電機(jī)效率更高是個(gè)好事——任何設(shè)計(jì)工程師都不可能說：“下一次設(shè)計(jì)中，我要找到真正低效率電機(jī)”。我在今年夏天寫過一篇文章designingwithenergy-efficientpermanentmagnetmotors，介紹洗衣機(jī)成為控制電子賣主和電機(jī)廠商使用的成熟應(yīng)用，如何在家庭中廣泛使用。然而，大多數(shù)人買洗衣機(jī)不是因?yàn)樗鼈兊哪茉葱剩浅鲇谀軌驅(qū)⒁路锤蓛�。根�?jù)消費(fèi)者報(bào)道，許多新型洗衣機(jī)在洗衣效果上很差。根據(jù)消費(fèi)者報(bào)道，“2007年1月，美國能源
電機(jī)效率更高是個(gè)好事——任何設(shè)計(jì)工程師都不可能說：“下一次設(shè)計(jì)中，我要找到真正低效率電機(jī)”。我在今年夏天寫過一篇文章designing with energy-efficient permanent magnet motors，介紹洗衣機(jī)成為控制
電子賣主和電機(jī)廠商使用的成熟應(yīng)用，如何在家庭中廣泛使用。然而，大多數(shù)人買洗衣機(jī)不是因?yàn)樗鼈兊哪茉葱�，而是出于能夠�(qū)⒁路锤蓛�。根�?jù)消費(fèi)者報(bào)道，許多新型洗衣機(jī)在洗衣效果上很差。
根據(jù)消費(fèi)者報(bào)道，“2007年1月，美國能源部要求洗衣機(jī)降低21%的能耗，這是我們誠懇支持的目標(biāo)”。但是測試發(fā)現(xiàn)，常見中心加速激勵(lì)的頂部裝載型洗衣機(jī)洗滌需要一段難熬的時(shí)間，沒有浪費(fèi)的清洗能力，成為購買洗衣機(jī)的主要原因。
幸虧，新型前端裝載洗衣機(jī)普遍使用永磁電機(jī)，符合能量效率標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，完成洗衣工作時(shí)也不會(huì)毀壞。不幸的是，洗衣/干洗設(shè)備要花費(fèi)接近$1000的價(jià)格。大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者出于熟悉和價(jià)格低廉的原因，似乎更喜歡頂部裝載型。但是頂部裝載型在獲得能量效率的同時(shí)，放棄了清洗能力，大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者很可能仍選擇更廉價(jià)、效率低的頂部裝載型。
記得許多州對存水馬桶提出要求是在30年前嗎？但可笑的是，理論上節(jié)省水，但與目標(biāo)相悖，實(shí)際上浪費(fèi)的更多。如果不得不洗反復(fù)洗衣服，洗衣機(jī)真的有能源效率嗎？
好吧，原因是便宜。我希望存水馬桶的類推是正確的，因?yàn)樵阢U工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)者證明其正確不是太久的事情。今天的存水馬桶和水龍頭使用的還不錯(cuò)。但是這是一個(gè)暗示：也許想要拖延幾年再購買頂部裝載型洗衣機(jī)。
英文原文：
W
ashing machine motor efficiency and the Law of Unintended C
onsequences
Higher motor efficiency is a Good Thing – It’s unlikely that any design engineer ever said, “
Gee, if only I could find a really inefficient motor for my next design.” When I was working on an article this summer on designing with energy-efficient permanent magnet motors and how their use is expanding in home appliances, washing machines were the poster-child application that all control electronics vendors and motor manufacturers used. However, most people buy washing machines not because they are energy-efficient, but because they want to get their clothes clean, and according to Consumer Reports, many of the new washing machines are pretty poor at cleaning clothes.
According to Consumer Reports, “As of January [2007], the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing
outthose savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.”
Happily, the new front-loading washers, which universally use permanent magnet motors, meet the energy efficiency standards and do a good job of cleaning clothes without destroying them. Unhappily, they cost in the neighborhood of $1000 for a washer/dryer
set. And most consumers seem to prefer top-loaders, both out of familiarity and because they’re less expensive. But the top-loaders gave up cleaning ability when they gained energy efficiency, and most consumers will probably stay with the less expensive, less effective top-loaders.
