丹·赫尔森(Dan Helgerson),beplay888官网Technical Editor—

An electromechanical system can operate at about 96% overall efficiency. One study showed that fluid power operates at about 21% efficiency on average. This raises a question: with the price of energy the pressure to “go green” constantly increasing, why would anyone in his or her right mind choose fluid power?


This is anecdotal, but anecdotes can show a pattern, and enough of them may even be considered data. The fact is that a substantial group of design engineers currently planning the equipment of tomorrow do not question the idea that it is wise to避免using fluid power!


在提出流体能力的情况下,这些都是适当的事情,我们许多人成功地做到了。但是,在本文中,我要专注于能源,因为如果不能将流体功率显示为其他形式的能量转移的有效替代方案,那么我们还可以收集我们的公式并找到其他一些工作。令人沮丧的事实是流体力没有haveto be so inefficient.

For years fluid power professionals have complained that they have to give away engineering to be competitive and sell products. This complaint spotlights the irony that we are the ones who designed the inefficient systems that now haunt us. Fluid power users have come to us professionals asking for solutions to their power-transfer needs. Some of them would not know a kilowatt from a horse radish or a BTU from a lemon drop. But we do! For us to design their systems, we must calculate the forces, speeds, pressures, and flows required to get the job done.

我曾经有机会提供一个系统,在该系统中,向上的表演新闻有142 kN(32,000磅)的压板,必须以0.13 m/sec(5英寸/秒)的速度提起,然后移动0.025 m//sec/sec。SEC(1英寸/秒),使用1,335 kN(150吨)的力。我建议使用30 kW(40 hp)电动机的系统。机器设计师持怀疑态度,并告诉我他认为这不会起作用。他的公司总是用45 kW(60 hp)的电动机制造类似的机器,以驱动液压泵。

I asked him to do the math with me. The greatest amount of power was consumed in lifting the platen. (The pressing force required relatively little power because of the low speed.) Knowing that 1 kW = 1 kNm/sec (HP = 550 lb/ft/sec), I asked him to tell me how much power would be needed to lift the platen at the rated speed. He got out his calculator and worked out 142 x 0.13 = 18.46 kW (about 25 hp). My 30-kW unit was a concession to the system’s inefficiency and the availability of the type of electric motor I planned to use.

当完成的机器到达制造工厂的新房屋时,工厂工程师持怀疑态度,因为我们在系统上放置了一个相对较小的热交换器。他坚信动力部队会过热。他还有其他几台机器,带有45 kW(60 hp)的电动机,并且都有大型热交换器。我很高兴地报告该系统工作正常,而且热量没有问题。我们只是设计了系统中的许多热发电机。

The point is this: the users of fluid power have placed themselves at our mercy. When it comes to fluid power, otherwise competent engineers sometimes lay aside what they know about physics. They want us to handle the “black box” and trust us to provide the best system. In the experience I described above, neither the machine designer nor the plant engineer had done the math to see the actual requirements to move the load. They had left it up to us, the fluid power professionals, to tell them what they needed, and we failed them. We gave them systems that worked and met the stated requirements, but the systems did not represent the best that could be done. The result was that for years machine designers had supplied inefficient systems and manufacturers paid the energy bill for that inefficiency. They accepted the wasted energy as a cost of doing business and an inherent characteristic of fluid power.

As fluid power professionals, we are pros at transferring energy. We need to think of ourselves as energy professionals specializing in fluid power. We need to involve fluid power users in the decision-making process, let them know the cost of inefficiency, then offer the most efficient system available.


To do less would be a disservice to our profession and to those who depend on our expertise.

Share this information.


2的想法啊n “Raising the bar: No More Wasted Energy”

  1. 艾伦·希奇科克斯(Alan Hitchcox) 说:

    Now, course, we talk about total cost of ownership, which places great importance on efficiency. But I suppose the end result is not that different from the past. With so many companies making decisions based on economics, many decision-makes are very reluctant to pull the trigger on a design that, on paper, promises lower cost of ownership.

  2. 丹尼尔·赫尔格森(Daniel Helgerson) 说:

    Thank you for your comment. It has been my experience and practice that more efficient systems are not necessarily more expensive then traditional systems. The more efficient system may reduce the size of the reservoir, reduce the size of or eliminate the need of the heat exchanger, reduce the size of the prime mover, and reduce the pump displacement.
    When our sales engineers become competent and confident to have energy be part of the sales presentation, they will find an open door of opportunity. In some applications, the sales pitch may not be to the purchaser, but to the Chief Financial Officer. The CFO is often unaware of the potential cost savings and can be an influence in making the improvements..


Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked*