Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Averyl on April 3, 2011 at 10:36am

Vic did you actually read the document link? The issue is about testing claims of the safety of the capacitors used in specific smart meters. How is it fear mongering to post a link to a court case?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on April 3, 2011 at 11:29am

From the link - http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1966039804553725949&...

"...But because the power necessary to operate the Meter passed through the capacitor, the meter would stop functioning — meaning electricity would flow to a home without being recorded — if the capacitance of the capacitor fell too low. (Id. at 148-49.)"

All capacitors experience what is known as "corona discharge" when exposed to a certain voltage of electricity (which voltage level varies by capacitor). (Henderson Dep. Tr. at 38-39.) The technical explanation for why corona discharge occurs is unimportant. What is important is that corona discharge typically will "short out" a capacitor, which could potentially cause a fire. (Id. at 39.) Some capacitors, however, are known as "self-healing." A "self-healing" capacitor is designed to continue functioning, rather than short out, if exposed to power "spikes" or other temporary voltage increases. (Id.; Dungan Decl. Ex. 15 at 13; Southerland Dep. Tr. at 96.) But when such a capacitor "heals," it loses some of its capacitance. (Dungan Decl. Ex. 15 at 13.) As a result, a capacitor constantly exposed to voltage above the "corona onset point" will constantly self-heal and, accordingly, constantly lose capacitance.

As I understand it, it is this particular capacitor, 336, that is at issue in this court case. It's not clear to me whether the 336 shorts out ("...which could potentially cause a fire.") or loses capacitance. There is no mention (that I saw) of a connection to any particular incident and this is a lawsuit between manufacturer/supplier and consumer.

As I further understand it, if there is any connection to house fires, I believe it has to do with the failure of the 336 capacitor, either an 'acute' failure; sudden and complete; or chronic in nature, voltage spikes that lessens the capacitance of the 336 which, over time causes it to lose its proper capacitance.

Harmonics, RF or old house wiring doesn't (in so far as I've read and understand) appear to be involved so in my opinion the issue should be limited to 336 failures (as reported in the law suit). There are those that like to connect human illness, mechanical and electrical failures, shorts or catastrophes to some level or variant of Electromagnetic Fields EMF, studies/reports to date appear NOT to support those conclusions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Averyl on April 3, 2011 at 11:36am

From the same link:

"...Second, Vishay argues that Sensus erred by designing the iCon Meter in a way that would expose the capacitor to constant voltage, since it had "a tested life of only 1,000 hours." In support of that contention, it points to the capacitor's certification under the IEC 60384.14 2nd edition testing standard (the so-called "accelerated life" test discussed above). (Vishay Mem. at 9; Vishay Reply at 14-15.) But that certification does not aid Vishay's argument. While it is true that the capacitor was certified not to lose more than 10% capacitance after 1,000 hours of "accelerated" (i.e., stressed) use, the certification says nothing about how long the capacitor could be expected to function."


What I got from reading the case is that is that testing new technology, especially electric meters, is crucial for consumer safety. Millions of smart meters have have NOT been certified for ANSI compliance by an independent, unbiased Nationally Recognized or ANSI accredited testing labs such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Simply relying on manufacturer's claims is not a smart idea which is why UL exists.

I didn't see a connection between RF, old wiring, etc either but certainly any information about potential fire risks and smart meters are of interest (to me, anyway!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on April 3, 2011 at 12:10pm

I'm not sure that UL would be involved in testing a capacitor. But one has to presume that they WOULD be involved in testing ANY electrical device that can be used, or installed, by a private or business consumer. The story below says otherwise. Apparently, while UL at its website says it DOES test/certify "smart meters", the link below says that, at least in their particular area, the meters are NOT UL certified.

http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/02/15/city-council-discovers-smart-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Averyl on April 3, 2011 at 12:17pm

Right. All one needs to do is search the UL database and see if their meters are certified. They aren't in my state.

UL does test components as well as the end products (not sure that's the proper term).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MeterMan on April 3, 2011 at 5:25pm

In the original link, the court describes “problems arise” in 2005. Now, six years later, the courts are dealing with the fallout and assigning blame.

If these meters are being tested and designed properly, why did the court find these capacitor problems? Shouldn’t SOMEONE have caught the capacitor problems BEFORE these meters were installed? Can someone find a link that says the meters are now being tested any better?

Here’s a recent article from a couple of months ago.
http://www.wset.com/Global/story.asp?S=13487932


For the electric utilities, the easiest solution is to blame the consumer.
Say the wiring in my house has been working fine for ~50 years. Some guy comes out, installs a new smart meter, then my house has an electrical fire a couple of days later. Sorry, but I’m not buying an explanation about any pre-existing wiring problem.

Electric utilities LOVE these smart meters: profits increase when all the meter reader jobs are eliminated. Plus the federal government is helping to pay for the meters.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page