Control Logic | ABB SynRM demonstration

[@pauloyoshizaki2103]

Syn RM = Syncronos = Relutance = Motor = Elétric = Futuro = Chegou = Para = Sempre ! = Tecnology = Elétric ! / Para = Sempre ! Tecnology = Elétric = Ano = 2030 = Funcionar = Rotação = Sempre : SynRM : 2030 🏆🏆🏆🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇❤❤❤

[@OutDoorFun3]

For a convincing test need the same load on each motor.

[@bobdexter1029]

You can't use inrush for cost savings on a small motor, It's only running at inrush for a few seconds. Also, what's the load these motors are driving? Is it the same?

[@nickolayonischenko3975]

Looks very interesting, but the real effect is not completely clear, because the PF of both motors isn't indicated ((

[@terok85]

PF if SynRM is lower compared to IM but that does not matter on savings as the real power is what counts

[@АлексейКастевич]

Either your induction motor efficiency is 60% (which is NOT) or the load on the motors is different.

[@corystansbury]

I was scratching my head

[@HighestRank]

Each motor is turning a fan, which in order to be identical loads would need to push identical CFM: At different RPM, to achieve =CFMs requires significant design changes: different blade pitches, propeller vs drum style, size difference or particular combinations of these.

[@emanuelmarconi3305]

It is not induction, it is reluctance.

[@jacopodellolmo6640]

My doubts about the video's content are on the actual mechanical load of the two motors. The electric power is not the same, according to my calculation on the electric power (which is not shown in the video) in the previous comment, the induction motor is absorbing more than twice the power. That's really strange, there is too much difference and that's why: An average 11 kW induction motor has at least 85% efficiency , this means that if the electric power is 4.96 kW the mechanical output power is 4.96 (electric power) * 0.85 (efficiency) = 4.22 kW. Assuming even 100% efficiency for the reluctance motor it would have a mechanical load of 2.37 kW. With this calculations, we found that the motors are operating on different mechanical loads. That's why I said that they are clearly operating on different loads and that's not a fair comparison for the two motors. For an efficiency test, i would expect that to fulfil the same mechanical operation, one of the two motors needs less energy. This video sounds to me like this: Boss: We need something to convince people that our motor is more efficient than the other. Engineer: but.... that's a lie. Boss: I DON'T CARE. I really like the reluctance motor and I found they're principles amazing and they don't need those "low-quality " and "unfair" videos. Anyway, i don't want to make this comment a complete rant. Maybe I'm wrong and I missed something fundamental. I hope i made my doubts clear, in any case waiting for a reply.

[@Hr1s7i]

You need more energy in order to generate a strong enough emf in the rotor in order to get the motor to operate in the desired range. The synchronous reluctance motor has a rotor with already present magnetic field, which means you only need to pull it in whichever direction you want it to go. That takes less power by definition, as you don't have to pay for the Lorenz law's effect, which you need with a regular squirrel cage rotor.

[@olifyne6761]

@@Hr1s7i no the rotor in a synRM does not have an already present magnetic field

[@KoJoTe-hp4zk]

important for me are: synRM vs. synIM: ⅓ shorter length, double price, ? less thermal loading

[@RF-yh3qh]

how this would compare with the motors attached with some load?

[@golllub]

Assuming that load is the same on both motors and both motors are either torque or speed controlled than the ratio of drive currents and subsequently power would be the same.

[@jacopodellolmo6640]

@@golllub Same load and same speed means same power but this in not the case: Induction : 1.73*378V*7.40A = 4.96 kW Sync RM : 1.73*260V*5.28A = 2.37 kW They are clearly operating on different loads and so you can't compare the energy cost an the hypothetical savings. Nevertheless the motor is amazing, you obtained a synchronous motor without magnets or windings, but the test is bullshit.

[@arnavasdf3389]

@@jacopodellolmo6640 My understanding of the video is that the current being shown is the current the motor is drawing and that the difference in power draw is literally the point of the entire video. The output power is most likely equal. The reduced current draw can be attributed to the complete lack of winding on the rotor which means that there is no rotor copper loss. The lack of rotor copper loss also means that no additional power has to be dedicated to cooling the rotor, further reducing current draw. I could also be misunderstanding something so please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

[@jacopodellolmo6640]

@@arnavasdf3389 Maybe my previous comment was too short. My doubts about the video's content is on the actual mechanical load of the two motors. The electric power is not the same, according to my calculation on the electric power (which is not shown on the video) in the previous comment, the induction motor is absorbing more than twice the power. That's really strange, there is too much difference and that's why: An average 11 kW induction motor has at least 85% efficiency , this meas that if the electric power is 4.96 kW the mechanical output power is 4.96 (electric power) * 0.85 (efficiency) = 4.22 kW. Assuming even 100% efficiency for the reluctance motor it would have a mechanical load of 2.37 kW. With this calculations we found that the motors are operating on different mechanical loads. That's why i said that they are clearly operating on different loads and that's not a fair comparison for the two motors. For an efficiency test i would espect that to fullfil the same mechanical operation, one of the two motors needs less energy. This video sounds to me like: Boss: We need something to convince people that our motor is more efficient than the other. Engineer: but.... that's a lie.. Boss: I DON'T CARE. I really like the reluctance motor and i found they're principles amazing and they don't need those "low-quality " and "unfair" videos. Anyway i don't want to make this comment a complete rant. Maybe I'm wrong and I missed something fundamental. I hope i made my doubts clear, in any case waiting for a reply.

