High effciency motors

Page 1 of 4  
While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
<http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_- General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go up.
Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.
Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such a simple change to meet this standard? I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of issue at all.

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

The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is, they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be the cheapest.

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

It's less a case of the importers not specifying, as it is the importers being unable or unwilling to verify their specs are met. The Chinese know that most of what they make isn't tested for compliance, and a lot of them are willing to take a chance on using whatever's cheap, whether it mets spec or not.
This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get melamine in baby formula.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:

Which is business 101 for any company anywhere. If no specifications are requested they use what it takes to get the bid. China offers cheap labor and importers go for that. If the truth were to be known the air quality from off gassing of products at the Harbor Freight stores might be more dangerous than eating lead. ;~)

We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China, were purposefully done.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2015 9:09 AM, John McCoy wrote:

Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag thing was not intentionally ignored. This has been a problem for many years. Simple QC testing at random points for the last 10 years would have shown this and IIRC they knew it was a problem and did choose to wait and see and or get caught.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:

Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate malfeasance...but I don't know that there was sufficient evidence that testing of new units would've uncovered the issue as, at least as I understand the scenario, it took time before the changes in internal composition of the detonators would cause the resultant damage whereas a new-condition unit did not.
According to the last report I looked at in June at the ASQC (Amer Soc for Quality Control, a professional org for QC to which besides Amer Statistical Assoc I was member for 30+ yr so even retired I still read stuff), Takata still hasn't been able to fully determine an actual root cause.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but they're not the same.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ix.netcom.com says...

How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be recalled".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take the GM ignition switch case.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ix.netcom.com says...

The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right. Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every model of GM vehicle and they never improve it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@swbelldotnet says...

This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a design that was new around 2002.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2015 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

What difference would the time period make? FWIW those parts I was talking about were around from the late 70's to at least the mid 90's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote: ...

Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the key to change positions.
I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in the switch than any of the other GMs.
--


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

Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything else except certain GM models.
And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD.

You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing tolerances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

It did on the late 60's-70's on most all Fords that had a wad of keys hanging on the ignition lock. You eventually had to lift the shift lever before you could turn the key. When I was a kid I always wondered why Ford owners rested their left arm on top of the steering wheel and grabbed and lifted the shift lever with their left hand every time they wanted to start the engine. I learned why when I started driving. Not exactly the same thing but the integration of the ignition lock and shift lever position was eventually compromised. Than again it may have been more if an issue with the park lever detent in the park position. What ever the case the ignition switch would not engage unless the lever was in the proper position.

Better yet, keyless ignition. I love ours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/01/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I don't believe that--I think it's "operator error" in this case...
--



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.