> ... I think we all agree that Power Panda's claims about cost
> reduction are fraudulent and they are lying. That was the original
> point, right Russell?

Not really.
I said, and i think it (may be?) worth repeating:


I put this in EE because the comments and discussion make the
otherwise ludicrous snake oil claims worth thinking about. Doesn't
stop them being snake oil, but worth being able to deal with them.

     http://bit.ly/YRPandaPowerSaver

Deep in the Q&A discussion are two interesting comments. I leave the
examination of the validity of these as an exercise for the student:

1. Comment on power factor measurement by home meters
2. Comment on power factor of non-heating domestic load.

ie, apart from the obvious scam nature or the product, there were
recnical claims being made which IF TRUE may have given some credence
to the device. And, here were people who claimed to have some
electrical knowledge arguing in the Q&A both for and against the
device. Such people had far more likelihood of technical discernment
than herbert's demographic, and they were divided and confused and
confusing.

So, I saw it as an exercise in wading through technical material and
sorting sheep from goats. (Maybe the Sheep go "VAR" and the goats go
Watts that about? :-) ?) (Double deep groan)


         Russell
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.