Looks like a scam

Page 1 of 2  
Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.
The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3 BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010
LumiSmart lighting controller
What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller, developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity consumption by 30% to 40%.
The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out. It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole. <http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/25/2010 5:51 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:

<http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
You may find a better source than this but confirms what I had heard about lighting being only about 10% of a home's electricity consumption:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html
Also for lighting you could save more than 30-40% with cfl's.
I say, thumbs down on this device.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Frank

Yes, I think the CFLs make much more sense; particularly since the "lumismart" device would have to be applied to the entire house. I wonder what effect would it have on non-light loads?
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/25/2010 7:16 PM, Caesar Romano wrote:

Likely it would lighten your wallet about $2,000 independent of how it was installed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It obviously would reduce power consumption by 30-40% -- which means, in the case of resistance heating, for example -- that it also reduces power *output* by the same 30-40%. Since the amount of energy needed to heat the house, dry laundry, cook, etc. doesn't change, reducing the power available for the task means increasing the time required to do it, meaning, for example, that your furnace will have to run 43-67% longer to keep your home warm. It will take 43-67% longer to make toast, brew coffee, boil water for tea, cook your meals, or dry your clothes. In short, it won't save a damn thing on anything *but* lighting -- and probably only on *incandescent* lighting at that.
Another poster cited the figure of lighting being 10% of total electricity cost - that depends a lot on (a) the type of lighting, and (b) what other purposes electricity is used for. With a gas boiler, gas oven, gas water heater, and gas clothes dryer, incandescent lighting represented over 30% of my total cost for electricity. Switching over to CFLs reduced that to around 10-15%. In a home that had CFLs to begin with, and electric heat, water heating, cooking, and dryer, I'd imagine the proportion to be a lot less than that. But let's be generous to the purveyors of this device, and assume that it's 20% on average. Further assume an average total cost of $125/month. That's $25/month for lighting. If this device can save 40%, that's $10/month, making it 200 months = 17 years before you recover the cost of purchasing it. Add another couple hundred bucks or so for installation by a licensed electrician, and you're looking at a payback period of pretty near twenty years. At the lower end of their projection (30%), the period approaches 25 years. And if your lighting costs are only 10% of your total, instead of 20%, it's nearly 50 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 01:56:16 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote Re Re: Looks like a scam:

Good analysis. That sure looks like a scam to me.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Caesar Romano wrote:

Cut Are you the spammer, (re)displaying that URL??
Dont re-display obvious criminal URL's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Run Forrest! Run!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/Looks-like-a-scam-532556-.htm db5292 wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote:

<http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
LumiSmart is an intelligent lighting controller that is designed for use in commercial / industrial buildings, not homes. The device operates on patented adaptive micro-processor controlled wave-form modification. The device enables large companies to dramatically cut there power consumption without retrofitting lights or rewiring which leads to costly business interuption.
LumiSmart is currently being rolled out by numerous utilities in 21 countries. Your local utility will contribute up to $1000 per circuit where LumiSmart is deployed.
The product is manufactured in Toronto, Canada, is UL listed and is currently available for commercial properties. The device is also smart grid upgradeable for demand response and remote management. Do more homework on the device, their are many third party reports on the web and you can check with your local electrical distributor for availability.
------------------------------------- --------------------------- David Berg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hell, who knows? What's the rep of the originator of the information? Do a little research.
In typed:

<http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to-save-energy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/Looks-like-a-scam-532556-.htm sjerome wrote: Simon Jerome wrote:
The Lumismart is an intelligent lighting controller for commercial, Industrial and Retail locations. It uses waveform modification to remove sections of power from the electrical sine wave. It is connected between the electrical lighting circuit breaker and a dedicated fluorescent lighting circuit, in essence dimming florescent lights that were not originally designed to dim. This device is not intended for residential home use, as lighting is a small portion of the actual power cost and most residential electrical circuits are not dedicated to lighting.
The product has been validated by lighting test houses around the world, both in North America and Europe, as well as at Underwriter laboratories. Furthermore, just this week, Cavet Technologies were announced as winners of the the Deloitte Clean 15 (Fast 50) companies in Canada with the Lumismart ILC. The concept of waveform modification to reduce lighting associated costs is not new and has been out for many years. However, Lumismart increases the amount of potential savings by over double, and is designed more as a commodity purchase rather than system sale.
I trust this answers your questions, however you can find more information at www.cavettech.com
Regards
Simon Jerome VP Global Sales Cavet Technologies Inc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:35:35 -0700, Smitty Two

I don't understand. You don't want us to participate, but you participate. Oh!... I see. You are just participating to warn us.
Got it. Thanks
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Caesar Romano wrote:

You've been around a.h.r for quite a while, and IMHO asked an honest question. You unfairly got caught up in the annoyance at the parasite site, which I share. But you did not post through the parasite.
My guess is that the manufacturer watches the internet for references to their product, and found a hit at the parasite.
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination. It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece, is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level. Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they needed, in which case the 'device' would be pointless. If you had, for example, skylights that added solar light (the Costco I go to does) you could vary the electrical lighting, and some installations do. You couldn't necessarily reduce the lighting on a whole circuit.
And IF the 'device' works, and is cost effective. I have no opinion on that.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably a correct assumption...

.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's worthwhile.
In most lighting applications, a sufficiently brief interruption of the current will have negligible effect on the light output. Consider an incandescent lamp on a 60Hz AC power source. 120 times a second, the voltage is *zero*. But since it takes longer than 1/120 of a second for the filament to cool to the point where it no longer emits visible light, there's no flicker. It's no stretch to imagine that an electronic controller could chop 30 or 40% out of the total power with nowhere nearly a 30-40% reduction in lighting levels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:44:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote Re Re: Looks like a scam:

The specs don't seem to support that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?

Electrical energy in is greater or equal to light energy out. Doe the 'device' increase the efficiency of the lighting? If not perhaps they could win the Nobel prize. (I suspect your claims are greater than their claims.)
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Didn't say that. But I expect there'd be a lower *heat* output.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

I don't see any reason why heat would drop more than light.
Take the case of slicing out part of the AC cycle (which is what happens with the common phase angle control dimmers we all use). Apply that to an incandescent lamp. If you reduce electrical power by 5% the lamp will run cooler, which means that less energy comes out in light and the percentage of the electrical energy that becomes heat increases. Light energy goes down more than 5% and efficiency is reduced.
The 'device', if I remember right, is intended for fluorescents. I see no reason to believe that heat will be disproportionately reduced. I expect that light will fall by the same percentage as the electrical energy.
I agree with AZ.
I really don't want to reread the propaganda (which may or may not be true) but my recollection is the alleged virtue of the 'device' is that you can put it on an existing whole branch circuit with existing non-dimming ballasts and dim the lamps for energy savings (at a lower light level). Someone may have read the propaganda closer than I did.
If dimming the lamps makes sense, like large window areas and daylight, and if the circuits are arranged right, like parallel to the windows instead of window to darker interior, and if the 'device' dimming works, and does not reduce the life of ballasts and lamps, and does not change the lamp color characteristics, then the device may make a lot of sense (or cents).
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.