Simplistic is the core of the problem:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/simplistic
simplistic
adjective
1. characterized by extreme simplism; oversimplified: a simplistic notion of good and bad.
Contrary to what some people believe, simplistic is not a fancy word for simple. Simplistic does not describe things that are easy to understand, deal with, or use. Those sorts of things are simply simple. However, if something is too simple—misleadingly so—then it is correctly called simplistic. An argument that glosses over or omits relevant facts and presents trite, hackneyed, slogan-like statements and sound bites is indeed simplistic.
This is exactly the case: omission of relevant facts and overly simplified explanation.
Uh, no. This is not about everyone running off to search for schematics to be helpful. Wow, that's a misconception of how design analysis works.
A technical question was posed requiring a technical answer. The answers posted revealed a profound misunderstanding of how motor control worked. Designing a motor controller for an AC motor is a non-trivial task. I learned that a long, long time ago. The fact that the many reposters of schematics lack the training, knowledge, or expertise to understand why the simplistic—yes,
simplistic—circuits and solutions are inadequate does not mean someone should build it and expect it to either work or be safe.
Simply performing random searches using Google for schematics without understanding what you're looking at is not solving the problem. It is perfectly reasonable to identify the problems, often serious, with the circuits suggested or provided. Most are endlessly recirculated and re-posted internet designs with severe flaws and no analysis. The suggestions made for phase control were similarly incorrect.
I wrote up an explanation about the basic issues involved and included enough material to allow anyone to properly evaluate the suitability for a commercial unit. I suggested the OP find a commercial unit, with UL or CE approval, not a bare-bones Chinese unit which omitted key safety features to save on costs or, worse yet, was deceptively marketed.
That is a fallacious argument.
People routinely used toxic materials, including arsenic and heavy metals, for hundreds of years. Doesn't mean it "works". Mad as a hatter. Arsenic contamination of the southern agricultural fields to the point that rice is contaminated, and feeding arsenic to fowl leading to a recent ban on the practice. Doesn't mean it "works".
We have considerably evolved our engineering expertise in the past few decades, let alone the past hundred years. The old ways were often highly flawed.
If an AC motor is continuously run at a lower voltage without being designed for additional current it will be damaged. If an AC motor is run with phase control it will not properly function. Those are facts. Yes, some motors will tolerate that abuse being designed for it. This is why such motors become hot with use: excessive current. The circuit itself may become overheated and either self-destruct or cause a fire. This is why UL and other safety testing exists.
Many of the suggestions made were for phase control which is never appropriate for an AC motor, regardless of type.
My explanation was accurate, cogent, and complete. It allowed anyone with this problem to find a suitable
motor controller instead of the unsuitable
dimmer controller.
If you found an error in my analysis of why phase control is problematic, please post it.
It is better to explain why something doesn't work than rush to endlessly post schematics which are unsuitable without any explanation of how the circuit works, including its limitations and flaws. How is that helpful? How does it solve any problem?