Comparison of Power-Saving Devices
01
Small local suppliers
(lighting/mixed loads)
- 01. High cost.
- 02. Cut-core type; less suitable for mixed loads, with limited savings and lifespan benefits.
02
Domestic motor-only power-saving device providers
- 01. Semiconductor-based; limited use for non-motor loads such as fluorescent lighting.
- 02. Not suitable for mixed loads.
03
Competitors’ Transformers
- Fundamental technical limitations
- Due to production constraints, competitors often use wound cores or C-cut cores. Because the core
cross-section is cut, burr removal is difficult and the core must be re-bonded. This structure can
increase core loss, magnetizing current, and noise.
- Critical malfunctions caused by overheating
- Because the voltage and current coils are wound vertically and then assembled, the transformer
may not withstand mechanical and electrical stress when motor starting current or line short-circuit
current flows in. This can significantly shorten transformer lifespan, and overheating may damage
other components. For reference, KEPCO supplier manufacturers of wound-core transformers
abandoned this method over 10 years ago and now supply toroidal-core transformers.
04
Products such as AVRs and inverters
- These products are far more expensive than our solution, making it impractical to recover the
purchase cost through energy savings. They are typically used for specific, specialized applications.
05
Automatic Tap Switching
- 01. It can maximize power savings, but the difference is not significant.
- 02. Some suppliers use semiconductor-based auto tap switching, but scaling beyond single-phase 10 kVA
and three-phase 30 kVA is limited by reliability and cost.
- 03. Suitable for small lighting loads, but higher motor loads can cause load-balancing issues;
semiconductor switching noise may also affect computer systems.
