not change the voltage on the coil. current in a cap leads , current in a coil lags the voltage. in aparalell cct the two cancel out leaving the resistive current(inphase) and any reactive current
that is in excess of its opposite phase. Ic IL and Ir are added as vectors, check out a basic ac eletricity book. the net effect here is to correct the power facter to the source. something that has been common practice in industry for a long time but not OU.
Quote from: fritznien on January 24, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
@hoptoad
a watt meter reading might be very instructive. if i understand the cct he has a cap in parrallell with the coils. this dose not change the voltage on the coil. current in a cap leads , current in a coil lags the voltage. in aparalell cct the two cancel out leaving the resistive current(inphase) and any reactive current
that is in excess of its opposite phase. Ic IL and Ir are added as vectors, check out a basic ac eletricity book. the net effect here is to correct the power facter to the source. something that has been common practice in industry for a long time but not OU.
Yes, no argument there on all points.
However, there was no reference to actual
power consumption or current phase angle,
only the supply current consumption.
I fully understand the Z impedance relationship to resistance (R), and inductive and capacitive reactance (XL and XC), and the phase angle (and subsequent power factor) created between voltage and current in an inductor at a given frequency.
But a decrease in apparent supply current, irrespective of its phase angle to voltage is interesting from a consumers point of view, because those happy little spinning discs in the meters that are used to charge us for our electricity consumption (if you've still got an old meter), rotate at a speed which is directly proportional to the supply current, and are not influenced by any phase angle between the voltage and current in a consuming device.
You may or may not be using less actual power, but you could be paying less for it than you need to!
Cheers.
Quote from: fritznien on January 24, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
@hoptoad
a watt meter reading might be very instructive. if i understand the cct he has a cap in parrallell with the coils. this dose not change the voltage on the coil. current in a cap leads , current in a coil lags the voltage. in aparalell cct the two cancel out leaving the resistive current(inphase) and any reactive current
that is in excess of its opposite phase. Ic IL and Ir are added as vectors, check out a basic ac eletricity book. the net effect here is to correct the power facter to the source. something that has been common practice in industry for a long time but not OU.
No OU. Absolutely. But, possibly a real, practically achievable and legal opportunity for "reduced" el. energy consumption (and consequtive savings).
Yes, a current leads voltage in a capacitive load, and vice-versa with an inductive load. A reactive energy compensation does the corrections. In reality, much of the el. loads we use deviate for a pure Ohmic form.. It's all about vectors and trigonometry. A phase shift between Voltage and Current, or a "co sinus phi" between both phases...
A long time understood, well known "power factor principle", in theory (and practice).
I'll ask you again, what is the difference between an industrial and individual el. energy consumption? Or, el. energy metering?
Maybe I misunderstood you in previous threads, but it seems you are claiming that the PFC principles are good for the industry, but not for the small consumers?
Thanks for answering.
Quote from: spinner on January 24, 2009, 06:00:16 AM
No OU. Absolutely. But, possibly a real, practically achievable and legal opportunity for "reduced" el. energy consumption (and consequtive savings).
Yes, a current leads voltage in a capacitive load, and vice-versa with an inductive load. A reactive energy compensation does the corrections. In reality, much of the el. loads we use deviate for a pure Ohmic form.. It's all about vectors and trigonometry. A phase shift between Voltage and Current, or a "co sinus phi" between both phases...
A long time understood, well known "power factor principle", in theory (and practice).
I'll ask you again, what is the difference between an industrial and individual el. energy consumption? Or, el. energy metering?
Maybe I misunderstood you in previous threads, but it seems you are claiming that the PFC principles are good for the industry, but not for the small consumers?
Thanks for answering.
this is exactly what i am saying spinner, industry (large users) are billed not just for the kwhrs they use but also the peak use and for powerr facter. as for the old watt hour meter for your house, it is accurate and dose not measure out of phase current. if i thought it did i would purchase a good meter of my own
document the difference and sue their ass off for fraud! my teacher in this was an industrial electrician who had worked for stelco steel. lots of big motors and PFC there.
First off I'd like to thank Hoptoad for bringing an interesting question to the table. A question about watts and the AC power factor.
One of our members has a "kill a watt" meter, and so we incorporated it into our load test.
Here is some of the test data; (AD = amp draw) (#1P = #1 primary coil amps) (#2P = #2 Primary amps) (TP = total primary amps)
(#1C = #1 primary cap amps present) (#2C = #2 primary cap amps present)
#1 Emerson motor; No load, and no cap circuit
9.51 AD #1P 3.60 #2P 3.50 TP 7.10 .................................................... 216 watts
#1 Emerson motor with 60# flywheel load, with no cap circuit
9.47 AD #1P 3.55 #2P 3.56 TP 7.04 .................................................... 273 watts
#1 Emerson motor with 60# flywheel, and automotive (air conditioner) air compressor with no cap circuit
9.44 AD #1P 3.48 #2P 3.56 TP 7.04 .................................................... 287 watts
________________________________________________________________________________________
#1 Emerson motor with 219 uf cap circuit, No load
2.08 AD #1P 3.61 #2P 3.45 TP 7.06 190 watts
#1 Emerson, 219 uf circuit, 60 lb flywheel load
2.51 AD #1P 3.50 #2P 3.44 TP 6.94 #1C 4.73 #2C 4.41 TC 9.41 244 watts
#1 Emerson, 219 uf circuit, flywheel and air compressor load
2.61 AD #1P 3.60 #2P 3.33 TP 6.93 #1C 4.64 #2C 4.55 TC 9.19 258 watts
________________________________________________________________________________________
#1 Emerson, No cap circuit, with flywheel and compressor
air output from compressor restricted until Emerson amp draw climbed above 10 amp draw
10.90 AD #1P 3.99 #2P 3.94 TP 7.93 ................................................... 765 watts
same air restriction as above, and while motor was still running added 219 uf to primary coils.
6.50 AD #1P 4.00 #2P 3.83 TP 7.83 ................................................... 720 watts
Not much of a gain (45 watts) when the power factor is added into the equation.
We were wondering if any one has tried converting the AC-in with a couple diodes to create a DC pulse to run an induction motor?
It's my understanding that they run well on a DC pulse. But I was wondering how the PF would "see" this aspect of a circuit?
We were thinking, that you just need to "fool" the PF sensor some how in not seeing or feeling what's going on further down the line if it's even possible. I have a feeling that "they" already have most bases covered to make sure that we "pay" thru the nose for our electricity.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a separate test we got the following results: (all readings from watt meter)
#1 Emerson motor No cap circuit, no load ................... 9.69 amps ......................... at 215 watts
#1 Emerson motor, 219uf cap circuit, no load .............. 2.16 amps ......................... at 204 watts
#2 Delta motor, No caps, no load ............................... 4.09 amps ........................ at 95 watts
#2 Delta motor, 150uf cap circuit, no load .................... 4.13 amps ........................ at 96 watts
#3 Heater, No caps ................................................... 4.02 amps ....................... at 485 watts
#3 Heater, 150uf cap series-parallel circuit................... 3.50 amps ....................... at 360 watts
Total with no cap circuit:....................... 17.80 amps ...... Total ......... at 795 watts
Total with cap circuits ......................... 9.79 amps ..... Total ........ at 660 watts
difference between no-cap circuit and a cap circuit: 8.01 amp drop 135 watt drop
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
This test was run with the following:
#1 Emerson motor with 219uf cap circuit on #1Primary coil only, no load
#2 Delta motor connected to Emerson #2Primmary coil, 150uf cap circuit on delta
With just these two motors connected together: ...............7.30 amps ....................... at 382 watts
Difference between separate verses "together" 1.01 amp increase and 82 watt increase
#1 Emerson motor with 219uf on #1P cap circuit, no load
#2 Delta motor connected to Emerson #2 Primary coil, No cap circuit, no load
#3 Heater with 150uf series-parallel cap circuit on L1, heater connected to Delta primary coils.
