Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations SSS148 on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Watt Guard - Watt is it? 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skogsgurra

Skogsgurra

Electrical
Mar 31, 2003
11,815
I read about Watt Guard in a local paper. It is used to save energy in large flourescent tube light installations. It does so by 'reducing voltage and thereby increase density of the neon gas and increasing the speed of the electrons 20 000 to 30 000 times'

The latest snake oil, obviously. Some kind of Nolan thing? Anyone heard about this or even tested it? Details?

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
News to me - but if you assume 50Hz supply and a piece of equipment that does nothing special, "increasing the speed of the electrons 20 000 to 30 000 times" might just be another way of saying that it seldom survives the first five minutes of service.

A.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The first thing to do would be to update the facility from old magnetic ballasts to more efficient high frequency electronic ballasts. The tubes would be replaced at the same time (often from 40W to 34W). This provides a guaranteed payback period and can typically be financed at zero net cost in the short term and significant savings in the long term. It's a "no brainer".

Once that's done, then you can't use the WattGuard ("Wattguard does not work with self-regulating high-frequency ballasts."). The above approach therefore solves two problems at once: saves money, energy and the planet, and it avoids the temptation of what is likely to be snake oil.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks! I wasn't aware of that. Thought it was an American or Chinese company.

Will absolutely do that. I have a friend in that region. He needs some publicity. A very good idea to pull their pants down in public. That will make him a hero.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ooh, watch out Gunnar!

If they're anything like their American energy-scam counterparts, they have a machine gun loaded with attorneys and their finger is on the trigger.

Imagine trying to convince a jury of 12 non-engineers, plus a judge and a gaggle of lawyers, that some magical new thing doesn't work...

Step cautiously, but I'd love to see the pants-down-in-public thing happen!!!

Good on ya and best of luck,

Goober Dave
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have just finished a test in my lab. Their claim is that they can run the fixtures at a lower voltage. And that that also reduces power. That is true. But they also claim that light intensity is not affected by the lower voltage. That is not true.

I have set up a variac and a 36 W flourescent tube with magnetic ballast. I put a photo transistor in a fixed position pependicular to, and touching, the tube's surface. I took the photo current through a 2x330 ohms resistor and got a 100 Hz pulsating light signal. We have a 50 Hz grid.

I recorded Voltage, current and light signal in one diagram and varied voltage from 0 V to around 265 V (upper tolerance limit for our grid is 253 V)

I am working with the recording and will show a pdf later. The preliminary result is that light output varies with voltage. That was expected.

I think that the trick is to reduce voltage around one percent each day. That will not be noticed. But after some time, you are down to 190 V and lower energy consumption and those that think that they see a difference will probably be given a PC treatment. "Are you against CO2 reduction?" and similar arguments.

It would be equally effective to disconnect 20 - 30 percent of the fixtures.

One positive thing that I can't deny is that lamp life probably will be longer.

Stand by!

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sooo, watts up with the gizmo then?

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I haven't been able to measure on the device as such. But there cannot be any special waveforms involved - and I don't think that would help much. The reason there can't be any special waveforms is simply that they wouldn't be very effective when you have an inductive (magnetic) ballast. And definitely not with PFC capacitors present.

My guess, without having seen the device IRL, is that they have a programmed dimmer and that the voltage is decreased graduallly over a week or two so that nobody notices how the light level is decreased and then the light stays at the lower level. The low level can, for instance, correspond to the near end-of-life light level of the lamp. That level is still acceptable and since lamp life is prolonged, you have - in fact - an improved situation.

What I do not like is that gas density and 20 000 to 30 000 times faster electrons crap.

A test with a luxmeter will reveal that 'trick' immediately and such measurements are made routinely in workplaces. Don't know about sport centers.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"they have a programmed dimmer and that the voltage is decreased graduallly"

Cute trick, but they claim that the the lux/watt increases by 82%, and even increases 43% only an hour after installation: Since that's trivial to verify, dimming the light would be a non-starter, so to speak.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Strange math. In your reference, there are numbers given for power reduction. They are:

37% power reduction results in 41,5% increase in luminous efficiency
47,5% power reduction results in 43% increase in luminous efficiency
71% power reduction results in 82,5% increase in luminous efficiency

I am not sure how many ways you can calculate increase in luminous efficiency. But, if light output stays constant, which I highly doubt, then the numbers should be like this:

37% power reduction results in 59% increase in luminous efficiency
47,5% power reduction results in 90% increase in luminous efficiency
71% power reduction results in 345% increase in luminous efficiency

Smells and tastes like snake oil. Flourescent tubes are old hat. Competition has refined the technology for at least five decades. How can it be then that a small, unknown company can demonstrate such dramatic numbers? Too good to be true? Probably.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Strange math, yes. But my math is even stranger. I'll try and get that right:

37% power reduction results in 59% increase in luminous efficiency
41,5% power reduction results in 71% increase in luminous efficiency
47,5% power reduction results in 90% increase in luminous efficiency

That's better. Well, I mean worse, but more realistic. There was an 'avalanche effect' in the numbers in the 25 Jul 11 4:10 post.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Everything is not snake oil!

I think that I have been too suspicious. That gizmo seems to work! I have added an appendix to the previous report. I took the data into an Excel sheet and plotted power and light output as voltage was taken from seious overvoltage, via rated voltage down to the voltage delivered by the device and then down to extinction.

There is a sweet spot at around 190 V where light/power is 30 - 35 percent better than at rated voltage.

So, if you can tolerate a lower overall light level, the savings are twofold: Better efficiency and lower power input - threefold if you also count longer lamp life (and fourfold if you also count reduced cost for labour).

Read the appendix in
I apologize. If they hadn't mentioned denser gas and electron velocity 20 000 to 30 000 times higher! And if they hadn't been saying that light levels are unaffected!!

That - if anything - is snake oil salesmanship. A more honest and fact based marketing and this may very well be a success in many applications.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I believe that their math is:

(1-electricity_savings)*(1+lux/watt), resulting in:

(1-.37)*1.43 = .9009
(1-.415)*1.71 = 1.003
(1-.475)*1.82 = .9581

So, they were usually running slightly lower net light, but substantially lower power. Maybe just differences in the tubes used.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So, if you energize a 230 Volt ballast with 190 Volts there is a significant increase in efficiency.
You you get the same results if a 278 Volt ballast were energized from 230 Volts?
I wonder if the manufacturers of ballasts realize that a few extra turns on the primary of the ballast will result in increased efficiency?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There must be someone from lighting industry around! There must be lots of knowledge available. Anyone?

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mrtangent2
  • Locked
  • Question
External Power Cable - Code - Black, Red etc.. is it a standard UK or convention
Replies
2
Views
203
Giulio Prette
Giulio Prette
PaulKraemer
  • Question
10 VAC between line and ground when circuit breaker is off?
Replies
7
Views
4K
PaulKraemer
PaulKraemer
KGisME
  • Locked
  • Question
Modifying an NEMA 4 box. How to ensure it stays watertight? 4
Replies
17
Views
2K
FacEngrPE
FacEngrPE
DrDrreeeaaa
  • Locked
  • Question
Burst Firing for an AC Voltage Controller - What is the supply current rating?
Replies
8
Views
472
waross
waross
Islander1
  • Locked
  • Article
Why there is a negative current flowing into solar panels
Replies
6
Views
777
Islander1
Islander1

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom