Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[bistander]

Recent post on Holcomb's website:
I'll post a screenshot shot as I am unable to copy text (from here https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=###)
They show two bar graphs, with and without HES bypassed. They state averages of 21.7 and 10.7 kW, respectfully. Those stated average numbers would indicate a 50+% saving.

To me it looks like bad math, so I printed the respective charts and drew in their average value as a pencil line. Attached below is photo of my pencil average lines. Maybe Holcomb needs to check facts and figures before publishing.
bi


{edit}
So while reviewing this again, I noticed that the charts are for "Demand Usage". I assumed this was the average power used, but NO. "Demand Usage" means something else in the electric utility industry. See:
https://atrius.com/the-difference-between-electricity-demand-and-electricity-consumption/

So this may not be a case of "bad math" as I originally thought. But how many readers are mislead thinking the 10.7/21.7 ratio was an actual energy savings? Think the same thing applies to the chart which impressed so many people a year or so ago was also demand? I suspect it was.

[onepower]

bistander

So this may not be a case of "bad math" as I originally thought. But how many readers are mislead thinking the 10.7/21.7 ratio was an actual energy savings? Think the same thing applies to the chart which impressed so many people a year or so ago was also demand? I suspect it was.

Many people confuse "power" demand in kW and "energy" consumption in kWh.

There are a few things which pop out. The graph is showing the kW demand measured over 24hrs so it's intuitive that each bar is an indication of the power at any given time. A rough guess is 100 power measurements over 24hr or every 15 minutes. Since the power demand is reduced by 50% on average the energy consumption is also reduced by 50%. The energy in kWh is the average power in kW times the hours of operation. So we add up all the 100 measurements in kW, divide by 100 for the average kW's then multiply that number by the hours of operation or 24 to get the energy in kWh.
21.7kW * 24hr = 520.8 kWh before
10.7kW * 24hr = 256.8 kWh after

As well, note how after the device was installed it flat lined the demand peak. Did the load change during the two test days or or is the power gain non-linear?. That is, providing more/less gain above/below a given power threshold.

It's not common knowledge but the kind of process being used generally yields close to a 100% gain per cycle. Which implies this is a one pass device versus a feedback or multi-stage device which can deliver a higher COP. So they could use two devices in series to lower the utility power demand but it's less cost effective. The first device reduces demand by 10kW, the second device by 5kW and a third by 2.5kW and so on.

Limiting the gain to COP=2 implies to me they don't fully understand how this process works or there playing it safe to cause less disruption to the present utility market. I have no idea what there thinking is but if it works it works.

AC

[bistander]

bistander
Many people confuse "power" demand in kW and "energy" consumption in kWh.

There are a few things which pop out. The graph is showing the kW demand measured over 24hrs so it's intuitive that each bar is an indication of the power at any given time. A rough guess is 100 power measurements over 24hr or every 15 minutes. Since the power demand is reduced by 50% on average the energy consumption is also reduced by 50%. The energy in kWh is the average power in kW times the hours of operation. So we add up all the 100 measurements in kW, divide by 100 for the average kW's then multiply that number by the hours of operation or 24 to get the energy in kWh.
21.7kW * 24hr = 520.8 kWh before
10.7kW * 24hr = 256.8 kWh after

As well, note how after the device was installed it flat lined the demand peak. Did the load change during the two test days or or is the power gain non-linear?. That is, providing more/less gain above/below a given power threshold.

It's not common knowledge but the kind of process being used generally yields close to a 100% gain per cycle. Which implies this is a one pass device versus a feedback or multi-stage device which can deliver a higher COP. So they could use two devices in series to lower the utility power demand but it's less cost effective. The first device reduces demand by 10kW, the second device by 5kW and a third by 2.5kW and so on.

Limiting the gain to COP=2 implies to me they don't fully understand how this process works or there playing it safe to cause less disruption to the present utility market. I have no idea what there thinking is but if it works it works.

AC

Hello AC,

You say:

So we add up all the 100 measurements in kW, divide by 100 for the average kW's then multiply that number by the hours of operation or 24 to get the energy in kWh.
21.7kW * 24hr = 520.8 kWh before
10.7kW * 24hr = 256.8 kWh after

That is clearly incorrect. You've been fooled, which was my point. I think most everybody is fooled, perhaps even Holcomb. The 10.7 and 21.7 numbers are not the averages of the blue bars. Look at area above my pencil line vs the area between tops of blue bars and pencil line for each chart. If what you say is true, those areas would be equal.
bi

[onepower]

Bistander

That is clearly incorrect. You've been fooled, which was my point. I think most everybody is fooled, perhaps even Holcomb. The 10.7 and 21.7 numbers are not the averages of the blue bars. Look at area above my pencil line vs the area between tops of blue bars and pencil line for each chart. If what you say is true, those areas would be equal.

Indeed, the 10.7 graph looks closer to 12.5 on average and the 21.7 graph closer to 17 on average.

AC

[rakarskiy]

This is just "grasping at straws" to prove that Holcomb's Energy System does not work with the OverUnity effect.

Bad analyst who made a post. There, obviously, one graph (upper) would be enough, where the left part is with the Holcomb generator, and the right part is without it. To get a full 50/50, it is necessary that the consumers (air conditioning system) are always turned on at full capacity, which in reality cannot be, the cooling system has a temperature maintenance mode. And the excitation of the generator must always be stable in order to maintain generation, otherwise the generation will fail. This is her speciality.

If you're itching to check it out, visit the facility where Holcomb's generators work. Ask the owner to run a test: one day with Holcomb generators, another day without. The cost of energy is assumed to exceed the work without the Holcomb generator, take this cost on your pocket. Then argue, some Mui Ne, about lies from Holcomb.

The most accurate way to compare is your own wallet: it will show the difference in savings or loss.