×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction
8

Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

(OP)
I am an electric utility power engineer and have been asked to evaluate a "Synchronous Reactance Controller" that promises our customer up to 10 % energy savings.  Personnally, I think it is snake oil, but in fairness I would like to know if anyone has evaluated such a system and would share their results.

The device promises VAR correction which lowers the KVA demand and our associated charges.  However, it also promises to filter the harmonics out of the supply voltage and to balance the three phase voltages.  I am sure there are some efficiency savings with the harmonic improvements, but I do not know how to quantify them.

I cannot obtain information on the internals of the device and since it is connected in a shunt (parallel) I am at a loss as to how it may balance loads/voltage.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

It's impossible to evaluate a "Black Box", but the best I can see it being is a per Phase static VAR compensator.  This could provide harmonic filtering, and power factor correction.  There would be energy savings from the reduced harmonics, but also from the improved power factor, less current equals less line and transformer losses.

As for voltage balancing it could conceivably balance voltage by unequally correcting the power factor per phase, ie improve PF on low phases only, but this would work against the energy savings due to improved power factor.

The energy savings due to improved power factor I figure would be less then 1%, the only large energy savings I can think of is the improved efficiency of motors due to the improvement voltage balance.  A post in the electric motors forum would yield a good estimate I beleive.

As for the ability of this box to balance voltage, it would depend on the kVAR rating relative to the transformer feeding the system.  (If my theory is right about the per phase VAR compensator)

My gut feeling is there 10% is heavily relying on the motor issue stated.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

I know absolutely nothing about such devices.

It seems  possible that a shunt device could help balance voltages by removing vars from the high voltage phase and injecting then into the low voltage phase.  I can picture some static devices that act equivalent to a variable capacitor on one phase and a variable inductor on the other phase.

Likewise... to balance the real power loads, the device needs to remove power from one phase and inject on another phase.  Presumably the amounts removed and injected are equal so the device doesn't have to generate any power. As far as picturing what those devices would look like that's a little tougher... but they can do some clever things with electronics.

I'm assuming the box must of course have voltage and current inputs as well to compute the power flows.


  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

2
Isn’t a ‘synchronous reactance controller’ the same as a synchronous condenser; i.e., an uncoupled synchronous motor with excitation control of reactive power generation?  The claimed balance/harmonic reduction/apparent power ‘savings’ could conceivably be obtained with such a device in an essentially brute-force manner, roughly similar to application of a zigzag autotransformer close to the loads of a 4-wire wye system.  

It might be revealing to ask for a copy of their spreadsheet file of the analysis of your firm’s rate schedules to more accurately refine or confirm the ‘10%’ declaration.

It may be time to ask for some peer-reviewed papers, third-party test reports [and verifiable customer testimonials] on the claimed technology advance.  If the assertions are to be substantiated, you would think the vendor would happily comply and would have offered such information with the original pitch.  Should the information be deemed proprietary, how can anyone make an evaluation of positive or negative effects the device has on the customer’s and utility’s electrical systems?  It also seems like they should be willing to provide NRTL listing reports as with most all low-voltage electrical assemblies, consistent with the mandate of local inspection authorities.  Unless, of course, it is true cold fusion [once again.]  
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Sounds suspiciously like this post - Thread238-21978.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

(OP)
Thanks to all who have responded to my posting.

In the area of efficiency, do any of you know any method or rule of thumb for quatifying the energy savings with harmonic filtering?

It seems that once the circuit passes through a VFD, any harmonic improvement would be moot and the only gains would be the VFD's reaction to the harmonic improvement .... if any.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Harmonics in a system cause most components to have increased losses, ie - cables, transformers, motors.  I beleive this would be less than 1% of total load.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

To me everyone trying to sell a black-box claiming such features without being able or willing to explain how it works is very suspicous .
 
In the past there have been several examples where such companies fooled lots of people.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Suggestion: It may be a good idea to see actual figures for the power distribution and loads for power factors, voltage drops and harmonic distortions. Some consumers may be noticeably inefficient, and energy savings can be accomplished. However, the analytical and measurement approaches are prudent and shall be performed first.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Energy savings are typically kWh reductions.  Billing savings can come from power factor correction with a kVA based rate.  Your true utility savings depends on the utilities' metering.  Is it reading real power at the fundamental (60hz) frequency only?  Is it reading true or total displaced power factor?  
Overall heat can be reduced by voltage balancing and pf correction, but real energy bill reductions depend on the utility rate and metering.
Real power is real power ... a kW is a kW ... how can this device make a 50-hp motor look like a 45-hp motor from a kW view point?