With all three connected together: .................................. 7.42 amps .................. at 672 watts
Difference between separate verses connected "together" 2.33 amp drop ........... at 13 watt increase!!
Hi Kyoat,
Thanks for the reply and the further measurements with the kill-a-watt meter.
I think if you could afford some time to repeat the same test setup when you drive the Emerson from the mains and the it drives the Delta and the heater is connected in series with the 150uF and these two in parallel with the Delta as you desribed. In this setup the what would the kill-a watt meter show on the input power and on the power factor?
Of course, I know it depends on your and your friends time, no problem if you cannot do it now, maybe later...and this holds for the DC resistances of the motors.
Many thanks for all your kind efforst here showing your results.
Regards, Gyula
Quote from: Kyoat on January 19, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
We hooked the motor (without caps) up to a 60 lb. flywheel (useing gear reduction) and verified the flywheel RPM's with a digital RPM strobe meter at 697 RPM's. drawing a little over 7 amps. While strobe still running at 697 we shut down the motor. Clocking the time from a dead start to full RPM's at 5 seconds.
Then we added 219 uf 370 Vac capacitor's and ran the above test again. This time from a dead stop to full RPM's was 2.5 seconds at 1.34 amps. The primary coils were showing 7.30 amps and the capacitors were showing 8.35 amps. Providing more torque and 50% faster start-up speed using 80% less power "consumption".
The updated data you posted is very interesting and positive, indicating a step towards increased efficiency and reduction of power consumption.
The figures you gave, if I read them right, show a definite higher efficiency if the torque of the motor/s is the same, or higher, than without the cap tuning.
Going back to your first post above, your observations are very promising because they indicate an increase in starting and running torque as well as an electrical power saving.
If the apparent electrical power saving after PFC is 10%, but there is actually an increased torque, then the
total energy savings would be greater for a given load compared to a non-capped configuration.
Your real energy savings in terms of total system energy translation, may be as high as 15 per cent (or possibly more) for a specific nominal load on the motor.!
In your flywheel experiment above, judging by the fact that the startup to full RPM time was halved using the capped system, I suspect that comparative Torque measurements of both capped and non-capped systems, under varying loads, will also reveal positive data which would add even greater credence to the electrical savings data.
Cheers and KneeDeep :)
Quote from: gyulasun on January 22, 2009, 07:02:30 PM
Hi Kyoat,
very good results, thanks for sharing these.
Have you heard of Hector's rotoverter activities? He makes 3PH motors resonant on 60 (or 50) Hz by tuning them by capacitor banks and then mechanically drives another originally 3PH motor to work as a generator, also tuned by capacitors. He also tries to utilize reactive power with interesting circuits. See this link:
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/RV.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rotoverter:Replications:Deliverance
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/rotoverter.htm
Problem is when they want load the generator or the prime mover, the system detunes and would need a continous control to keep it on resonance in the function of the changing load.
Keep up good work!
rgds, Gyula
@ Gyula
Yes you have find the problem..
I learned lot of years ago (with RF resonance coils)
that an Induction (and also resonance frequency)
CHANGED if ih hold an magnet to the core . The INDUCTION
change. The same you find at Low frequencies.on Transformers, Chokes, Motors enz. , if you produce an "flux" in the core materials as soft-iron laminated iron , ferrit, enz.
What to do?
tune all circuits to resonance UNDER LOAD !
If you do , without load, you save nothing, because the "device"
must work and save input.
G.Pese
One area where this application may very well have a high probability of working is our next experiment. (sounds good anyway)
Knowing that we can get the amp "consumption" down and at the same time increasing the torque, This application, while it doesn't gain you much against the electrical grid, where they already have you "screwed" to paying regardless with their PFC. A practical use would be where you have a battery bank to an inverter to run your motor (at reduced amps and increased torque) to run your charging circuit. Under conventional methods this doesn't work out to well. But it just might in this case under the reduced amp load on the inverter along with the increased torque of the motor.
And of course, if it does work, and can produce an "excess" of power to boot, all the better. It just might be a great "cheap" way to charge your batteries.
We have quite a few households here in Alaska who operate on battery-inverter-solar-wind- etc. because the local power Company want 10's of thousands of dollars just to run their power lines to their location. And who can afford that? So for these families it's not just a wish to be off the grid, they have no choice! But if we can make a workable system for these people first, then we too can join there ranks and kick the grid "habit".
We have a 3000 watt continuous 7000 watt surge full sign wave inverter on order to test this theory. So as soon as it arrives and we are able to test drive it, we will sharing the data with all to evaluate. Maybe some day real soon one of us will break the barrier that will allow us the opportunity to say good buy to the electric grid and PFC for good! I don't know about you people, but my last months electric bill was over $350 for 32 days! That's almost $11 a day. My natural gas bill was almost as high at $300. KYOAT
Quote from: Kyoat on January 26, 2009, 01:40:31 PM
First off I'd like to thank Hoptoad for bringing an interesting question to the table. A question about watts and the AC power factor.
One of our members has a "kill a watt" meter, and so we incorporated it into our load test.
Here is some of the test data; (AD = amp draw) (#1P = #1 primary coil amps) (#2P = #2 Primary amps) (TP = total primary amps)
(#1C = #1 primary cap amps present) (#2C = #2 primary cap amps present)
#1 Emerson motor; No load, and no cap circuit
9.51 AD #1P 3.60 #2P 3.50 TP 7.10 .................................................... 216 watts
#1 Emerson motor with 60# flywheel load, with no cap circuit
9.47 AD #1P 3.55 #2P 3.56 TP 7.04 .................................................... 273 watts
#1 Emerson motor with 60# flywheel, and automotive (air conditioner) air compressor with no cap circuit
9.44 AD #1P 3.48 #2P 3.56 TP 7.04 .................................................... 287 watts
________________________________________________________________________________________
#1 Emerson motor with 219 uf cap circuit, No load
2.08 AD #1P 3.61 #2P 3.45 TP 7.06 190 watts
#1 Emerson, 219 uf circuit, 60 lb flywheel load
2.51 AD #1P 3.50 #2P 3.44 TP 6.94 #1C 4.73 #2C 4.41 TC 9.41 244 watts
#1 Emerson, 219 uf circuit, flywheel and air compressor load
2.61 AD #1P 3.60 #2P 3.33 TP 6.93 #1C 4.64 #2C 4.55 TC 9.19 258 watts
________________________________________________________________________________________
#1 Emerson, No cap circuit, with flywheel and compressor
air output from compressor restricted until Emerson amp draw climbed above 10 amp draw
10.90 AD #1P 3.99 #2P 3.94 TP 7.93 ................................................... 765 watts
same air restriction as above, and while motor was still running added 219 uf to primary coils.
6.50 AD #1P 4.00 #2P 3.83 TP 7.83 ................................................... 720 watts
Not much of a gain (45 watts) when the power factor is added into the equation.
We were wondering if any one has tried converting the AC-in with a couple diodes to create a DC pulse to run an induction motor?
It's my understanding that they run well on a DC pulse. But I was wondering how the PF would "see" this aspect of a circuit?
We were thinking, that you just need to "fool" the PF sensor some how in not seeing or feeling what's going on further down the line if it's even possible. I have a feeling that "they" already have most bases covered to make sure that we "pay" thru the nose for our electricity.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a separate test we got the following results: (all readings from watt meter)
#1 Emerson motor No cap circuit, no load ................... 9.69 amps ......................... at 215 watts
#1 Emerson motor, 219uf cap circuit, no load .............. 2.16 amps ......................... at 204 watts
#2 Delta motor, No caps, no load ............................... 4.09 amps ........................ at 95 watts
#2 Delta motor, 150uf cap circuit, no load .................... 4.13 amps ........................ at 96 watts
#3 Heater, No caps ................................................... 4.02 amps ....................... at 485 watts
#3 Heater, 150uf cap series-parallel circuit................... 3.50 amps ....................... at 360 watts
Total with no cap circuit:....................... 17.80 amps ...... Total ......... at 795 watts
Total with cap circuits ......................... 9.79 amps ..... Total ........ at 660 watts
difference between no-cap circuit and a cap circuit: 8.01 amp drop 135 watt drop
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
This test was run with the following:
#1 Emerson motor with 219uf cap circuit on #1Primary coil only, no load
#2 Delta motor connected to Emerson #2Primmary coil, 150uf cap circuit on delta
With just these two motors connected together: ...............7.30 amps ....................... at 382 watts
Difference between separate verses "together" 1.01 amp increase and 82 watt increase
#1 Emerson motor with 219uf on #1P cap circuit, no load
#2 Delta motor connected to Emerson #2 Primary coil, No cap circuit, no load
#3 Heater with 150uf series-parallel cap circuit on L1, heater connected to Delta primary coils.
With all three connected together: .................................. 7.42 amps .................. at 672 watts
Difference between separate verses connected "together" 2.33 amp drop ........... at 13 watt increase!!
The above test data unfortunately IS INCORRECT!
While we were reporting "apparent watts" we were not reporting "VAR watts" or PF (Power factor)
We discovered this mistake today, so we reran the following test for all to see. (SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE)
The following test was using the #1 Emerson motor (note: we fine tuned the capacitance from 219uf down to 207uf with use of the watt meter)
apparent VAR PF
CAPS: Amps watts watts (power factor)
none 9.63 203 1146 .18 Emerson, no caps, no load
207uf 2.01 192 237 .79 Emerson, 207uf, no load
79.3% drop in VAR watts "consumption" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
none 9.48 254 1123 .22 Emerson w/flywheel, no caps
207uf 2.38 244 283 .85 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf
74.8% drop in VAR watts -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
none 10.63 709 1231 .55 Emerson w/flywheel, no caps, compressor not under load
207uf 5.74 652 666 .97 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf, compressor-no-load
45.9% drop in VAR watts -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
207uf 7.50 860 851 .98 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf, compressor under "80 PSI load"
NOTICE: that the "closer" the VAR-watts comes to matching the Apparent-watts the closer the power factor comes to "1" and that even under such a heavy load of moving a 60 lb flyhweel AND running a compressor to 80 PSI load we still saw a 46% drop in watt consumption.
We didn't want to subject our watt meter (max 15 amps) to the high amps that would have been present if there were no capacitance on this last load. So we compared it to the one just above it with no caps. (45.9% drop from 1231)
Temperature readings were taken on Emerson motor during all testing. The temperature remained at or below 98.5 degrees F.
The cylinder head of the compressor reached 120 degrees F.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following test was also re-run:
In this test we first took readings from each motor separately, and added them together to get a total "consumption of watts" to compare with the results of the two motors connected together.
Emerson: 207uf 2.06 amps 200 A-watts 250 VAR watts .80 Power factor
Delta: 152uf 1.64 amps 168 A-watts 198 VAR watts .85 power factor
_________ __________ ____________
Total: 3.70 amps 368 A-watts 348 VAR watts
Emerson with the Delta wired to the #1primary of Emerson motor.
3.59 amps 365 A-watts 430 VAR watts .84 power factor
So therefore there's no real gain by connecting motors together such as this, but the REAL GAIN can be seen in the above example by placing the proper amount of capacitance across the primary coils of an induction motor.
Quote from: Kyoat on February 01, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
The above test data unfortunately IS INCORRECT!
While we were reporting "apparent watts" we were not reporting "VAR watts" or PF (Power factor)
We discovered this mistake today, so we reran the following test for all to see. (SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE)
The following test was using the #1 Emerson motor (note: we fine tuned the capacitance from 219uf down to 207uf with use of the watt meter)
apparent VAR PF
CAPS: Amps watts watts (power factor)
none 9.63 203 1146 .18 Emerson, no caps, no load
207uf 2.01 192 237 .79 Emerson, 207uf, no load 79.3% drop in VAR watts "consumption" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
none 9.48 254 1123 .22 Emerson w/flywheel, no caps
207uf 2.38 244 283 .85 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf 74.8% drop in VAR watts
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
none 10.63 709 1231 .55 Emerson w/flywheel, no caps, compressor not under load
207uf 5.74 652 666 .97 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf, compressor-no-load
45.9% drop in VAR watts -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
207uf 7.50 860 851 .98 Emerson w/flywheel, 207uf, compressor under "80 PSI load"
NOTICE: that the "closer" the VAR-watts comes to matching the Apparent-watts the closer the power factor comes to "1" and that even under such a heavy load of moving a 60 lb flyhweel AND running a compressor to 80 PSI load we still saw a 46% drop in watt consumption.
We didn't want to subject our watt meter (max 15 amps) to the high amps that would have been present if there were no capacitance on this last load. So we compared it to the one just above it with no caps. (45.9% drop from 1231)
Temperature readings were taken on Emerson motor during all testing. The temperature remained at or below 98.5 degrees F.
The cylinder head of the compressor reached 120 degrees F.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following test was also re-run:
In this test we first took readings from each motor separately, and added them together to get a total "consumption of watts" to compare with the results of the two motors connected together.
Emerson: 207uf 2.06 amps 200 A-watts 250 VAR watts .80 Power factor
Delta: 152uf 1.64 amps 168 A-watts 198 VAR watts .85 power factor
_________ __________ ____________
Total: 3.70 amps 368 A-watts 348 VAR watts
Emerson with the Delta wired to the #1primary of Emerson motor.
3.59 amps 365 A-watts 430 VAR watts .84 power factor
So therefore there's no real gain by connecting motors together such as this, but the REAL GAIN can be seen in the above example by placing the proper amount of capacitance across the primary coils of an induction motor.
The revised figures shown are very positive. Good work, and thanks for the updated info.
Cheers from Hoptoad
Quote from: Kyoat on January 26, 2009, 01:40:31 PM
First off I'd like to thank Hoptoad for bringing an interesting question to the table. A question about watts and the AC power factor.
One of our members has a "kill a watt" meter, and so we (kinda) incorporated it into our load test. (still learning ;D)
I have a question for any of you out there with the knowledge of this website.
How do you, after posting an article, go back to make "corrections" or to delete errors?
I know that when you first post an article, that you are allowed to do this for "a short period of time" then this "edit" feature goes away.
If any one could help me with this I'd appreciate it. Kyoat
Hi Kyoat,
As far as I know, presently 'the short period of time' may mean one hour from the time of posting.
Maybe Stefan or someone else 'in the know' can correct this if it is otherwise .
When you could spare some time for coils resistance measurement, please do so.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on February 02, 2009, 05:57:14 PM
Hi Kyoat,
As far as I know, presently 'the short period of time' may mean one hour from the time of posting.
Maybe Stefan or someone else 'in the know' can correct this if it is otherwise .
When you could spare some time for coils resistance measurement, please do so.
Thanks, Gyula
Yea, We got busy with other "projects" and I forgot to do that. My problem is that I live about 18 miles from our shop
where we do all our testing, building, etc. Maybe I can see if my partner can get those figures so that I can post them. Kyoat
I thought these results were both fascinating as well as what I would consider to be unexpected results.
