Hello everyone,

There are apparently many companies advertising on energy savings via Nola type power factor controllers. While Mark's article( http://www.lmphotonics.com/energy.htm ) was quite enlightening on their efficiency, my question comes like this:

Do you think there is any way of making power factor controller A(working on this principle) much more efficient then power factor controller B? Basically, there are those who advertise on the energy saving part of their soft starters(a la Somar, Enigin and such), those that mention they have some form of power controller embedded in their soft starter(for instance Fairford mentions their Nola algorithm implementation on their "about us" page) and those that have this thing embedded, but they don't even bother to mention it(someone said in another thread ABB provides a a la Nola power factor controller on their soft starter, but they don't even mention this in their presentation).

Basically, do you think there's any chance that, let's say Somar's soft starter has a "better"(in the lack of a better word) implementation of the Nola algorithm then, let's say, the ABB soft starter does?(seems SF given ABB's reputation, but...)
I mean, even if we're talking about applications like http://www.lmpforum.com/inforum/Power-Fact...ollers-t23.html, where in post #2 an application doing a switch between offload and full load in 1/150th of a second is mentioned, making a controller which is able to dynamically monitor and react seems pretty easy(even if my experience with micro chips and automatizing things is rather limited, yet, at least from a programming point of view the application seems so trivial that if leaves little to no room for much "optimization" - but while I understand the simplicity of the algorithm, I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of the hardware involved, so I know nothing of the limitation put on by the physical components).

I'm asking this because my previous experience with Somar's products was good in my country(the unit managed to reduce kWhr significantly - kWhr, not something else) and while I understand the customer would be better off buying a more modern motor, I'm 100% sure it's much easier to market/sell overpriced black boxes then more efficient motors(people, for some odd reason, seem to love black boxes over here and my interest is to provide a functional product, not necessarily the best solution - especially if the best solution is a marketing nightmare - but a viable solution). Is there any possibility that Somar's implementation is better, or I'd simply provide the same thing that other companies provide with the drawback that I'd have to do a big upfront payment and no brand awareness behind to back me up?

Thanks alot

Hello snowlywhite

Welcome to the forum.

Yes, it is certainly possible to have variances in the implementation of the algorithm such that figures are different between different controllers.
I have not been in a position to do comparative tests on all the different types currently available, but the bottom line is that the maximum performance is limited by the iron losses in the motor, not the controller.
I have been presented with many "certified" test results over the years that "prove" that my paper is very incorrect, but when I have looked at these test results, they are obviously incorrect. I was given one report that showed more KW saved at half load than were being drawn at no load and this is just a plain nonsense. When challenged, the supplier told me that I did not know anything about motors and that the iron loss increased with load, even if the theory showed that it did not. - just proves that "your" theories are totally wrong was the response!! I think that an 11KW motor with an iron loss of around 8KW would be pretty hot!!

Many of the older controllers could be tweaked to suit the load at the time, and the units that I designed back in the 79 - 82 era were like this. We were able to tweak the operation to best match the load and the results were never as good as claimed by some manufacturers. Claims of 50% saving at 50% load etc were just plain ridiculous. I have seen many controllers optimised for performance at zero load, increasing the losses at half load.

There are always marketing claims that mine is better than yours etc, but the bottom line is that you can only save a portion of the energy that is being wasted. To claim that you can save more energy than this based on improved technology is just another perpetual motion scam.

My recommendation? Do your own testing on potential applications, use rotating disk KWHr meters as these will give true results. Do your own comparisons between different brands, learn how to customize the setups etc.

I do not enable or promote the technology on soft starters that I sell, it just confuses the issue for little or no gain.

I get very sceptical of companies that make claims like While this may be true on a very small percentage of small motors operating essentially open shaft, such as very small clutch operated punch presses, the implication is that this applies to all motors which is absolute garbage. If you look at the operating efficiency of most motors used in industry, the efficiency is far higher than 50%, so there is no way that you can save 50% of the energy consumed. While this statement may have been made by some one in a research institute, that person must have been misquoted or did not understand induction motors.
This is a very good description of how an induction motor operates. As the load torque increases, the slip increases and more power is drawn from the supply. As the load decreases, the slip decreases and less power is drawn from the supply. The implication is that the motor is like a heater. If it is a 10KW heater, it will continue to draw 10KW irrespective of load. The reality is that the efficiency does not begin to fall significantly to well less than half load, so it is adjusting to the load without a controller fitted.
False claims and implications and overzealous marketing do little to boost confidence in those that know the basics.

Best regards,
Mark.

Thanks alot for your welcome and the reply.

No, I don't look for 50% savings or anything near that(one of the reasons why I'm reluctant on the type of advertising provided by some of those soft starters). More like something in the 10-15% range on old motors, with some exceptional cases of over 20%. Basically, an item which would provide a decent ROI for any of my potential customers; even if I accept it's not necessarily the optimal solution.