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

We already discussed the topic of power measurement in the following thread:
Thread237-20884

But without final result.

Are there utilities where the demand charge is based on Urms*Irms (which would mean to include distortion power) or
is the billing based only on the fundamental components ?

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Suggestion: Hypothetically,
Rx|I|**2=Pwattloss, say a loss power. Now
I=Ir+jIim
Sva=V x I*= Pwatt+jQvar, in VA, (the consumer total power draw)
Pwatt is paid for via meter.
If Iim is compensated and is >> Ir
the |Icompensated|=Ir << |I|
Pwattlosscompensated << Pwattloss, (This means savings!)
Now, what is needed is to see actual figures how much of savings is being made.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Filipski and Arseneau at the Canadian NRC have studied kVA/kVAh measurement for power systems to a great degree and it is used in Canada to bill for kVA demand (to what extent I'm not sure.)  

With inexpensive, high-performance analog-to-digital conversion, it is a simple measurement/calculation based on per-phase Vrms · Irms, that inherently folds power factor and harmonic content into a simple rate structure.  

GE says: “The Data Acquisition Platform (DAP) chip contains six independent, fully integrated analog to digital converters, one for each current and voltage signal. The converters are continuous time, delta-sigma analog to digital converters digitizing each signal 1.68 million times per second. Each input signal has a dedicated converter, multiplexing is not used. The converter over sampling rate of 512 provides approximately 3280 complete sets of decimated samples per second. For a full three element meter, 6 sets of 16-bit samples are processed, providing more than 54 decimated sample sets per line cycle.”

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Busbar,

with a data aquisition as described in your last post, power and apparent power according to every deinition can be measured, depending on the algorithm which is used for calculation.

To base the billing on the product of Irms and Urms would lead to the following:

The utility would sell much more demand that it has generating capability. It would charge both the customer injecting harmonic power and the one suffering from harmonics (e.g. one using capacitor banks)

The customer may be responibsle for the distrorted current but usually only for a small portion of the volatge distortion.

To bill a customer for injecting harmonics is not an alternative to limit harmonics by applying standards like IEEE519 since depending on the harmonic order there are technical limits beyond not only additional losses are generated but equipment is destroyed.

Although it's my business to design power electronic equipment sold all around the world I have no reliable source claiming that a demand bill is based on Irms*Urms.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Electricuwe

My utility charges industrial customers on energy use and billing demand. Billing demand reflects 15 min demand (kW) multiplied by the power factor penalty. The power factor penalty is (.95-average pf)+1 if the average pf is less than .95. Average power factor is calculated from kW-hrs and kVAr-hrs used during the billing period. I believe this billing method is fairly common.

The meters used do not filter out the non-fundamental quantities, but I cannnot claim they are true rms either. The meters meet ANSI standards, which says this about harmonics (C12.1-2000):  

A.2.11.4 Variations in frequency
Frequency variations in a modem power system under normal operating conditions are insignificant. Any inaccuracies that might result from variations that occur are entirely negligible. However, the presence of voltage harmonics or current harmonics created by nonlinear loads may cause measurable inaccuracies. In the vast majority of metering installations, the accuracy is still within ±2%. Cases of severe harmonic distortion must be analyzed on an individual basis.

So I think the answer to your question is that distortion power is not intentionally excluded from measurement.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

electricuwe—you mention that the “utility would sell much more demand that it has generating capability.”  Can you elaborate on that?  
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Suggestion: The consumer would be better off to be paying for the Pwatt consumption, since the harmonics may come from neighboring consumers, and a certain amount of the power factor may come from the utility, e.g. from the overhead (pole) transformer.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Stevenal,

the way of billing you describe is quite similar to the way its done in Europe.

The classic device for metering electicity, the ferraris disc does not include distortion power since it integrates the product of u(t)*i(t) ( or using a phase shifted voltage for measureing reactive power).