The following test results were conducted on an Emerson 1hp, 1ph, 60hz motor.
We were tyring to find the "sweet spot" for capacitance across the primary coils for the lowest VAR watts "consumption"
We were using a KILL A WATT model P3 meter.
Capacitance: Amps: Apparent watts: VAR watts: Power Factor: reduction %
NONE 9.63 203 1146 .18 00.00
200uf 2.05 196 247 .79 78.44%
205uf 2.02 197 244 .80 78.70%
206uf 2.02 196 243 .81 78.79%
207uf 2.01 196 242 .81 78.88% <-- sweet spot
207.5uf 2.02 196 243 .80 78.79%
208uf 2.02 196 242 .81 78.88%
209uf 2.02 196 244 .80 78.70%
210uf 2.02 196 246 .80 78.53%
215uf 2.06 196 249 .79 78.27%
219uf 2.09 196 253 .77 77.92%
Notice that even between the non-cap circuit motor verses the cap circuit's there is only a 7 watt spread when it comes to the "APPARENT WATT" reading. It really doesn't matter how much capacitance you put into it, the apparent watts is always about the same.
Verses the difference between the non-cap circuit motor and the cap circuits for the "VAR-WATT" readings! A drastic drop in what you would be charged to run this motor by your AC (Always Crooked) supplier by just installing a little capacitance. Kyoat
information for all interested the emerson windings read .8 ohms per coil and the delta reads 2 ohms for the run windings.
hope this helps everyone.
good luck with your projects.
nueview
Quote from: Kyoat on February 02, 2009, 06:22:02 PM
I thought these results were both fascinating as well as what I would consider to be unexpected results.
The following test results were conducted on an Emerson 1hp, 1ph, 60hz motor.
We were tyring to find the "sweet spot" for capacitance across the primary coils for the lowest VAR watts "consumption"
We were using a KILL A WATT model P3 meter.
....
Capacitance: Amps: Apparent watts: VAR watts: Power Factor: reduction %
NONE 9.63 203 1146 .18 00.00
...
Kyoat
Well... just check out your "Kill a Watt" meter....
I've never seen a motor with a PF of just 0,18.... ??? My worst was a PF 0,52.....
But..., I never saw Aliens, either....
That must be a World record..? I mean, for a serial (market) device ()...? PF=0,18???
How screwed up devices there really are???...
Quote from: spinner on February 04, 2009, 06:55:39 AM
Well... just check out your "Kill a Watt" meter....
I've never seen a motor with a PF of just 0,18.... ??? My worst was a PF 0,52.....
But..., I never saw Aliens, either....
That must be a World record..? I mean, for a serial (market) device ()...? PF=0,18???
How screwed up devices there really are???...
2-3-09
I wouldn't know about a "world record", we have two (2) of these Kill-a-watt meters, one is brand new. I will double check this reading the next time we run tests, comparing the readings of both meters. It's entirely possible that one of them is malfunctioning, though I doubt it. When we take these readings, we always allow a few seconds for the numbers to settledown and stabilize first. You say you have never found one below .52 huh? That is definitely strange, I have two (2) that do. I just checked my notes for both motors, and the Delta motor was as follows:
Caps: Amps: Apparent watts: VAR-watts: Power Factor
NONE 7.32 178 877 .19 <----------
150uf 1.66 169 203 .85
.151uf 1.65 171 201 .84
152uf 1.64 168 196 .84
.153uf 1.65 170 198 .85
One would think, that if the meter is malfunctioning, that it would also do it with capacitance as well, but I'm not sure.
Thanks for the feed back. Kyoat
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2-4-09 Follow up on question of PF readings:
We tested 4 different motors today with one meter that is about 3 years old, against one just purchased last month, and here is the results:
Amps: Apparent watts: VAR-watts Power factor:
Emerson motor: Old meter: 9.63 202 1148 .18
New meter: 9.61 203 1141 .18
Century motor: Old meter: 7.52 192 906 .21
New meter: 7.50 189 904 .20
Delta motor: Old meter: 7.30 173 878 .19
New meter: 7.26 169 868 .19
G.E. motor: Old meter: 5.21 135 627 .23
New meter: 5.18 145 623 .23
Sooooo, I don't know what to say except that maybe YOU might have a malfunctioning meter. Anything is possible.... even Aliens!
Or is it possible that your power provider is not using the "same" power factor calculation as ours? My guess is that "they" all use the exact same formula to screw us all the exact same amount, (as much as they can). Kyoat
;D
Well we just got word that our Inverter will be shipped Monday the 9th. We will post our results ASAP Kyoat
Quote from: Kyoat on February 09, 2009, 02:28:16 AM
;D
Well we just got word that our Inverter will be shipped Monday the 9th. We will post our results ASAP Kyoat
Good luck ... am looking forward to your data
Cheers
RE: Inverter and 1 Hp Emerson motor
Yesterday we wired a 8-D Battery to our 3500Watt/7000Watt surge full sign wave Inverter.
We installed a 100 Amp meter in line between the battery and the inverter.
We plugged in a Kill-a-Watt meter between the Inverter and the 1 HP 1Phase 115 Volt Emerson motor.
The Emerson motor was connected by V-belt to a 60 lb flywheel.
Amp draw from battery was over 100 amps when switch turned on. Emerson motor tried to start, then Inverter circuit breaker popped.
Removed V-belt from flywheel
reset inverter and turned on.
Initial amp draw from battery was high (failed to record it)
Amp draw from inverter was recorded at 9.58 amps
Brought on-line 207 Uf run capacitors to Emerson motor
Amp draw from inverter dropped to 1.86 amps
We determined that the single 8D battery did not have sufficient Amps to handle the start up phase of the motor under the load of the 60 Lb flywheel. We will need to locate and add an additional 8D battery to the inverter. Or the other possible problem could be the 100 amp meter that we placed in line between the battery and inverter. Might have to get a larger one to handle the initial Amp draw at start up.
_________________________________________________________________________
Just as a test we did the following:
We unplugged the Emerson motor from the inverter.
Reinstalled the v-belt onto the flywheel.
plugged the Emerson into house current and started the emerson-flywheel to full rotation with the 207 Uf caps installed
Quickly unplugged it from house current and plugged it into the inverter and turned on.
Inverter power to emerson-flywheel draw was 2.14 Amps!
Amp draw from battery was between 10 and 15 Amps!
Our next step will be to add the second 8D battery for higher amps for start up and if this is successful we will then bring on line the 35 amp alternator to charge the batteries.
We will update as we get the info. Kyoat
Good Luck .... Keep on keepin on !
Below is a link to an interesting site which relates a bit to your research. It was posted a few days ago by Thane Heinz on his thread.
http://trias-innovations.com/inductionmotor.aspx
Cheers
Hi everyone thought id post quickly - did a test of this concept on a clip on fan (240ac 50hz) with a wattmeter and separate multimeter - just put the cap parallel over the hi speed switch setting and the live leg
no cap added wattmeter displays 14.9/15.0 watts and reported voltage - 238, reported current draw - 105 milliamps - i make that 24.99 watts? is my meter lying to me? ???
with 1uf 400v cap added - meter reports 14.7/14.8 watts, reported voltage - 238, reported current draw - 65 milliamps - 15.47 watts?
what id like to know is in the real world was this using 24.99 watts originally or 14.9/15.0 and 15.47 watts or 14.7/14.8 with cap added? - my mutlimeter gave the same readings when i carefully tested in series at the plug between the live leg so basic electrics is telling me i have saved roughly ten watts but the watt meter barely changes - i noticed the same effect with kyoats setup.
can someone help me out here in my ignorance please?
cheers - eel ;D
High all
trying to explain this phenomina is a little dificult as it requires a bit of changing your understanding of what these energies are and how they work but electrons are not what they are represented to be so will do my best with this line of thought Grunfus and Taco have been using this practice with there plumbing circulating pumps for some time now as it reduces overall power consumption of the boiler system while still providing full power output with torque.
energy when it is seperated to its two parts of current and voltage are what forms all power be it ac or dc and the reaction causes resistance in circuits but in a coil and capacitor tank circuit frequency comes into play and the basic nature of how these two react individually with these components allows them to cycle seperate of the normal power not being consumed as one is normally tought but rather loosing only a small amount to outside influence this causes current within the loop to rise to a maximum level and impede outside line current flow through this circuit type the power you buy is deminished and the power generated within the circuit is used to drive the motor if you play with or manipulate the volume of the capacitance a bit you should get an even better result because the readings you stated seem to indicate that you have not yet reached a point of power factor correction if on the kill -a -watt meter this number needs to get as close to 1 as you can get it for best results we typically get around .8
there are several electrical books that can explain this better or in more detail so please feel free to ask more questions.
hi thanks for your response nueview - kinda got what you meant hehe ;D i need to do some homework i guess - my meter is not specifically a 'kill-a-watt' meter but one similar except i cant find the power factor - can i work it out with the data i have available? volts, current, frequency, capacitance or is my meter correct in that in reality it was only .1-.2 of a watt difference? i will tune also - i think i might need to up my scale of things and try the inverter/gen combo - i believe kyoat is trying this too -
thanks again
eel ;)
i must admit kyoate is much better at keeping data than i am and he usually does the pictures in our group but he is away working right now so the project is kind of on hold except for gathering batteries and looking up some good inverters and gen sets years ago the inverters weren't as efficient nor were the generaters they didn't have NIB 42 magnets but the evidence was there that this looping could be accomplished 200watts for the motor and 300 out for the inverter to run it so 1000watts should leave 500watts for excess the more the motor can be geared down to a lower speed the more torque will be gained with the new wind tech for windmills we are seeing 100 and 400 rpm alternators that have very little coging this is abig pluss the main point is to reduce the inverter loads i believe this will help by caping the motors to reduce ampere draw from the inverter prolonging battery life a priority switch for large loads would also prolong battery life and 24 hour a day charging would greatly enhance battery life never heard of a car that runs all the time having a bad battery even in real cold weather.
with solar and wind a system should be able to be very sustainable without a fuel genset this is our goal so we chose a 1 horse motor to start with because most inverters of 4000watts can handle these motors also i believe that starting additional motors will be easier on the inverter if another motor is in the background as there should be some power shareing on the heavy draw of startup it would not be possible for me to explain this here.
but that is why we did the units we started with.
ok thanks again nueview ;) so you think its better using a wind turbine gen cause of lower rpm per output? - never thought of that hehe - need to get saving for a decent inverter too - i dont suppose you would have a link where to get them from? (im uk)
i was thinking about using a 1/4hp motor to start with then prove concept then work up - that way i could start with a smaller inverter too
i have a 40 watt solar array above my front door that im sure could help in this system - its currently used as a free multi charging point for all the mobiles/mp3's/aa/aaa's etc. in the house but it would be good to use a bit more of that power available
keep going all - eel
i have been working on this idea since about 1980 so please keep that in mind as i write this to you the system you have described is all about loss reduction so it means you need to be very specific about what you choose to do at 1/4 hp i think you will have trouble finding a suitable gen set a series of small stepper motors may work providing you have a 3600 rpm motor and gear down so you gain power in the exchange also do not use v belt system drive as it has to great a loss cog drive belts are much better as they have less frictional losses perhaps i should say less loss.
the inverter will need to be of a pure sine wave type No modified sine wave inverters they dont work when the motor is capped and it will need to be about 500 watt rated to do the job as possibly 300 watt but think this is cutting it a bit close due to initial start up draw will be high .
be sure to add a flywheel to the system as it helps keep momentum for the system and is well worth the start up draw for the power it puts back into the system later as the gen set surges and settles into a rythum mine is a little big right now so will have to make some mod to it.
be sure to ground your charging system this will be important negative to ground. as your system will need to breath .
wish you the best of luck hope this helps you.
as i really want to be of some help to you here with this project i want to say i miss the UK point at first you will be using 50 or 60 cycle power if 50 you may need more or less caps i think it goes up as cycles go down more time in the system and probably more volts as well we use 120 volt 60 cycle this gives us 22uf for 1 amp power if you have a clamp on current meter it will really help but there are also calculaters that can figure this out as well 50 cycle is a big drop and i am not sure about this i only say this because i would like my system to be higher than 60 cycles as speed would go up but then would need a second inverter for the other loads to the system as i have only some education in electronics any engineers help or input would be appreciated here even the odd thought. i'm open.
send me some more details and will try to work it out for you.
Martin
Hi everyone,
I'm away on a remote job about 500 miles from my home, so therefore not able to work on any of my research ideas except a little dreaming, sketching, drawing, etc. etc. for quit a while.... probably not until September or later.
Any way I thought I'd post this thought/idea that I had that popped into my head so that any of you out there that might be following might expand upon the idea and give me some feed back.
Here goes:
Facts:
Capacitors "love" induction motors, lowering the amp/watts used to power them while "increasing" the overall torque of the motor.
Capacitors "Hate" a resistive load and does nothing that I know of to help lower amp/watt consumption.
My thought:
So how could one get the advantage with resistive loads as he does with Induction loads?
My plan:
Take a 15 hp single phase Induction motor and install capacitance to reach the "sweet spot" which should be about an 80% reduction in amps in.
we will call this our C-motor.
Then connect this motor to an industrial "quality" generator of lets say 10Kw. We will call this our Gen.
If, when the C-motor under the full load of the Gen only draws 20% of the power that it normally does without capacitance
while the Gen puts out under variable loads up to 10Kw. Then I would have to say this would be a huge advantage. Even if your reduction
in "consumption amps/watts" was only 50% you would cut your electric bill in half!
The neat thing about this idea is this: In this way you are also reducing your bill as far as resistive loads go as well!
One could further reduce the "load" upon the Gen by placing capacitance on all induction motors down line from the Gen. (fans, pumps, etc.)
Now I'm not going to be able to test this idea out because of my job location. But if anyone does expand upon this idea please let me know.
Because I do believe it would work.
Kyoat
I urge everyone working with systems like this to do a full and complete study on power factor, and to get the right metering equipment, (kwhr meter, and a kw/kvar/kva/pf meter) you can find these things on ebay.
Quote from: d3adp00l on April 26, 2009, 04:14:04 PM
I urge everyone working with systems like this to do a full and complete study on power factor, and to get the right metering equipment, (kwhr meter, and a kw/kvar/kva/pf meter) you can find these things on ebay.
I totally agree. A Kill-a-Watt meter cost less than $25.00. We have two of them. Kyoat
Hi everyone,
I'm still on my remote job and have not been able to (hands on) continue my research. Although my partners are hard at work and have made tremendous success. We will post our newest results as soon as we can weed out any errors. We don't wish to receive the negative sounding replies that some feel they need to post. Ignorance seems to be a trait of some who wish to put others down with out explaining their reason for their response. I suppose this somehow makes them feel "smarter" or "better" but in my eyes, they are just plain ignorant individuals.
I (not we) need help!
I'm not an expert, but I keep getting conflicting answers when tyring to answer some of my questions. So I thought I'd post them and maybe someone out there will be able to help me out with a logical, easy to understand explanation.