[@arnavasdf3389]

@@jacopodellolmo6640 I guess I didn't consider everything when I wrote my comment. Thanks, I have learnt something today.

[@davidchavez81]

He makes a point to say there are no windings on the rotor. There are no windings on a conventional AC induction motor either, so what is his point??

[@gunsparky]

Power. (Which is what you are paying for) is measured in KWh. You demonstrated a reduction in current but you did not demonstrate a reduction in Power. Don't get me wrong I believe SynRMs are more efficient and will save you power and reduce inrush current but it isn't 29% more efficient.

[@ebrahimfathy4422]

How to model PMSRM on solidworks and matlab? And what rated voltage and amp of it for an electrical vehicle? Thanks and regards

[@brucerogermorgan2388]

I'm using 230v single phase 2.25kw cap start/cap run motors. is there a SynRM motor to replace these? The current motors are at the limit for normal 230v supply, so a lower power consumption would be a big advantage. No choices on input voltage or power requirements, unfortunately.

[@gasparcardenas8456]

I would like to see the same test but with a kW measurement, Amperes are not indicators of energy savings. If the savings are in losses, that is not a percentage applicable to the energy consumed when carrying out the work, I understand that the reduction is in losses.

[@venkateshwarana.p1258]

what is the drive he is saying ? i can't able to understand

[@MaykThewessen]

SynRM is normally smaller right?

[@NawtieBoy96]

yes

[@HighestRank]

7.37A@386V=1499RPM vs. 5.29A@257V=1495RPM. 10^6 (4.25 vs 2.04) both loads appear to be different.

[@jackflash6377]

synRM motors are 5 to 15% more efficient than classic induction motors.

[@tedwalker1370]

You will save even more if the motor has to start several times a day. This is a major advancement in electric motors. It will give electric vehicles a much longer range per charge. That is great news.

[@Omniwoof]

This is why Tesla's use SynRMs

[@analoghardwaretops3976]

Induction motor shown starting on D.O.L. @436 V. ..& 15-16 Amps.. the other shown slow ramp up ..V/F from variable frequency drive... probably it was ALSO programmed for CURRENT CONTROLLED SOFT START..... A TRUE COMPARISON WOULD BE SHOWING THEM DRIVE / START UP WITH SOME CONNECTED " RATED LOADS @ RATED RPM.." . this was some childish play..

[@petersack5074]

super mario ...you are correct. All variables must be identical, except for the load....for an accurate analysis......way2go....

[@MOEFCO]

Lots of doubters in this sub. The efficiencies are real, and stem from the rotor reluctance design vs. traditional inductive motors. Startup current is a bit misleading, it stems from the fact SynRM motors require a VFD to operate and so have built-in soft start. You'd see similar inrush on the inductive motor if it had a soft starter attached (and not nearly as much savings from lower peak demand, it's just not that heavily penalized outside EU). A problem I am having is they're not available in NEMA frames for application in north america. Shaft height and bolt pattern matching all good, but that's not the only consideration of NEMA. In addition it would be nice to see a demonstration for 60hz.

[@Omniwoof]

Sounds like an opportunity if you think there is much of a market. :)

[@MOEFCO]

@@Omniwoof Without a doubt there's an opportunity. I and my team work in the field and find them every day!

[@jackflash6377]

Since the rotor is just a bunch of stamped steel lamentations, the motor should cost less. Why does it cost more? The stator is exactly the same.

[@dmd8552]

Production cost has no impact on purchasing cost.

[@jackflash6377]

@@dmd8552 It matters to me because I'm wanting to start producing them.

[@MrGgrove]

Impressive, I think the video would be more convincing if a way could be found to actually measure air flow from the two fans. if the fan pitch is slightly different, there would be less power required for one of the fans. And then instead of showing amps, show Kw instead. Clarification should be also made that these require a VFD to operate. if an application required a redundant bypass, a standby VFD would be required. on my ABB 580, there are different parameters for the SynRm motor vs and induction motor.

[@HighestRank]

Lower amps is going to allow thinner gauge wiring, smaller trip breakers, need less heavy duty boxes plus smaller motors can fit into more places, even if they’re not actually lighter.

[@chrisretired5379]

Not much savings really, then add the monetary loss of the inferior ABB speed drive, which consistently fail with exploded IGBTs, board replacement prices astronomical.

[@terok85]

You can use other manufacturers drive... Danfoss perhaps?

[@chrisretired5379]

Square D ( Schneider Electric) has the best drives, robust IGBTs, full voltage manual bypass contactor, if needed.

[@HighestRank]

@@chrisretired5379 IGBTs are actually where the energy savings are, don’t require power to hold the magnetic contactor ‘engaged’,

[@HighestRank]

@@terok85 yet the video is specifically @ABB product.

[@terok85]

@@HighestRank I know, just pointed out the fact that if someone thinks that ABB Drive is inferior, they are free to use other drives with SynRM too.. :-)

[@movax20h]

admin, admin ;)

[@HighestRank]

Eg Lord, Lord?

[@blurry_craft]

Best for outrunner high torque low kv application like rc helicopter direct drive lol

[@123olegoleg]

На первом двигателе - 380В, а на втором - 260В!

[@ilhandurmus]

I have better idea without turn in and off fast .. and single wiring double rotor and each turns to counter each other and also can work wirh dc and ac ...no complicated computer control for speed .. just variable voltage .. no speed control .. your speed is only limited with bearings and energy you can supply .. speed will controlled by power(Voltage and current ampere )

[@kamranali7179]

Hi