So to my mind the correct statement is:
distortion power is not intentionally included

Electronic devices like the one described by busbar could either exclude distrortion power or include distortion power depending wether multiplication of current and voltage takes place before integration or after integration.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

busbar, let me give a simple example:

Imagine a utility with a 225 kVA generator supplying a customer with 100kW of induction motors and power factor correction to PF=0,95. The customer will have to pay a demand charge for 100 kW an no power factor penalty.

Now a second customer with 100 kW of VSDs is connected, injecting lots of harmonics, with a true power factor lamba of 0,8. Since a lot of the harmonics will be supplied by the power factor correction capacitors ot the first customer his power factor will be reduced, lets assume to 0,9.

Billing based on Irms*Urms will lead to the following result:

The utility could bill the two customers for a demand of more than 225 kVA (100 kW/0,9+100kw/0,8=230 kVA)

The first customer will not only have reduced lifetime of his power factor correction capacitors and increased losses in his induction motors. He will also have to pay an additional power factor penalty for that!

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

electricuwe

You are correct about electo-mechanical kVArh meters: fundamental voltage is lagged by 90 degrees with a phase shifting transformer so that kWh is actually measured and read as kVarh. Without doing the analysis, I suspect that voltage harmonics don't necessarily shift by 90. Supply systems are pretty stiff and voltage harmonics are limited by standards, so I believe the error is negligible as the ANSI standard states. We are now using solid state meters for these customers. I suspect that these measure kVAh directly using the product of the two integrals.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

The product of RMS voltage and current produces apparent power (voltampere) quantities, but that number will always be equal or larger than that of apparent power defined as square-root-of-the-sum-of-squares of real and reactive powers.   For years many considered these to always be equal, but that is not always the case with nonsinusoidal current and voltage waveforms

If the first customer is generating excess reactive power to push his var demand surplus back through the meter, does he have any financial or operating incentive to continue in this mode?  I don’t think that leading-power operation typically reduces his electric bill.  It may be appropriate to figure that efforts in reducing harmonic currents at the meter will pay off in reduced kVA demand, and this could be seen as an indirect means of minimizing harmonics on the utility-owned facilities.  

It seems like we agree on the difference in measurement algorithms, but disagree on the relative ‘fairness’ of the two.  
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

The new reactive power tariffs used by Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) provide for a penalty if power factor is worse than 0.97 lagging **or leading**.  

I don't know if they are actually penalizing for leading pf, but under their new rate structure, they could, assuming they can meter it.

dpc

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

busbar,

in my example in post dated May 2nd the first customer initially operates still with lagging power (I didn't state that explicitly). With the second power customer his power factor is reduced beyond the limit of 0,95 by harmonic currents injected by the second customer into his capacitor bank. Do you really think that the first one should pay for that ?

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

electricuwe, I had not imagined such a condition.  It sounds like 0.95 must be a significant breakpoint in the billing structure.  It does not seem at all fair to the first customer, when his power factor at the meter should show reactive export.  

Is this an issue that could be posed to the serving utility, particularly if previous billing records could demonstrate a change in their reactive billing with the addition of the second customer?  Is there any chance that customer one’s meter also has 4-quadrant var registration?  That may help resolve the matter, but the utility could stand firm by their rates, especially if they have been “approved” by some governmental or municipal agency.  
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Suggestion: It appears that the metering alone will not solve the problem since one may be paying for someone else shortcomings. Rather than paying a penalty for the lower power factor and harmonic content, it would be better to tackle those globally by installing necessary hardware and share the cost based on an "amount of culpricity." This way the harmonics will be reduced (not staying there while penalties are being paid, some potentially unjust), and power factor compensated (also on shared bases).

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

If a billing scheme should include distortion power and be fair to all customers it would need  meters able to determine the direction of power or reactive power flow for every harmonic separately. I guess that it will be possible to design such a meter, but I do not think that this would be a good approach.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

There are some fairly sophisticated “meters” out there [correspondingly priced I bet], but a big problem I see is defining a rate schedule that won’t cause aneurysms.  

It’s possible the harmonic recipe could be divided into odd, even and triplen quantities.  FFT-type analysis can give angles all over the place, making ‘direction’ sort of elusive.  Certainly voltage being utility-based and current being strictly customer-based gets garbled.