So here's a few of my questions that I'm tyring to find answers for. Anyone willing to assist in the correct answers will be greatly appreciated, and not forgotten! PLEASE EXPLAIN ANY ANSWERS
1) 1 Horse power (electric motors) = (I've been told 746 watts is this correct?
1 Horse diesel is greater than 1 Hp Gas...... how does an electric motor rate as compared?
is it greater or less? Please explain. (A 15KW generator will work with a 15 HP diesel, but
requires at least a 24 HP gas motor. (so therfore HP is not an equal equation)
2) 1 horse power (electric motors) = (I've been told 550 foot pounds per second) is this correct?
3) This question deals with gear reduction verses horse power.
3A) If I have a 1 HP electric motor hooked to a 2 to 1 gear reduction gear box, how much
power do I have at the slower end? Is it still 1 HP, or is it 2 HP? (less frictional losses)
4) If you hook up a "grid inverter" to your local power provider, and let's say your power source is
15 KW of power, as opposed to your power provider's power of let's say 200 Amp service
at 220 volts, why doesn't this "fry" your inverter?
4A) If this same inverter is getting it's power from a XXXXXXXX that gets it's initial power
from your local utility, will this cause a harmonic interference within the two
systems?
5) Any help with any of these questions will be greatly appreciated.
Thank You.... KYOAT
1 hp is in fact equal to 746 watts
diesel:
http://www.generatorjoe.net/zGJCY-015D385.html
gasoline:
http://www.generatorjoe.net/product.asp?0=200&1=618&3=2922
Generator engines have to be at least 20% stronger in hp than the electric equal hp, so 15000/746= 20hp
20hp/.80= 25hp, that way the engine can handle a load being dumped on it with out stalling the engine.
GAsoline or diesel HP is HP. The difference is in the amount of fuel used to produce the hp, and the amount of displacement of the engine.
2.) yes 1 hp is 550 foot pounds for one second. Please see :http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
to convert just about anything into anything else.
! HP is equal to the energy needed to lift 33000lbs 1 foot in 1 minute.
3) you would still have 1 hp. think of mechanical hp as a function of rpm and torque. high rpm and low torque = 1hp, low rpm and high torque = 1hp.
power is universal, whether you lift 10lbs 10feet or 100lbs 1 foot.
4) your service has a maximum handling of 200 amp at 240v. but you only ever use the amount you have turned on at any one time. Which can be very low. Zero in fact. An inverter has the ability to limit how much power to outputs, and so limits itself to 15kw. Instead of blowing up it cuts back its output voltage.
4A) the inverter is designed to harmonize itself with the HZ of the system, so no it should not. Because the inverter turns DC into AC, and dc has no harmonics to it.
5) Umm your welcome?, not sure how to answer that one :)
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 16, 2009, 06:47:07 PM
1 hp is in fact equal to 746 watts
diesel:
http://www.generatorjoe.net/zGJCY-015D385.html
gasoline:
http://www.generatorjoe.net/product.asp?0=200&1=618&3=2922
Generator engines have to be at least 20% stronger in hp than the electric equal hp, so 15000/746= 20hp
20hp/.80= 25hp, that way the engine can handle a load being dumped on it with out stalling the engine.
GAsoline or diesel HP is HP. The difference is in the amount of fuel used to produce the hp, and the amount of displacement of the engine.
2.) yes 1 hp is 550 foot pounds for one second. Please see :http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
to convert just about anything into anything else.
! HP is equal to the energy needed to lift 33000lbs 1 foot in 1 minute.
3) you would still have 1 hp. think of mechanical hp as a function of rpm and torque. high rpm and low torque = 1hp, low rpm and high torque = 1hp.
power is universal, whether you lift 10lbs 10feet or 100lbs 1 foot.
4) your service has a maximum handling of 200 amp at 240v. but you only ever use the amount you have turned on at any one time. Which can be very low. Zero in fact. An inverter has the ability to limit how much power to outputs, and so limits itself to 15kw. Instead of blowing up it cuts back its output voltage.
4A) the inverter is designed to harmonize itself with the HZ of the system, so no it should not. Because the inverter turns DC into AC, and dc has no harmonics to it.
5) Umm your welcome?, not sure how to answer that one :)
Thank You very much for your time and effort in answering some of these questions. KYOAT
One thing I would like to point out, and it will proly not make much sense. If you look at the name plate amperage and voltage and find the wattage of a motor, you will notice that this wattage does not coinside with the 746 stated watts. Most motors at labeled at the full load amps, which is different than the nominal load amps, which is different than the no load amps.
In other words a 1hp motor should draw 746/(its percent efficiency) at its rated output of 1hp.
Most motors are around 70% eff, so 746/.7=1065 watts actual draw. But that is with 1hp worth of load.
With no load it will draw very little wattage, and with a locked rotor (infinite load) it will draw much more wattage.
Also pay attention to the P.F. rating on the motor (power factor). A motor with a PF of .69 will "appear" to draw more amperage when using a clamp style amp meter. This is because the amp meter can not correct the power factor, and when caps are placed in the load it corrects the power factor and makes the amp meter correct again (if the right caps are placed). If too much capacitance is added into the system it will push the power factor off again but in the capacitance direction instead of the inductance direction.
There are clamp type watt meters that measure the wattage, amerage, power factor, and everything else. They use a clamp along with some clip leads that attach to the wiring of the motor. If you are going to be doing this kind of testing this is the type of meter you need. You also need to understand the amp draw at different loads.
An electric motor with no load is like a gas engine at idle, sure its turning 800rpm, but that power output is much different than it the engine was turning 800 rpm while moving a 3000lbs car.
so have been listening to the thread and would like to know how much capacitance you would use to correct for this power factor.
also i have never seen an ac induction motor of 1 hp idle as you say with less than 5 amp draw these windings do not resonate as do transformers to form a load so define load.
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 18, 2009, 03:09:39 AM
One thing I would like to point out, and it will proly not make much sense. If you look at the name plate amperage and voltage and find the wattage of a motor, you will notice that this wattage does not coinside with the 746 stated watts. Most motors at labeled at the full load amps, which is different than the nominal load amps, which is different than the no load amps.
In other words a 1hp motor should draw 746/(its percent efficiency) at its rated output of 1hp.
Most motors are around 70% eff, so 746/.7=1065 watts actual draw. But that is with 1hp worth of load.
With no load it will draw very little wattage, and with a locked rotor (infinite load) it will draw much more wattage.
Also pay attention to the P.F. rating on the motor (power factor). A motor with a PF of .69 will "appear" to draw more amperage when using a clamp style amp meter. This is because the amp meter can not correct the power factor, and when caps are placed in the load it corrects the power factor and makes the amp meter correct again (if the right caps are placed). If too much capacitance is added into the system it will push the power factor off again but in the capacitance direction instead of the inductance direction.
There are clamp type watt meters that measure the wattage, amerage, power factor, and everything else. They use a clamp along with some clip leads that attach to the wiring of the motor. If you are going to be doing this kind of testing this is the type of meter you need. You also need to understand the amp draw at different loads.
An electric motor with no load is like a gas engine at idle, sure its turning 800rpm, but that power output is much different than it the engine was turning 800 rpm while moving a 3000lbs car.
Thank you for you input.
I believe we understand the difference between no-load amps and that of a loaded motor amps.
maybe not,
But what I do know is that our 1 HP motor under a "full load" of a 60 Lb flywheel drew 9.58 amps which would translate to about 1150 watts.
But that same motor and flywheel with matched capacitance came to full RPM twice as fast which to me would indicate, with modest consideration, twice the Torque. Same RPM's since that is based upon Hz. And while under this same load drew only 1.86 amps. Which is far below the normal no-load amps, and 80% less than fully loaded with out capacitance.