I. e. - I don't mind selling suboptimal items as long as I'm fully aware that optimal solution is impossible to sell, but I don't want to sell(if I'm to use a term found on these boards) anything even remotely looking like snake oil either.

Testing is obviously the most common sense approach one could suggest; however, testing, in some cases, where a distribution license is in the range of 25000$ or so is... abit prohibitive to say the least. And obviously I'm not at all inclined to believe their tests either... That's why I've asked if someone else has more clues/did more testing: if one asks for some big upfront payment for their product, which, leaving marketing aside, does the same thing as everyone else's product, then that product should better be way more efficient then their competitors in the said department or should be sensibly cheaper.

Hi There snowly,

I gather you are looking at a somar/enigin distributor agreeement???

Take a look at my other posts and specifically take a look at Ian Wriglys post to me (I havent bothered replying as its pointless)

A question you should ask these people:............. what is their churn rate of distributors? (how many drop off each year) and how many have made a decent business from this?

When you order stock, you used to have to pay up front and wait up to 10 weeks for delivery - it was cashflow suicide, some of these units cost thousands of $$$

Go & speak to someone who will sell you a controller (fairford, envirostart, or even a powerboss distributor) and do some tests on how to sell the thing and how it works. Then make your mind up to see if the business is worthwhile.

"A question you should ask these people:............. what is their churn rate of distributors? (how many drop off each year) and how many have made a decent business from this?"

That's what scared me most; after spending probably the best 3£ in my life to buy their financial data from companieshouse and looking at them it really made me wonder if they sell anything else but distributor rights. With so low figures, the line about business that makes millions...

Hello snowlywhite


If they have any confidence in their product, and if they believe that their product is so much better than the others, they would have a set of units, (including the oppositions) that you could borrow for your own testing. If you have to buy a distribution licence before you can test the product, then .......

There have been many promises of successful distributors posting on this forum, but they have not appeared in any numbers, but there have been many contacts from "failed" distributors.
Some of this is due to the "fast buck" type people attracted by the great promises and lacking totallly in the applications knowledge to ferret out the "good" applications, but at the end of the day, it would appear that the up front licence fee contributes to the revenue significantly.
I am yet to see a published list of distributors, I have come accross several "exclusive" distributors in this territory where each distributor was under the impression that they had exclusive rights to the same territory.

There are applications that will benefit from this technology. There are good returns on the right applications, it is just the difficulty in finding those applications and getting the sale without a lot of overhead. (cost of sale)

Best rgards,
Mark.

I just had a funny one come up last week. A "distributor" of one of the brands mentioned often in this forum (and this thread) convinced our local Rapid Transit district that their wonder device would save them 25% of their energy use on escalators. In general, this is actually a fairly valid application if the escalators are run continuously even when not being used. But in this case, the user actually turns the escalators off in between train runs in non-commute hours!

The icing on the cake was however, the fact that the user ordered them in NEMA 4 (watertight) enclosures. So the manufacturer installed bypass contactors, which render their super duper ultra-efficient micro-controlled energy saving function utterly useless!

They got the user to write the specs in such a way as to exclude all other bidders who didn't offer the energy saving function, then effectively disabled it. Their pricing was also exorbitant, roughly twice the price of similar soft starters on the market. With a little help from me, he will NOT be getting an invitation to bid a second time...

Having been involved personally in the development of several incarnations of fixed speed motor controllers, and having directly or indirectly through distributors and employees been involved in the installation of thousands of units in almost every country of the world over the last twenty years I do have a measure of experience to input to the forum.

Whilst a saving of 50% is certainly achievable this is by no means the norm and it would be foolhardy to think one could build a business on the false assumption that every motor is a potential big energy saver. You do well to think in terms of the 10-15% range for old partially loaded motors. Better to under promise and over deliver! As you correctly infer what the customer is interested in is a robust solution that will give an acceptable pay-back. I normally sell on a two rear ROI.

Quite often on this forum we are reminded "you can only save part of the energy that is being wasted" however, while this may for the most part be 'technically' correct it nonetheless could be misleading. How so? There is a principle in physics that I do not recall ever being referred to of this forum called 'isentropic effect', which for the less initiated has to do with equal entropy. Understanding this principle explains why, in some cases, a motor (following the installation of a controller like iMEC) can give substantially more energy saving benefits to the consumer than might seem technically possible, thus leading to statements by customers of otherwise seemingly unrealistic savings. This does not defy the laws of physics is simply embraces more of them! This can be proven conclusively with an Eniscope installation.

You can also add to the payback proposition if you can clearly demonstrate a significant improvement in equipment reliability following installation. We installed 102 units in a Foundry and the Managing Director told us he reckons he got his money back in the first month from significantly reduced maintenance costs and increased production. It helps when presenting the benefits on control technology to think 'outside the box', rather than just focussing on whats going on in the winding of the humble AC Induction motor.

Food for thought,

Ian