Getting rid of "Service Factor" for motors.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
On September 26, 2016 the matter was still being debated.

Even then, the service factor was not being eliminated.

The discussion was about requiring that the total hp be listed.

DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS TEST PROCEDURES

So, to implement that recommendation, DOE proposed that dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the varieties that are noted in this box, basically the varieties for which the test procedure is applicable, including pressure cleaner booster pumps and waterfall pumps, would be labeled with the WEF, the rated hydraulic horsepower, dedicated-purpose pool pump nominal motor horsepower, service factor, and motor total horsepower.

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov www.regulations.gov

Click to expand...
 
Ok so doesn't that prove it was already in discussion? That is a 2016 docket (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0002-0015) which means comments were coming in much earlier than the published date. There are references to the comments so you can track when they were suggested if you really want to know. But I am sure your post was the tipping point. :goodjob:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesW
Discussion is not a decision or a final rule.

Also, the discussion was not about eliminating the service factor.

The discussion was about adding the total hp.

The "Proposed" labeling requirements do not say that the service factor should be 1.0.

1629651440955.png
1629651505799.png
My entire point was to eliminate the “Nominal HP” and any “Service Factor” greater than 1.0.

The proposed labeling requirements still included the nominal hp and they still allowed a service factor greater than 1.0.

Only after my thread did Nidec and the APSP begin to aggressively push for a service factor of 1.0, which is what finally swayed the committee.
 
Last edited:
Also, Jandy, Pentair and Hayward could have voluntarily stopped making two identical pumps and labeling them as different pumps.

They did not have to wait for a rule to do the right thing.

It took over 4 years for the rule to finally take effect.

The pump makers could have begun to do the right thing back in 2017 if they really wanted to.
 
JamesW said:
Only after my thread did Nidec and the APSP begin to aggressively push for a service factor of 1.0, which is what finally swayed the committee.
Click to expand...
The deadline for comments was 11/21/2016. It was incorporated into the document at a later date which is typical of government dockets.
 
The actual rule adopting the 1.0 service factor was published on August 8 2017.

Before the final ruling, there was considerable debate between all interested parties.

Most likely, the more informed parties involved in making the final rules had read my thread and found my logic to be extremely persuasive.

I can’t conclusively say that the rule was mostly due to my thread, but I suspect that it was a decisive factor.
 
Last edited:
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project does not say anything about removing the Service Factor.

Nidec does propose the elimination of the service factor, but it is only a recommendation from one participant in the overall discussion.

It does not in any way settle the matter.

November 21, 2016

We support the proposed labeling requirements.

As DOE notes in the NOPR, the working group recommended that DOE investigate a label for DPPPs.

In the NOPR, DOE proposes that the permanent nameplate of each DPPP include the WEF, rated hydraulic horsepower, DPPP nominal motor horsepower, DPPP motor total horsepower, and service factor.
Click to expand...

November 21, 2016

Nidec Motor Corp. Comments on Test Procedure NOPR for Dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

By establishing the service factor at 1.0, the nominal horsepower would equal the total horsepower. We believe that this establishes a clear definition for motor horsepower for the DPPP manufacturers and consumers of DPPP’s and eliminates the ambiguity associated with rated horsepower, total horsepower and service factor.
Click to expand...

Here are some “unpublished” minutes of the committee’s discussions (that I imagine probably happened).

On February 24 2017:

Member 1: Service Factor is a great thing and we should keep it.

Member 2: I agree. No need to change anything.

Member 3: Service Factor is the best thing ever.

On February 26 2017

Member 1: Wow, was I ever wrong about keeping the service factor.

Member 2: Me too. Service Factor is pure evil. Thanks for sending me the link to that thread, it was pure genius.

Member3: If JamesW thinks that the Service Factor needs to go, then that is good enough for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mas985
mas985 said:
Yes but the comments to generate that docket were submitted on 11/2016.
Click to expand...
Even if the comments were officially closed, all members still had to debate the proposed rules and decide which rules to adopt.

Just because Nidec threw out the idea of removing the service factor, it does not mean that it would have been officially adopted.

If you Google [getting rid pool pump "service factor"], the first link is to my post on TroubleFreePools.com, which is the most authoritative source in the pool industry.

All members would have Googled the term to research the issue and they would have read my post.

1629658941439.png
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply