Iacdrive|Automation Solution

What happen if we put a magnet near digital energy meter?

In the “olden” days when there were only moving disk meters, I heard that people drilled small holes into the Bakelite cases and tried to get spiders to make a web inside the meter and slow the meter down. It probably wasn’t true, but there have always been people trying to get something for nothing.
I also heard that some people were using a welder and found that their moving disk meter went backwards, but it depended where they positioned the welder, and how strong the welding current was.

Back to electronic meters, if there are transformers inside the electronic meter, placement of a magnet as close to this transformer as possible could cause over fluxing every half a cycle, this could cause a diode like affect in the meter electronics, and if the electronics are designed to eliminate harmonics for calculating energy usage, then the magnet has let this person pay less for electricity, i.e. steal electricity.

Of course the meter may also have a detection circuit for high harmonics and send a message back to the utility to say the harmonic level is too high and a serviceman may then discover this magnet.
I do know that some electronic meter IC manufacturers have added a bump circuit into their ICs so I am sure they have thought about this sort of trickery too.

I like everyone paying full dollar for their electricity, otherwise most of us are carrying the small number of people doing these sorts of things.

“Meters should offer compliance to requirements of CBIP-304 and its amendments for tampering using external magnets. The meter should be immune to tamper using external magnets. The meters should be immune to 0.2T of A.C. magnetic fields and 0.5 T of D.C. magnetic fields, beyond which it should record as tamper if not immune.”
The above statement is a requirement during the manufacturing of digital energy meter. Hence we shall assume that digital meters are tamper proof using Magnets.

Reactive consumptions in AC power system

There are two types of reactive consumptions in AC power system, inductive and capacitive reactances. We can not call them losses. The loss of a transmission line is the active power consumed by the line resistance which is determined by the current on the line. Reactive power can adjust the power factor and control the apparent power, then the current and losses on the line.

The minus reactive power means capacitive load is higher than the inductive load, which happens when the transmission line has no load or with pure resistive load because the capacitive load along the TL dominates the reactive load. In this situation the voltage at the end of the line should be higher than the one at the beginning (you should get it when you get the negative reactive power).

When the load (80% of the industry load is inductive) increases, the reactive power will be positive as the inductive load will dominate the reactive power consumption, and then voltage will lower than that at the beginning. So the optimized choice for the reactive load is that in power plant generating less reactive power (reducing the losses on the line) and generating the compensating reactive power (negative reactive power) at consumer side by using capacitor banks or synchronizing motor, which can increase the power factor of the consumption and regulate the voltage (if the transformer has no taps), and then efficiency (save money) as well.

Earthing conductors size calculation

1. As per IEE/BS7671, The Minimum cross-sectional area of protective conductor in relation to the cross-sectional area of associated line conductor (Say =S mm2) by taking into consideration that are of same material, as follows:

If S ≤ 16 then the Minimum cross-sectional area of the corresponding earth conductor = S mm2

If 16 < S ≤ 35 then the Minimum cross-sectional area of the corresponding earth conductor = 16 mm2

if S > 16 , then the Minimum cross-sectional area of the corresponding earth conductor = S/2 mm2

2. It may be necessary to verify the same by using the following equation
I²t ≤ S²K

I earth fault current and t tripping time.

while the following equation is applicable for bonding conductor

Zs < 50/Ia where Zs = Earth loop impedance and Ia is protective device operating current

What need to be concerned to start a motor?

First, you need to know power (rated power and rated current) of your power source with whom you will supply your motor. For example, if you want to supply your motor by using low voltage synchronous generator (through high voltage power transformer), you need to know rated power and rated current of synchronous generator and rated power and rated currents of high voltage power transformer. This information is very important because if you don’t have powerful source for supplying your motor, there is possibility that you’ll never reach rated rotational speed during rated time which means that you’ll not start your motor.

Second, you need to know kind of your motor. Is that motor asynchronous motor with cage rotor or is that asynchronous motor with sliding rings? This information is very important because these kinds of asynchronous motors have different values of starting current: for asynchronous motors with cage rotor starting current is 6-8 times higher than rated current of mentioned kind of motor while for asynchronous motors with sliding rings starting current is 3-5 times higher than rated current of mentioned kind of motor. Also, too much higher starting current of your motor could be a reason for unallowed warming of windings of stator what it could lead to dangerous consequences, first all, for people in surrounding of motor and then also for equipment in surrounding of motor.

In relation with start of your motor with lower voltage because you will, on that way, reduce starting current 2 times and starting torque will be 4 times lower than rated torque of your motor. On that way, you will easily start your motor.

VFD replace mechanical gearbox to drive the load

Can an AC drive to replace the mechanical gearbox that used to decrease motor speed in conveyor application i.e to use a motor that will drive the load directly throw a coupling, belt or chain, without gearbox, motor rated up to 18.5 kw.

Theoretical is true as far the speed variation is concerned. Practically is not recommended for your application if the conveyor is required to be used with constant speed, on the other hand the gearbox also used for Torque purposes.

For light conveyors used on packing lines on which rate of production varies in accordance to some industrial parameters (Automation & PID control), direct coupled motor controlled by variable frequency drive may be feasible.

VFD is expensive (capital & running cost) its selectivity should be done carefully among the other available options.

By using a variable frequency drive we can change the speed of an AC Motor, and working for any time on any choosing speed, even in some case we can exceed the speed more than the normal one if the motor can withstand it. Noting that:
1- We should be careful when choosing the type of AC drive that should ne normally done according on the application “Conveyor, Fan, Pump, Compressor, ext ” to determine the torque’s level at running time.
2- In some special case when the motor runs at too low speed comparing by his normal one, maybe we need a forcing cooling for that motor.
3- Each VFD has a value of the Short Circuit’s level that can be withstanded, so, we should be careful of that point.

Cross regulation for multiple outputs

Cross regulation is a very important component of multiple outputs. This can be done in several ways: transformer coupling, mutually coupled output filter chokes (forward-mode) and/or shared output sensing voltages/currents. All, of which, are impossible to model. I have tried them all.

I have sort of written of the first two off, since it is under the control of external vendors, which make their own decisions as to their most cost effective solutions. At best, transformer solutions yield a +/- 5 percent regulation, and can be many times much worse. .Coupled inductors yield a much better cross regulation, but the turns ratio is critically important. If you are off by one turn, you loose a percentage of efficiency.

Shared current/voltage cross sensing is so much more common sense. First, choose the respective weighing of the percentage of sense currents from each outputs approximately in proportion to their respective output powers. Keep in mind that, without cross-sensing, the unsensed outputs can be as much +/- 12 % out of regulation. Decide your sense current through you lower sense resistor. Then multiply your percentages by this sense current from your positive outputs. Calculate each output’s resistance to provide that respective current. Try it, you will be amazed. The negative outputs will also improve immensely.

One can visualize this by, if one senses only one output, only the load of that output influences the feedback loop, which, for example, increases the pulsewidth for each increase in load of the heavily loaded output. The lighter, unsensed loads go crazy. By cross sensing, the lighter loads are more under control and the percent of regulation of the primary load is loosened somewhat.
By sharing the current through the lower sense resistor, you can improve the regulation of every output voltage in a multiple output power supply.

Motor starting time to reach full speed

It is not easily answered since there are many variables at play which will affect the starting time. For a large medium voltage motor, it is recommended that a motor starting analysis be performed so that proper control and protection of the motor can be set. The motor manufacturer is a good place to start to find a motor data sheet and torque curve responses; that should give you some good starting point data. Such an analysis can provide inrush current, voltage dip, and starting time.

The time that any motor to run up will depend on the actual load on the shaft. In broad terms the larger the load (related to the rated output) the longer it will take to run up. I would have expected 2 – 2.5MW motors to be manufactured to run on 10-11Kv and DoL. The startup times of these motors would typically be between 45 seconds (No Load) and 3 or 4 Minutes (dependent on the type and magnitude of the load).
I also tend to agree if the feed value is shut the motor will not initially see a significant load and should run up quite quickly.

