COMPETITIVE COMPARISONS
This is a two part reply for those who ask which companies do a reasonable job and what is the difference. What we make and have developed is continually compared with other products. I have been asked several times to compare and evaluate. As I have previously stated, competition is a good thing and I have no objection to competition at all. Fact is, if we were even exactly copied, there is so much business waiting all of us, there is room for all and not a problem. Look again at my document entitled “The Competition” I truly mean what I have responded in that matter.
I have never believed in knocking down a competitor, and if this paper is construed that way then it is not my intent to do that and stop reading right now. What I have been asked is “what do you do that is different” That is the only reason for what I print. So, as I view each competitor, I will respond with what is different and what is the same as best and as honestly as is possible. Please, this is important. Every word here is intended only to explain what we do that others might not. To even suggest that the fine companies mentioned don’t do a great job is foolhardy and not true. But allow me to show that perhaps we looked at what was done and wondered if we could do more. Maybe that is what it comes down to. Or, we may explain a term that might not be clear. This is a fair and honest attempt to do that.
1. Staco Energy is located in Ohio and is a really good organization and they do a great job. I am highly pleased that they are there and do some of what we do. Please believe that. It gives me credibility to point to them when so many say that what we claim is not possible or why others don’t emphasize the same things. Well, here is a company that does. So what are the differences?
Go on line and call up www.stacoenergy.com and you will get their site. Right off you will notice that they stress control at the utility location. That is their bread and butter. But they do provide a smaller system for the secondary side if the customer wants it. I want to point out a truth. If the secondary side is covered adequately, there is no need for primary or utility control. Staco still tells their potential clients that they still need primary Power Factor control to get the job done. There is a reason for that. Their engineers point out that secondary Power Factor control is only good to just above a PF of .90 and can get as high as .93. (But even then they suggest that a client buy a static system because keeping PF above .89 invites a plant into leading PF instead of lagging. This is admitting that they do not believe or have an active system that can follow PF as it changes) Still, even if you put a static system in that gets .93 once in a while, by leaving seven points not controlled, yes you would have to put in primary control to get it all. Only if a client could control their PF right at 1.0 or at worst, .97 could all of their PF be handled. I hope that makes sense.
So what is wrong with controlling the primary power? The benefit goes to the utility company and not to the end user. PF is created inside the plant. If you have an excellent PF at primary you may not be given a utility penalty but inside the plant your PF could be terrible and in the 70’s That is a huge loss for the end customer. I do not like how Staco eliminates the utility penalty and doubles the losses for the client. That is no trade off.
Calling their engineers will find you being told that putting a system at .97 up to 1.0 is dangerous and could cause an explosion. They will warn you about cross over when the Capacitve reactance is in tune with Inductive reactance, that constitutes a short circuit. All that is true in theory. But my answer is that we have designed a system which allows us to be at 1.0 without cross over. And if that is true and I can prove that, then the other argument that it can’t be done becomes moot. And the facts are that every client of ours maintains a PF of between .97 to 1.0 so the argument that it can’t be done is now irrelevant.
Now go to the part about their Active Harmonic filter. On that page is a photo of a small filter below the large one. That filter is purchased from the very company in Taiwan who I buy my readers from. That filter is how I found them to buy the parts we want. But look at the fourth bullet under Features. Our filters cover the bandwidth from H-1 to H-1,666. They make no claim to be doing work above H-51, or 3.06 KHz. If we eliminate harmonics from 3KHz to 100 KHz, then I need to say no more about comparing apples with oranges in this issue. We just simply do not compete with each other at all. Our products and solutions are not the same.
2. Square D or Snyder Electric. This is also a great company and makes a good product. Again, we are not looking at the same thing. It is interesting that the comparisons with Staco are so similar that we could just carbon copy the same answers and say repeat. In their catalogue they say they will “Eliminate most harmonics up to H-50” Again, that sounds really good, but, what about the frequencies above that? My answer is the same as the comment about Staco.
Square D again pushes static systems and will also encourage you to buy caps for primary or high voltage equipment. My comment on that is that it will eliminate PF but only to the benefit of the utility company. There is no benefit at all for the consumer. And a second time we look at static systems which do not react to the changes in the plant. But there is a problem with what they sell. The caps will go out in about 9 months. There is nothing to protect them against high frequency attack. And what destroys the mylar in power capacitors is found in the range between 70 KHz and 85 KHz. By their own admission, their harmonic coverage tops out at H-50. The H-50 harmonic is located at 3 KHz, a far cry from 75KHz that is needed to protect the caps. This is one reason why so many businesses don’t bother to install capacitors to correct PF. The constant replacement cost both of the capacitors themselves as well as the labor to do it is often a trade off in what they save in power. So, clients ask, why bother, and what is the advantage to me?
In a repeat of my comparison to Staco, Square D will warn against power explosion when trying to get too close to parody of PF 1.0. I suggest that unless you have a reactor that is both a zig-zag and cannot wonder or is preset, the danger is there. We patent our zig-zag preset reactor. So unless Snyder buys one from us that ability is not available to them. They too will tell anyone that a stable and non changing 1.0 PF is not possible.
3. Eaton Cutler Hammer is another excellent company with a really good product. Their Autovar does a great job in helping their clients. So what is different? Well, everything again. And for the most part very similar to the rest. One attention that I saw really took me back. It was the admission that, “Total Power Factor Correction is not possible” So they suggest a product they call ‘Harmonic Mitigating Transformers’. Well I must be blunt and say with respect, there is no such thing. At least not by that definition. Transformers do not mitigate harmonics at all. What ECH means is that when the harmonics become such a problem, then using a transformer can isolate the trouble. That is the only way they suggest one can eliminate all the harmonics. So an isolation or simple dry transformer installed between heavy harmonics and a circuit susceptible to that harmonic load can be isolated for the most part by creating an entirely new circuit inside an area through a stand alone transformer. But to call it a harmonic mitigating transformer is very misleading and should have just said that any transformer can isolate and create a stand alone circuit detached from others.
For us, using an isolation transformer is a band aid approach when a real answer is to eliminate the harmonic then expensive transformers are not necessary. And, very simply put, that is what we do. Eliminate all of it.
The ECH variable capacitor system works to some extent. Our system is immediately active and reacting to any change in the building. The Autovar is also changeable but at the discretion of the customer and again not above a PF of .93 if that. Their efforts are to keep the client from paying penalties as much as possible which is anything above .90. Are they right? If they keep it there most of the time that is true. But if there is no immediate reaction to offset, dropping below .90 occurs often.
Our effort is to give the client all of the savings right up to 1.0. That can add up to four times what the utility penalty might be. We think that is significant.
I like all the choices that ECH has for the end customer which allows a client to pick all kinds of options as to what they need. The chart to do that is extensive and helpful. We do something different. Rather than have the customer choose what they want, we have learned that they don’t know what they want accurately and therefore are not trained to know what to pick. We think there is only one answer to that. It is for us to come in and accurately measure what is going on in their plant then customize exactly what they need. None of the customers are going to spend $10,000 on the best test gear to find out. Therefore, even if they have the convenience of picking things out of a catalogue, where is the expertise to even know what they need when they look? We have seen far too many buy more or less than what they should. And when they do that, they either don’t get the results they might have had or spend more than was ever needed just to guess what it was they should have.
Finally, not matter how convenient the catalogue is, the system still does not accurately resolve the issues. It is not an accurate solution albeit a better than nothing idea. Shotgunning will always be a blind shot which does not hit the mark on target. We have chosen to take accurate aim then hit the mark dead on with equipment that will do it all and not a part here and a part there which is only marginal anyway.
4. Electroflow. Well, the old company founded by Mike Mhrdad is gone and so is he when he returned back to Iran in 2005. There are enough lawsuits awaiting him that even coming back is not really a good idea. What is still made by and for Electroflow is made under license by a company in Canada. And, believe me it is a good product and possibly better than any one else other than ourselves. I was an Electroflow distributor before Dr. Mhrdad left the U.S. Hmm, this is a criticism and I said I would not make any. But I do have to explain why I did not stay with them. I hope that is fair, and it is the truth. I took delivery on 17 Electroflow units. Not one worked. The layout was ok but without any QC and unskilled people to assemble, that result was almost anticipated. I was, however able to rebuild and repair enough to make it do what it was supposed to do.