There are some other characteristics that seem to have importance to utilities, or their regulatory cohorts.  http://www.arbiter.com/pdf/1133a_direction_harmonic_flicker.pdf
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Busbar

Regarding your 1st May 3rd post:
The IEEE dictionary has two definitions of reactive power for non-sinusoidal quantities. One sums the components of the individual frequencies as electricuwe has said. The other uses the Pythogorean relationship between real and apparent power, seeming to contradict you. Are the two definitions not equivalent? Both definitions define reactive power in terms of apparent power rather than vice versa.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Good question.  stevenal, I am caught between 1990 and 2000.  1990 here is IEEE 90EH0327-7-PWR Nonsinusoidal Situations: Effects on the Performance of Meters and Definitions of Power.  2000 in this case is IEEE 1459-2000 Trial Use Standard Definitions for the Measurement of Electric Power Quantities Under Sinusoidal, Non-Sinusoidal, Balanced, or Unbalanced Conditions.  Here, 1459 is taking longer than anticipated to digest.  I apologize that I do not have ready access to latest IEEE dictionary.   

Emanuel, P. Filipski, et al, have IEEE/PES Power System Instrumentation and Measurements papers commenting on the IEEE-dictionary Pythagorean power relationship, and their proposals for updating it.  The label ‘distortion power’ is sometimes used, but I’m not sure if that is a IEEE-defined term.  One charming illustration is: http://67.115.161.42/images/1459ub.fig4.jpg

Problems become very real when, for example, the 3-side relationship is used for sizing PF capacitors.  Based on the Pythagorean difference of real and apparent power measurements, where there are significant harmonics, you can get in trouble—to the point of fuses being ineffective in protecting capacitors from overcurrent suicide.  I have witnessed a number of cases of LV/MV can rupture, and in these the process took milliseconds to complete.
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

2
ibkenb,
I've had some experience with customers contesting their electric bill claiming that the revenue power meter was being driven fast by the harmonic currents.  We had one consultant in town that liked to push this theory onto his customers to enhance his business and push for his special black boox to filter harmonics.

Harmonic currents have a positive, negative, and zero sequence value to them, depending on the harmonic number.  Some harmonics want to push the meter faster, some want to push it backwards.  Because of the stiffness of the utility bus at the high-side of the typical utilization transformer, the typical customer with his harmonic currents has little effect on the voltage waveform of adjoining customers being served by a different utlization transformer, USUALLY.  Voltage harmonics push AC motors both faster and slower than the base frequency.  This results in heating and a reduction in the available capacity in the motor.  There are two losses here, electrical heating losses, and loss of equipment capacity or availability.  For the manufacturer, these are real losses, even though he may not be aware of the cause of his "weak" motors.

I believe it was an IEEE paper that covered the accuracy of revenue metering in the face of heavy harmonics.  The result was that while it was possible to mess up the metering in the laboratory by injecting extremely heavy harmonic currents, in the real world the amount of error harmonics would induce would be negligible.  This is talking about measuring the real power.

There is one problem in measuring reactive power with revenue meters, there is no standard established on what constitutes reactive power, at least not for revenue meters.  This was as of 5 years ago anyway.  I know the mathematics can be crunched out and .....  Is reactive power all non-fundamental power / current flow?  How about all current flowing 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage?  Some people ascribe to the former, I follow the latter.

A case study.....

Park City, Utah had some severe harmonic problems.  Being a rural (but expensive) area the electrical system wasn't that stiff.  During the winter a preponderance of the electrical load was the ski resorts, which are dominated by variable speed drives on ski lifts and snow making equipment.  One part of town had their clocks running fast whenever a particular ski lift was running because the harmonics were so bad.  Most drives were 6 pulse.  Ski lift motors were between 300 hp and 1000 hp.  The revenue metering was running fine, both real power and reactive power metering.  Nothing was noted out of the ordinary.    Eventually a system-wide study was funded jointly between the utility and the ski resorts to solve the harmonics problem.  Harmonic filters were strategically installed on 480 volt buses, and all new drives had to be 12-pulse or higher.  Without the filtering any shunt capacitors would likely of had a difficult life with the voltage harmonics.  This was the most extreme case I've seen.  In this case filters and shunt capacitors were the answers to the problem, and at a much lower cost.

I have seen studies done on synchronous reactance controllers.  They were all being installed on transmission systems.  Because almost all transmission systems are well balanced, balancing the voltage is almost a non-issue.  They do a good job fixing power factor, and because of the high-speed nature of the electronics, they can straighten out the voltage waveform quite well if you have voltage harmonics.  The main application for these units is dynamic system stabilization and high-speed correction & manipulation to affect load flows on transmission systems.  I don't know the voltage your's will be installed on.  I have heard that thy've come out with 15 kV class units with similar capabilities, and I think even some 600 volt class units.  A 10% reduction in total power consumption sounds like someone slipped a cog, or at least a decimal point.  Ask for their calculations.  If they won't give them to you then assume that it's a smokescreen and a sales pitch.

Mark

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Busbar,
From IEEE 100-1992 (dictionary):

D=(U^2-S^2)^0.5
D=(U^2-P^2-Q^2)^0.5

D=distortion power
U=apparent power
S=phasor power
P=active power
Q=reactive power

All nice and neat, at least it was in '92.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

I agree with you, stevenal.  But, the 1990 papers collection already mentioned seems to devote quite a bit of effort hashing over the weakness of the IEEE 100 definitions; particularly those for Q and D.  I don’t think there are any ANSI C12 revenue meters that have power/energy registers for the D quantity, much less a utility rate structure that makes use of it.  That’s what Filipski, Emanuel and others were “complaining” about.   There seems to have been a fantastic number of manhours devoted to getting IEEE 1459-2000 out, and I think it’s going to take awhile for may utilities to buy in to.  The definition for D in IEEE 100-1992 looks all nice and neat, but there seem to be a fair lot of scholarly, respected and published detractors to it.  Blazing A-to-D converters and ‘computers under glass’ [modern revenue meters] have helped us get a handle on recognizing the pervasive nature of D.  From the revenue perspective, not everyone has bought into S derived from the ‘convenient’ product of rms V and I.  I suppose I was lucky to be first introduced to it 20 years ago, were I came across situations where the simple version of Ohm’s law didn’t always work out, and, for a while that was a trial to appreciate.  
  

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Just my two cents. I don't think that D has any physical significance other than a fudge factor to account for the vector difference between U and S.  (D=sqrt(U^2-S^2) is the only defintion.

Q is defined similarly  as the vector difference between S and P... but Q has a physical signficance. We can trace the flow of reactive power from sources to sinks and see the voltage drops.

D is of course associated with the harmonic content... but the same value of D could be associated with distortion of the current or distortion of the voltage... and may arise from many different patterns of harmonics. The value D in itself doesn't tell a whole lot.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Depending on phase shift of harmonic voltage and harmonic current of each harmonic number you can have active or reactive power for every harmonic number. But these products are very small compared with the product consisting of the fundamental and a harmonic. These products are neither active or reactive power but just distortion power.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Good point eu. If we express current and voltage both as sum of sinusoids (each at a harmonic series of frequencies), then there will be product terms of the same frequency and product terms of different frequencies.

All of the product terms of different frequencies must be associated with distortion power.

As to the product of terms of same frequencies, they will have an in-phase component and a quadrature component. The in-phase component clearly can be associated with real power. The quadratue component clearly associated with reactive power if we're talkig fundamental. A little fuzzier if we're talking about the quadrature compoent of same-frequency harmonics... do we want to call it reactive?

I guess that is a minor semantic point.  U will be sqrt of sum of squares of ALL product terms.  Which terms exactly you choose to group into Q is not terribly important.... depends on your purposes..... just have to group those that you have not already captures into D.

To sum up what distortion power means.... it is associated with (sum of squares of) those terms that we do not include in our definitions of P and Q.

It makes a little more sense after you pointed that out, eu.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Hi...

Almost 3 years later...Has it ever been determined if the synchronous reactance controller technology has been proven to work? The president of the company I work for has approached me on this and referred me to this company:

http://www.correctioncontrols.net/

I am going to have to hire someone to analyize our company's power quality before deciding a course of action.

Any thoughts?

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

The technology is as old as synchronous motors, and has been used as an alternative to capacitors about that long. see Busbar's 4/26/02 response above. Seems like they are repackaging the SOS and making it sound like something new.

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

In general I had no problem with their statement of improved power quality, extended equipment life and decreased operating costs, because correcting power factor problems does accomplish that in general. Where they lost me was in this statement under the "How" tab.