I would start with Te time constant of the motor as the starting time in the worst case. If you intend let your motor live for long, you should design its protection to avoid starting times longer than Te and nor even close to it. As for specific application, it’s always try and error, but the guiding line should be: start at minimum load and increase it gently (some motor protection relays guard load increase rate).

Popularization of SPICE

I am currently writing a bullet point history of the popularization of SPICE in the engineering community. The emphasis is on the path SPICE has taken to arrive on the most engineering desktops. Because of this emphasis, my history begins with the original Berkeley SPICE variants, continues onto PSpice (its limited, but free student version made SPICE ubiquitous) and culminates with LTspice (because, at over three million downloads, it has reached many more users than all other SPICE variants combined).

I have contacted Dr. Laurence Nagel (the father of Berkeley SPICE) and Mike Engelhardt (LTspice) in order to verify the accuracy of the historical account (haven’t had a chance to fold in Dr. Nagel’s corrections yet), but I am lacking solid information about the beginnings of PSpice (I don’t even know who the technical founders of MicroSim were). Ian Wilson was an early technical V.P. Also, I am not sure what the PSpice acronym means. (Seems to me that it started out as uPspice?)

Here is what I have recently found about PSpice (more info appreciated):

User’s Guide to PSpice, Version 4.05, January 1991
From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.1 Overview, starting with paragraph 2 (page 3):

“PSpice is a member of the SPICE family of circuit simulators. The programs in this family come from the SPICE2 circuit simulation program developed at the University of California at Berkeley during the early 1970’s. The algorithms of PSICE2 were considerably more powerful and faster than their predecessors. The generality and speed of SPICE2 led to its becoming the de facto standard for analog circuit simulation. PSpice uses the same numeric algorithms as SPICE2 and also conforms to the SPICE2 format for input and output files. For more information on SPICE2, see the references listed in section 13.2.1.4 (page 427, especially the thesis by Laurence Nagel.

“PSpice, the first SPICE-based simulator available on the IBM-PC, started being delivered in January of 1984.

“Convergence and performance is what sets PSpice apart from all the other ‘alphabet’ SPICEs. Many SPICE programs became available on the IBM-PC around mid-1985, after Microsoft released their FORTRAN complier version 3.0. For the most part, these SPICEs are little modified from the U.C. Berkeley code. Using benchmark circuits, we find that PSpice runs anywhere from 1.3 to 30 times faster than our imitators. In the area of convergence, PSpice has a two-year lead in improving convergence and a customer base that is larger than all of the other SPICE vendors combined (including those SPICEs offered for workstations and mainframes). This larger customer base provides more feedback, sooner, than any other SPICE program is likely to receive.”

From Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, Section 1.4 Standard Features, last paragraph (page 7):

“PSpice, version 3.00 (Dec. 1986) and later, is a complete re-write of the simulator into the ‘C’ pro-gramming language. It is not a version of SPICE3, from U.C. Berkeley, which is also written in ‘C’. MicroSim has overhauled the data structures and code, however the analog simulation algorithms are similar and the numeric results are consistent with SPICE2 and SPICE3. Having the simulator re-written in ‘C’ allows faster development, allowing our team to reliably modify and extend the simulator in sev-eral directions at once.”

From the January 1987 Newsletter: PSpice went from version 2.06 (Fortran) to version 3.00 (C). Speed increased by 20%. PSpice 3.01 (Dec 86) introduced the non-linear Jiles and Atherton core model.

From the April 1987 Newsletter: PSpice 3.03 (Apr 87) introduced ideal switches.

From the July 1991 Newsletter: PSpice announced Schematics at the June 1991 Design Automation Conference. (Became available when PSpice 5.0 shipped in July 91?)

Solving Differential Equations with Mic

High starting torque, synchronous motor, induction motor or DC motor?

It depends on so much more than the simple requirements listed of high starting torque and variable speed. What kind of application are you using it for? Is it on an automobile (where you have DC already), a factory, and do you have the budget and/or space for a variable frequency drive. A synchronous servo motor gives great dynamic control and great starting torque per volume, but its speed range is limited (unless you’re field weakening by the back EMF). Servo-motors are also the most expensive due to their position sensors and more intelligent drives.

With a proper soft drive you can go with an induction motor, but it depends. if power is small you can go to step motor also. But dc series motor’s starting torque is high as expressed others.
DC Series motors have high starting torque but induction motors have wide range of speed control. So, If DC motor is used, then DC drives you can use, although it will be expensive and DC motors are tough to maintain than ac motors due to commutation Problem.

DC series motor would provide both the high starting torque and adjustable speed BUT beware that DC motors have high maintenance cost and also require AC-DC conversion. You could use other available options e.g. double wound induction motors etc, depending upon your requirements.

But today, there is no application where you cannot apply AC motors, asynchronous or synchronous. If the motor and the associated power electronics are correctly rated, you can have any starting torque you want.

The typical application of DC series motors was in locomotives. This technology has been replaced by AC motors since 20 years. The latest generation of high speed trains use synchronous, permanent magnet motors.

Simulator history

Power electronics has always provided a special challenge for simulation. As Hamish mentioned above, one of the problems encountered is inductor cutsets, and capacitor loops that lead to numerical instability in the simulation matrices.

In the 80s, Spice ran so slowly that is was not an option unless you wanted to wait hours or days for results, and frequently it failed to converge anyway. It was never intended to handle the large swings of power circuits, and coupled with the numerical problems above, was just not a feasible approach.

Ideal-switch simulations were used with other software to get rid of many of the nonlinearities of devices that slowed simulation down, but Spice really hated ideal switches as it would try to converge on the infinite slope edges.

Three universities started writing specialized software for converter simulation to address this shortcomings of Spice. Virginia Tech had COSMIR, which I helped write with a grad student, Duke University had the program which later became Simplis, and the University of Lowell had their program, the name of which I don’t recall (anyone remember?).

All of these programs started before Windows came along, and they were fast and efficient. With windows, the programming overhead to maintain programs like these moved beyond the scope of what university research groups in power electronics could handle. Only the Duke program survived, with Ron Wong leading the effort at a private company. The achievements of Simplis are remarkable, but it is a massive effort to keep this program going for a relatively small marketplace (power supply companies are notoriously cheap, so the potential market does not get realized), and that keeps the price quite high. If you can afford it, you should have this program.

Spice now runs at a reasonable pace on the latest PCs, so it is back in the game. LT Spice is leading the charge because it is free, and the models are relatively rugged. Now that speed is less of a factor, you can put real switches in, and Spice can handle them in a reasonable amount of time. (Depending on your definition of “reasonable”.)

PSIM was another ideal switch model, and they eliminated the convergence headaches that plagued all the other programs by not having convergence at all. You just cut the step size down to get the accuracy you needed, and this worked fine for exploring power stages and waveforms, but was not good for fast transient feedback loops. As the digital controller people quickly realized, the resolution on the PWM output needed to avoid numerical oscillations is very fine, and PSIM couldn’t handle that without slowing down too much.

When I left Virginia Tech, I felt the bulk of the industry needed a fast simulation and design solution so engineers did not have to add to their burdens with worrying about convergence and other problems. This is a hardware-driven field, and we all have our hands full dealing with real life blowups that simulation just doesn’t begin to predict.

I have observed in teaching over the years that engineers in a hurry to get to the hardware have very little tolerance for waiting for simulation. If you are building a well-known topology, about 2 seconds is as long as they will wait before they become impatient.

This is the gap that POWER 4-5-6 plugs. The simulation is practically instantaneous, and the program has no convergence issues so you design and simulate rapidly before moving to a breadboard. It is intended for the working engineer who is under severe time pressure, but would like some simulation to verify design integrity.