There is one criticism everyone levels at us. The claim is that if PF is taken up beyond .93 the normal variations in power use will create an explosion. And their point has merit. Few know that PF systems often do explode. Every company mentioned here has that problem. But it is interesting that of the hundreds of installations we have made we have never had one.
The reason is because when reactor transformers tune to capacitors there is a dead short. To prevent that our reactors are ziz-zags so voltage cannot change. This is a simple answer which solves that worry completely. Any more questions can be answered in a white paper on the subject entitled “Zig” which is available to anyone.
The second criticism leveled at us is that switching caps creates harmonic inrush which is what we are all trying to avoid. Fact is, our system has no cap inrush at all. We have eliminated it completely. The “Zig” white paper explains that as well.
More products to look at
Are there more comparisons? Well yes. I can identify almost twenty who compete with us. . . . . . . ..kinda. But I only listed the companies which make good products that I would endorse to a point. (If we did not have what we do) And the reality is that none of them are equal and/or really similar. That is just the way it is. How can I try to say otherwise? We built what we did simply because I could not find what I wanted when I was acting as a consultant years ago. I never wanted to make anything. But when what you need is not to be found, it is natural to start trying to fix it or change what needs changing to solve what was needed. What else could we do? And that is where the Power Control Company equipment came from…not being able to buy what was needed in the first place. There never was an intention to invent or stir up the pot in the matter. It just happened over time.
This paper is already too long so we will close with this fact. According to the Department of Defense, what we make is not found anywhere else. We have no competition. Our patents are unique. The way we make and solve everything is both unique and amazingly simple. That is just the truth of the matter no matter how it may read here or sound when explained. And that declaration by the U.S. Military is not made willingly. Few things are as undesirable than to declare a sole source for anything. Maybe that fact could have precluded this entire document but you still might have wanted the differences pointed out. Thank you for reading.
John Jackman, EE Power Control Company
This is a two part reply for those who ask which companies do a reasonable job and what is the difference. What we make and have developed is continually compared with other products. I have been asked several times to compare and evaluate. As I have previously stated, competition is a good thing and I have no objection to competition at all. Fact is, if we were even exactly copied, there is so much business waiting all of us, there is room for all and not a problem. Look again at my document entitled “The Competition” I truly mean what I have responded in that matter.
I have never believed in knocking down a competitor, and if this paper is construed that way then it is not my intent to do that and stop reading right now. What I have been asked is “what do you do that is different” That is the only reason for what I print. So, as I view each competitor, I will respond with what is different and what is the same as best and as honestly as is possible. Please, this is important. Every word here is intended only to explain what we do that others might not. To even suggest that the fine companies mentioned don’t do a great job is foolhardy and not true. But allow me to show that perhaps we looked at what was done and wondered if we could do more. Maybe that is what it comes down to. Or, we may explain a term that might not be clear. This is a fair and honest attempt to do that.
1. Staco Energy is located in Ohio and is a really good organization and they do a great job. I am highly pleased that they are there and do some of what we do. Please believe that. It gives me credibility to point to them when so many say that what we claim is not possible or why others don’t emphasize the same things. Well, here is a company that does. So what are the differences?
Go on line and call up www.stacoenergy.com and you will get their site. Right off you will notice that they stress control at the utility location. That is their bread and butter. But they do provide a smaller system for the secondary side if the customer wants it. I want to point out a truth. If the secondary side is covered adequately, there is no need for primary or utility control. Staco still tells their potential clients that they still need primary Power Factor control to get the job done. There is a reason for that. Their engineers point out that secondary Power Factor control is only good to just above a PF of .90 and can get as high as .93. (But even then they suggest that a client buy a static system because keeping PF above .89 invites a plant into leading PF instead of lagging. This is admitting that they do not believe or have an active system that can follow PF as it changes) Still, even if you put a static system in that gets .93 once in a while, by leaving seven points not controlled, yes you would have to put in primary control to get it all. Only if a client could control their PF right at 1.0 or at worst, .97 could all of their PF be handled. I hope that makes sense.
