On Dec. 19, 2013, the US Department of Energy (DoE) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering 1-HP to 500-HP, three-phase induction motors. These recommended changes are based on a study conducted in late 2010. The rule was adopted from a petition filed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and a coalition of energy advocates to broaden the scope of coverage while retaining the premium efficiency level and making compliance and enforcement easier.
With the new proposed rule, almost all three-phase motors in three-digit NEMA frames and enclosed 56 frames (plus IEC equivalents) will need to meet premium efficiency levels per NEMA MG 1 Table 12-12. This includes NEMA Designs A, B, and C and IEC Designs N and H. Many designs, such as gear motors, partial motors, vertical, TENV, encapsulated, immersible, and others previously not covered, will also need to comply. The DoE also issued a Final Rule for testing motors that cover these configurations.
A Final Rule on these 1-HP to 500-HP motors is expected in May 2014, with a proposed compliance date of Dec. 19, 2015. The coalition proposal requested two years from Final Rule as the compliance date.
It seems that any buyer of motors, especially those that use a lot of power, would of course consider the efficiency of a motor as a major parameter in making the selection of which motor to select. This is true because in most cases the cost of power to run the motor over it's lifetime is far greater than the initial purchase price. The very rare exception is motors that are very seldom operated, where perhaps reliability and size are more important than efficiency.
So while uniform test procedures would be a worthwhile rule to enforce, as well as truth in advertising and labeling, it wo8uld seem that the market would enforce the production of only the most efficient motors. Of course, there may be something else not mentioned in the discussion, such as a tendancy for some offsore sources to provide completely false information about their products, the most obvious is overstating wire sizes. Finding a spool of wire marked as number 12 and finding that it is actually much closer to what would be number 15 is not a nice surprise.
Manufacturers of plastic parts recognize the potential of conformal cooling to reduce molding cycle times. Problem is, conformal molds require additive manufacturing (AM), and technologies in that space are still evolving. Costs also can be high, and beyond that, many manufacturing organizations lack the knowledge and expertise needed to apply and incorporate additive technologies into their operations.
Machine vision and video streaming systems are used for a variety of purposes, and each has applications for which it is best suited. This denotes that there are differences between them, and these differences can be categorized as the type of lenses used, the resolution of imaging elements, and the underlying software used to interpret the data.
As today’s product design cycles are held to tighter schedules and budget constraints, it’s becoming even more critical to consider human factors up front to catch and fix problems during the initial development stages, when it’s faster and less costly to do so. Overlooking human factors at the beginning of the design cycle could lead to poor user experience, a decrease in effective product performance, and an increase in safety risk to the user.
Plastic part manufacturers are always looking for ways to reduce cycle time and get more productivity out of their injection molding machinery. One of the longstanding constraints in injection molding production has been cooling time. Removing parts from the mold before they have cooled induces warping or shrinking. But wait time works against productivity.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.