Since Horsepower has to do with 1) Torque 2) RPM 3) diameter(radius) I think it would be safe to assume that with the same RPM's BUT twice the Torque (start to full RPM's) than one could safely assume an increase of "Potential" horsepower.
Not only was this motor twice as fast under a full load from start to full RPM's but we also documented that it operates at extended period of time at a lower temperature as well. Now it's my assumption that with a inefficient Induction type motor, that most of the "heat" generated comes mostly from the fields fighting them self, and the remainder from frictional losses.
We have a magnetic heater, no wiring, no current, no fuel what so ever. And yet when rotated creates so much heat that it turns blue-hot!
So my question to you is this, with the above results as described, what would your assumption be?
We don't have any real high priced testers other than the Kill-a-watt meters, Clamp amp testers, oscilloscope's, and so on. Even if ...... the amps were wrong ...... if you had twice the Torque or horsepower for the same watt "consumption" I do believe this would be a huge step forward.
Thank you for your input, Kyoat
Quote from: Kyoat on May 18, 2009, 10:04:35 PM
.... if you had twice the Torque or horsepower for the same watt "consumption" I do believe this would be a huge step forward.
Without a doubt!
Cheers
Twice the torque, would also indicate more HP.
The simple version is this, if you are making more usable power with less electrical power, yes that is a good thing. But proving it is a more important thing.
The killawatt meter will probably suffice, between that a volt meter, and a clamp amp meter you can find true amps, reactive amps, percent power factor, etc. It is just easier to do with a power factor meter since it does all that in one unit.
Plug you motor into the killawatt meter, write down that reading, write down the reading from the volt meter, and amp meter. Then compare the voltsXamps and what the killawatt meter says. If they say the same thing, then the killawatt meter is not a true watt meter, if there is a substancial difference between them (around Killawatt/(ampXvolts)=.70) then it should be accuarate enough. True watts/apparent watt = power factor. apparent watts= true watts+reactive watts.
The point of what I am saying is not to disagree with anyone, but simply to point out some of the properties involved with inductive loads and some of the common misconceptions.
You could be over correcting the capacitive balance and singing the reactive amperage from inductive to capacitive.
There is a simple way to do all of this, couple the motor to a generator (motor) turn the motor on, and have a load attached to the generator (500watt halogen light works well its a pure resistive load, and stays constant), record all of the metered data for both the motor and the generator loads. Make your changes (capacitors) and then do the same.
If the motor draws less, but maintains the light voltage and amps, then you can prove your point to almost anyone.
a motor with caps will run cooler, and yes its because the potential created when the field collapses has a capacitor to go into instead of back into the line voltage.
There are formulas on how to calc the capacitance needed for a given motor inductance, but most motors don't list the inductance and so then you need to have a meter for it, or be able to do the reactive amperage to capacitance calcs, all of it is on the net if you do a search you can find it. If you really really really need me to explain it I can go dig out my notes from when I was studying power factor.
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 19, 2009, 09:23:04 PM
Twice the torque, would also indicate more HP.
The simple version is this, if you are making more usable power with less electrical power, yes that is a good thing. But proving it is a more important thing.
The killawatt meter will probably suffice, between that a volt meter, and a clamp amp meter you can find true amps, reactive amps, percent power factor, etc. It is just easier to do with a power factor meter since it does all that in one unit.
Plug you motor into the killawatt meter, write down that reading, write down the reading from the volt meter, and amp meter. Then compare the voltsXamps and what the killawatt meter says. If they say the same thing, then the killawatt meter is not a true watt meter, if there is a substancial difference between them (around Killawatt/(ampXvolts)=.70) then it should be accuarate enough. True watts/apparent watt = power factor. apparent watts= true watts+reactive watts.
The point of what I am saying is not to disagree with anyone, but simply to point out some of the properties involved with inductive loads and some of the common misconceptions.
You could be over correcting the capacitive balance and singing the reactive amperage from inductive to capacitive.
There is a simple way to do all of this, couple the motor to a generator (motor) turn the motor on, and have a load attached to the generator (500watt halogen light works well its a pure resistive load, and stays constant), record all of the metered data for both the motor and the generator loads. Make your changes (capacitors) and then do the same.
If the motor draws less, but maintains the light voltage and amps, then you can prove your point to almost anyone.
a motor with caps will run cooler, and yes its because the potential created when the field collapses has a capacitor to go into instead of back into the line voltage.
There are formulas on how to calc the capacitance needed for a given motor inductance, but most motors don't list the inductance and so then you need to have a meter for it, or be able to do the reactive amperage to capacitance calcs, all of it is on the net if you do a search you can find it. If you really really really need me to explain it I can go dig out my notes from when I was studying power factor.
Please go and check out this site:
http://www.forgotten-genius.com/documents/pg__2_2.html
Not only does he explain the whole Capacitance - Induction proccess in english for the layman, but maybe you might understand more fully what is going on here.
Pay attention to his last words. About using less current. If you have read our entire tread, you will have noticed that when the Amps-in are low, that the amps "present" at the capacitors are very high, 9 amps or more.
I know what you are saying about over capacitance, I spent alot of time keeping deligent data records to find the best capacitance for this motor, any less, any more and the results were not the same. Surley the capacitance and Induction are in resonance with one another, evidenced by our drastic reduction in power consumption, while at the same time, twice the torque, all while there were alot of "amps present" between the capacitance and the inductance.
If you have read our tread, you will see all the data, from the kill-a-watt meter readings.
I hope this doesn't come over too strong, as that is not my intentions.
Research the use of capacitance and induction motors and you will find that in Canada, very large industrial companys are haveing capacitors installed on their Induction motors to lower their power "consumption" bill. Do you think they would go to the expense if it were not to their gain?
Your testing method, to say the least is interesting. I just wonder if a 60 Lb flywheel would not also be considered a "resistive" load, if not a full resistive load for a 1 Hp induction motor. When I get the chance I shall try that.
But, honestly I see no difference in these loads other than the fact that you can also get harmonics between an Induction motor and the coupling of a generator in very close proxcimities. We once coupled two 1 Hp induction motors by V-belt, with a slight gear-up-ratio so as to spin the "generator" Induction motor just a little above it's stated Rpm's so that it would generate power. It would not, even attemps to "charge" the stator with 120 volts failed. Nothing Until I placed a 1/2" plate aluminum barrier between the two motors did the static discharge go away, and then it began charging immediatley!
The harmonics from the drive motor wouldn't allow the other to become a generator. Although a strange event was occouring durring the no-charge attempts. The "generator" was discharging a static spark of about 1/2" or less to the nearest source of a ground. The shield stopped this.
Kyoat
The first reason for me posting was just to point out to some of the readers about power factor, and to point it out.
But in regards to your data. I have some questions
How are you obtaining VAR
How are you obtaining PF
I am sure I will have more as I look further into this so I can understand better what you are reporting.
A few points, I am an electrical contractor, not that means a huge amount, but in 15 years I have never seen any motor with a power factor below .5, normally they are around .7
All motors can be corrected to a power factor of 1.0 with the proper cap, but it is advised to target .95 to protect the equipment.
The cap banks you mention are not there to save power, its a power line conditioner to prevent damage to other electrical devices. True Kilowatt meters do not record var or apparent amperage, they only record true wattage consumed. I have taken a motor a standard residential power meter, my power factor meter, my clamp type amp meter, and volt meter and have tested this. The power factor meter and power meter measured correct true wattage, the clamp meter and voltage meter reported true + reactive amperage.
I did this test many times with different household meters and loads, I was looking into it as a possible business opportunity.
Those claiming that a cap on a motor can reduce power bills either dont understand power factor, or are purposely deceiving someone for money.
I am not saying your data falls into this in any way shape or fashion, but what I am saying is in regard to the cap banks on large buildings.
I havent seen much data from your killawatt device. I will be looking for it.
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 23, 2009, 03:42:43 AM
The first reason for me posting was just to point out to some of the readers about power factor, and to point it out.
But in regards to your data. I have some questions
How are you obtaining VAR
How are you obtaining PF
I am sure I will have more as I look further into this so I can understand better what you are reporting.
A few points, I am an electrical contractor, not that means a huge amount, but in 15 years I have never seen any motor with a power factor below .5, normally they are around .7
All motors can be corrected to a power factor of 1.0 with the proper cap, but it is advised to target .95 to protect the equipment.
The cap banks you mention are not there to save power, its a power line conditioner to prevent damage to other electrical devices. True Kilowatt meters do not record var or apparent amperage, they only record true wattage consumed. I have taken a motor a standard residential power meter, my power factor meter, my clamp type amp meter, and volt meter and have tested this. The power factor meter and power meter measured correct true wattage, the clamp meter and voltage meter reported true + reactive amperage.
I did this test many times with different household meters and loads, I was looking into it as a possible business opportunity.
Those claiming that a cap on a motor can reduce power bills either dont understand power factor, or are purposely deceiving someone for money.
I am not saying your data falls into this in any way shape or fashion, but what I am saying is in regard to the cap banks on large buildings.
I havent seen much data from your killawatt device. I will be looking for it.
Our VAR readings are with a Kill-a-watt meter, model P-4400
Our PF readings are with a Kill-a-watt meter, model P-4400
Are you familiar with this meter? It displays the following:
1) Volts (true RMS Voltage)
2) Amps (true RMS output current)
3) Watts
4) VA
5) Hz
6) PF (W/Vrms Arms)
7) Kwh
8) hour
No where in our posting's have we anywhere laid claim to
"cap banks on large buildings" All of our reference has been to capacitance on
individual induction motors.
As far as deceiving others for money, we have made no claim for the Over Unity prize posted on this site (not that we wouldn't in the near future), nor are we trying to charge anyone anything. We simply are trying to improve an already "heavily commercialized" system that in our opinion is taking us all to the cleaners if you know what I mean.
Nor are we asking money for any information that we may have. (not that some day we might, If we had a 100% fool proof system that would work to one's advantage monetarily)
You might be right about one thing though. Maybe we don't fully understand about power Factor as you claim.
So why don't you explain it in full detail for one and all, all aspects of PF. Explain to us how it is that one wouldn't save on his electric bill with a reduced "consumption" of power from 9.58 amps down to 1.86 Amps.
Kyoat
whoaa Kyoat, I did not mean for it to sound like I was implicating you in the "power factor" scammers out there, That was in no way directed towards you, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was referencing people like this
http://www.power2savings.com/
http://www.powerfactorsavings.com/index.php
As for the large building comment: it stemmed from this
"Research the use of capacitance and induction motors and you will find that in Canada, very large industrial companys are haveing capacitors installed on their Induction motors to lower their power "consumption" bill. Do you think they would go to the expense if it were not to their gain?"
Most large facilities will put the conditioning caps in a single location at the main switchgear, with a computer controlled adjustment to correct the PF on the fly as the load changes (motors get turned on).
exerpt from a utility doc:
Why should we be concerned with Power Factor?
Low power factor means lower operating efficiency which results in a need for larger conductors
(wires), increased equipment capacity, more electrical losses and lower voltages. This could
mean higher capital investment, higher expenses, and diminished performance.
for just about everything on why large consumers put power factor correction on their equipment, look up Mike holt.
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=110653&highlight=power+factor+correction
In the case that you gave 9 amps to 1 amps, I would need more data to fully understand the readings and what they mean.
If the difference was just a power factor correction, then they would in fact save nothing, since the kwhr meter does not read reactive amperage but just real amperage. To say it reads amperage is not really a correct statement, it reads wattage, but it reacts to amperage.
I find your reported PF of less than .5 odd, and would be interested if you could measure it again. But trying to fully understand your setup with still pictures and text would be very difficult. Do you put anything on youtube?
Other than that kyoat, I am just commenting on what the odd points of what I have seen of your data. I haven't been on board since the begining, and am trying to catch up.
Again I am not saying that you are not recording what you say you are, I am just contrasting it with what I have seen. If you are showing a PF that low and amperage drops like that then you are, I am not standing there so I really don't know. I am just saying to double check it because it is out of the realms of normal by a long shot, which could very well be a good thing, or just something simple.
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 27, 2009, 11:49:34 PM
whoaa Kyoat, I did not mean for it to sound like I was implicating you in the "power factor" scammers out there, That was in no way directed towards you, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was referencing people like this
http://www.power2savings.com/
http://www.powerfactorsavings.com/index.php
As for the large building comment: it stemmed from this
"Research the use of capacitance and induction motors and you will find that in Canada, very large industrial companys are haveing capacitors installed on their Induction motors to lower their power "consumption" bill. Do you think they would go to the expense if it were not to their gain?"
Most large facilities will put the conditioning caps in a single location at the main switchgear, with a computer controlled adjustment to correct the PF on the fly as the load changes (motors get turned on).
exerpt from a utility doc:
Why should we be concerned with Power Factor?
Low power factor means lower operating efficiency which results in a need for larger conductors
(wires), increased equipment capacity, more electrical losses and lower voltages. This could
mean higher capital investment, higher expenses, and diminished performance.
for just about everything on why large consumers put power factor correction on their equipment, look up Mike holt.
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=110653&highlight=power+factor+correction
In the case that you gave 9 amps to 1 amps, I would need more data to fully understand the readings and what they mean.
If the difference was just a power factor correction, then they would in fact save nothing, since the kwhr meter does not read reactive amperage but just real amperage. To say it reads amperage is not really a correct statement, it reads wattage, but it reacts to amperage.
I find your reported PF of less than .5 odd, and would be interested if you could measure it again. But trying to fully understand your setup with still pictures and text would be very difficult. Do you put anything on youtube?
Other than that kyoat, I am just commenting on what the odd points of what I have seen of your data. I haven't been on board since the begining, and am trying to catch up.
Again I am not saying that you are not recording what you say you are, I am just contrasting it with what I have seen. If you are showing a PF that low and amperage drops like that then you are, I am not standing there so I really don't know. I am just saying to double check it because it is out of the realms of normal by a long shot, which could very well be a good thing, or just something simple.
Apology accepted. Although I was just trying to make a point. And the point being, that we are not trying to scam anyone. We might make mistakes, as our thread has shown, we have made mistakes, and will probably continue to do so, but that is how we ALL learn, by our mistakes.
May I make a recommendation D3adP00l?
Please, get yourself a 1 hp Induction motor. (set to 115 V)
Add Capacitance (we used 370 Volt caps) to it until you get the best results. (we did this by expermintation, 1 uf at a time, and did not rely upon math calculations)
Then run all the tests that you can think of. PF, watts, Amps etc.
If your results are the same as ours, then we will both be in agreeance.
If not, and you disagree, please, by all means let us know why. And we will listen.
This will be the best way for both of us on this issue. Better than taking stabs at each other. Either we are right, or were wrong. Simple as that. But from everything we know and have seen, believe fully that what we are reporting is 100% correct and true!
I'm unable to do any experimentation, as my proffessional line of work has now taken me to the North Slope of Alaska, and I'll be unable to do so for probably another two months.
Good luck, Kyoat