"SR System technology creates a “flywheel” effect in the tank circuits which “dumps” current back into the system. This allows electrical equipment within the facility to function with the same voltage, torque and capacity it originally had before the installation of the SR System, while requiring less current from the utility company. This translates into lower Kw or Kva Demand and lower Kwh on your electric bill."

The part about requiring less current from the utility and lower kWH is a severe stretch. In the first place, you either have a flywheel or you don't. What is a "flywheel effect"? If it is a flywheel, it may in fact help to "dump" current back into the system, but it would later on require current (energy) to replace it. "YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" They then use the nebulous term "tank circuit" as a description, yet what is that? Free energy? WOW!!! Why isn't everyone jumping on this band wagon? Why doesn't the government set up massive banks of "tank circuits" all over the world and solve all of our energy problems? It must be a conspiracy of those rich money-grubbing utility fat cats!!!! You get my drift.

And another thing. Poor power factor shows up as losses in the transformers etc., which costs the utility inhaving to supply reactive power for it, but unless they pass that cost on to you in the form of power factor related charges, who cares? If your utility does have a power factor demand charge you may see some savings in the dollar amount on the bill, but not from lower kW consumption.

In my opinion they are banking on the fact that the vast majority of users do not understand how the utility charges them for their power consumption. A common thread in all scams is the complex mixture of truth, truisms and the fiction you are trying to pedal. I'll stop short of calling this a scam because there are definite benefits to improving power quality, but when they try to peddle the "energy savings" issue it starts to smell a little fishy IMHO.

"Venditori de oleum-vipera non vigere excordis populi"


RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

By the way ElectroJoe,
For future reference it is better to start a new thread and reference this old one when you have your own question. You can reference it by highlight-copy-and-pasting the thread number at the top into the body of your new thread. It will show up as a direct link, like this Thread237-20884.

"Venditori de oleum-vipera non vigere excordis populi"


RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

jraef,

A tank circuit is a parallel resonant circuit comprising a series R-L element in parallel with a C element. It is a damped circuit because of the R, and is a reasonable representation of a real world parallel inductor - capacitor arrangement. It has a maximum impedance at resonance, resonance being detuned slightly from the 1/(sqrtLC) of a pure L-C circuit.

I can't quite figure out how they have connected the tank circuit into the system, other than to use it to trap harmonics while presenting a high impedance at system frequency. How they achieve PF correction on top of that I'm not sure.

I share your scepticism, mainly because they cloak it all behind smoke and mirrors. Good engineering, on the whole, sells itself.

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

ScottyUK,
Sorry for not making myself clear. I know what a tank circuit is, but what I was questioning was how are they using it in this application. My "nebulous" comment was aimed at the fact that the term "tank circuit" has been used to define many things, and in and of itself is open to further explanation. I have even seen it used to describe ferroresonant transformers, which would do something for power quality but nothing for energy savings. My point was that flippantly throwing terminology regarding (somewhat) complex systems into marketing pieces aimed at the general public serves to obfuscate rather than educate, and obfuscation leads me to believe they are hiding something.

"Venditori de oleum-vipera non vigere excordis populi"


RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Jraef,

I think we're on very similar wavelengths. It's just that your receiver runs on 60Hz power, and mine runs on 50Hz...

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Scotty,

A common way to filter out the most egregious harmonics (5th harmonic) while at the same time improve the power factor is to install a filter at the 4.7th harmonic.  You size the capacitor to provide the desired PF correction and then install a reactor in series with it to resonate at the 4.7th harmonic.  While I can't mathematically crunch out why it works, intuitively I can see why it does, and experience shows that it indeed does work.

Because they're using the term "tank circuit" to describe the inner workings of their black box, I have to wonder how much of it is actually electronic, and how much of it is simply an old fashioned (but still good) synchronous condensor.  I strongly feel that both static VARS and synchronous condensors are good for the system, and each has it's place.

Mark

RE: Synchronous Reactance Controller for Energy Reduction

Hi Mark,

The thing I'm trying to puzzle out in my mind is what they are doing with the tank circuit to produce a filtering action, if indeed that is what they've done with it. The blurb suggests that they are using it as an energy store, which indeed it is, but quite how they are using it to suppress harmonics has me curious. the circuit must be quite different in topology from the more normal resonant trap that you describe.

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources