I'm having trouble following your physics. There are no models known to me that support you thinking - perhaps you could help me out.
Quotes are from post 18:
"After we agree on this (hopefully), we have to see what happens when the full power is reduced. If the load is less than 70% (assuming 16% voltage reduction), the motor will continue to work as it can provide the required counter torque."
This has already shown in post 3. I got that - I'm pretty sure everyone else has as well. - cf
"The different motor loading will have effect on the motor efficiency and power factor."
This is the part you will need to show the model you are using. - cf
If the load is 50% (measured in power on the motor shaft), this means the efficiency will be improved and the motor will consume less active power.
50% of what? The motor nameplate rating? Or the reduced rating of available power caused by the reduced voltage. I can't tell which you are talking about. -cf
Now lets look at the 'efficiency will be improved" part. It appears that you are saying that loading a motor less than full load improves the efficiency? If so that is contrary to every motor model I've ever seen, and contrary to every motor measurement I've ever made. Here's why I say that:
As I recall, the magnetizing current is porportional to the applied voltage. (Motor whizes are welcome to jump in here and help out). So the reduced voltage requires less magnetizing current. But that does not appear to help out the power factor because the real power is down and the motor current is down.
Now let's look at real power consumption:
The motor is turning about the same speed, so the windage and friction are about the same, but wait, the motor is loaded less than nameplate - the shaft output is down. So the losses are about the same, but the shaft output is down. That certainly sounds like the efficiency went down. -cf
"Of course, the saving depends on the wasted energy and the motor's original efficiency."
What is this wasted energy? Where is it going? This is anoter statement that appears unsupported.- cf
In mining applications, some loads are very lightly loaded (less than 30%), which can get 15% or even better consumption reduction.
This makes no sense at all.
PQD -
If you have a motor model that supports this conjecture I'd like to see it.
If you have emperical data (test data) that shows your conjecture is true - I'd like to see that as well.
cf
edit
I didn't see besoeker's post until I was done. And I don't have access to that computer generated motor model. I am supprised the efficiency went up at all - I would have expedcted it to go down.
Bes - makes me wonder if your example isn't pushing the limits of your model. I'm sure you are right - just surprised.