So what is wrong with controlling the primary power? The benefit goes to the utility company and not to the end user. PF is created inside the plant. If you have an excellent PF at primary you may not be given a utility penalty but inside the plant your PF could be terrible and in the 70’s That is a huge loss for the end customer. I do not like how Staco eliminates the utility penalty and doubles the losses for the client. That is no trade off.
Calling their engineers will find you being told that putting a system at .97 up to 1.0 is dangerous and could cause an explosion. They will warn you about cross over when the Capacitve reactance is in tune with Inductive reactance, that constitutes a short circuit. All that is true in theory. But my answer is that we have designed a system which allows us to be at 1.0 without cross over. And if that is true and I can prove that, then the other argument that it can’t be done becomes moot. And the facts are that every client of ours maintains a PF of between .97 to 1.0 so the argument that it can’t be done is now irrelevant.
Now go to the part about their Active Harmonic filter. On that page is a photo of a small filter below the large one. That filter is purchased from the very company in Taiwan who I buy my readers from. That filter is how I found them to buy the parts we want. But look at the fourth bullet under Features. Our filters cover the bandwidth from H-1 to H-1,666. They make no claim to be doing work above H-51, or 3.06 KHz. If we eliminate harmonics from 3KHz to 100 KHz, then I need to say no more about comparing apples with oranges in this issue. We just simply do not compete with each other at all. Our products and solutions are not the same.
2. Square D or Snyder Electric. This is also a great company and makes a good product. Again, we are not looking at the same thing. It is interesting that the comparisons with Staco are so similar that we could just carbon copy the same answers and say repeat. In their catalogue they say they will “Eliminate most harmonics up to H-50” Again, that sounds really good, but, what about the frequencies above that? My answer is the same as the comment about Staco.
Square D again pushes static systems and will also encourage you to buy caps for primary or high voltage equipment. My comment on that is that it will eliminate PF but only to the benefit of the utility company. There is no benefit at all for the consumer. And a second time we look at static systems which do not react to the changes in the plant. But there is a problem with what they sell. The caps will go out in about 9 months. There is nothing to protect them against high frequency attack. And what destroys the mylar in power capacitors is found in the range between 70 KHz and 85 KHz. By their own admission, their harmonic coverage tops out at H-50. The H-50 harmonic is located at 3 KHz, a far cry from 75KHz that is needed to protect the caps. This is one reason why so many businesses don’t bother to install capacitors to correct PF. The constant replacement cost both of the capacitors themselves as well as the labor to do it is often a trade off in what they save in power. So, clients ask, why bother, and what is the advantage to me?
In a repeat of my comparison to Staco, Square D will warn against power explosion when trying to get too close to parody of PF 1.0. I suggest that unless you have a reactor that is both a zig-zag and cannot wonder or is preset, the danger is there. We patent our zig-zag preset reactor. So unless Snyder buys one from us that ability is not available to them. They too will tell anyone that a stable and non changing 1.0 PF is not possible.
3. Eaton Cutler Hammer is another excellent company with a really good product. Their Autovar does a great job in helping their clients. So what is different? Well, everything again. And for the most part very similar to the rest. One attention that I saw really took me back. It was the admission that, “Total Power Factor Correction is not possible” So they suggest a product they call ‘Harmonic Mitigating Transformers’. Well I must be blunt and say with respect, there is no such thing. At least not by that definition. Transformers do not mitigate harmonics at all. What ECH means is that when the harmonics become such a problem, then using a transformer can isolate the trouble. That is the only way they suggest one can eliminate all the harmonics. So an isolation or simple dry transformer installed between heavy harmonics and a circuit susceptible to that harmonic load can be isolated for the most part by creating an entirely new circuit inside an area through a stand alone transformer. But to call it a harmonic mitigating transformer is very misleading and should have just said that any transformer can isolate and create a stand alone circuit detached from others.
For us, using an isolation transformer is a band aid approach when a real answer is to eliminate the harmonic then expensive transformers are not necessary. And, very simply put, that is what we do. Eliminate all of it.
The ECH variable capacitor system works to some extent. Our system is immediately active and reacting to any change in the building. The Autovar is also changeable but at the discretion of the customer and again not above a PF of .93 if that. Their efforts are to keep the client from paying penalties as much as possible which is anything above .90. Are they right? If they keep it there most of the time that is true. But if there is no immediate reaction to offset, dropping below .90 occurs often.
Our effort is to give the client all of the savings right up to 1.0. That can add up to four times what the utility penalty might be. We think that is significant.
I like all the choices that ECH has for the end customer which allows a client to pick all kinds of options as to what they need. The chart to do that is extensive and helpful. We do something different. Rather than have the customer choose what they want, we have learned that they don’t know what they want accurately and therefore are not trained to know what to pick. We think there is only one answer to that. It is for us to come in and accurately measure what is going on in their plant then customize exactly what they need. None of the customers are going to spend $10,000 on the best test gear to find out. Therefore, even if they have the convenience of picking things out of a catalogue, where is the expertise to even know what they need when they look? We have seen far too many buy more or less than what they should. And when they do that, they either don’t get the results they might have had or spend more than was ever needed just to guess what it was they should have.
Finally, not matter how convenient the catalogue is, the system still does not accurately resolve the issues. It is not an accurate solution albeit a better than nothing idea. Shotgunning will always be a blind shot which does not hit the mark on target. We have chosen to take accurate aim then hit the mark dead on with equipment that will do it all and not a part here and a part there which is only marginal anyway.
4. Electroflow. Well, the old company founded by Mike Mhrdad is gone and so is he when he returned back to Iran in 2005. There are enough lawsuits awaiting him that even coming back is not really a good idea. What is still made by and for Electroflow is made under license by a company in Canada. And, believe me it is a good product and possibly better than any one else other than ourselves. I was an Electroflow distributor before Dr. Mhrdad left the U.S. Hmm, this is a criticism and I said I would not make any. But I do have to explain why I did not stay with them. I hope that is fair, and it is the truth. I took delivery on 17 Electroflow units. Not one worked. The layout was ok but without any QC and unskilled people to assemble, that result was almost anticipated. I was, however able to rebuild and repair enough to make it do what it was supposed to do.
There is one criticism everyone levels at us. The claim is that if PF is taken up beyond .93 the normal variations in power use will create an explosion. And their point has merit. Few know that PF systems often do explode. Every company mentioned here has that problem. But it is interesting that of the hundreds of installations we have made we have never had one.
The reason is because when reactor transformers tune to capacitors there is a dead short. To prevent that our reactors are ziz-zags so voltage cannot change. This is a simple answer which solves that worry completely. Any more questions can be answered in a white paper on the subject entitled “Zig” which is available to anyone.
The second criticism leveled at us is that switching caps creates harmonic inrush which is what we are all trying to avoid. Fact is, our system has no cap inrush at all. We have eliminated it completely. The “Zig” white paper explains that as well.
More products to look at
Are there more comparisons? Well yes. I can identify almost twenty who compete with us. . . . . . . ..kinda. But I only listed the companies which make good products that I would endorse to a point. (If we did not have what we do) And the reality is that none of them are equal and/or really similar. That is just the way it is. How can I try to say otherwise? We built what we did simply because I could not find what I wanted when I was acting as a consultant years ago. I never wanted to make anything. But when what you need is not to be found, it is natural to start trying to fix it or change what needs changing to solve what was needed. What else could we do? And that is where the Power Control Company equipment came from…not being able to buy what was needed in the first place. There never was an intention to invent or stir up the pot in the matter. It just happened over time.
This paper is already too long so we will close with this fact. According to the Department of Defense, what we make is not found anywhere else. We have no competition. Our patents are unique. The way we make and solve everything is both unique and amazingly simple. That is just the truth of the matter no matter how it may read here or sound when explained. And that declaration by the U.S. Military is not made willingly. Few things are as undesirable than to declare a sole source for anything. Maybe that fact could have precluded this entire document but you still might have wanted the differences pointed out. Thank you for reading.
John Jackman, EE Power Control Company