Summer in India can be harsh. Most parts of the country face extreme heat. And during this time, your air conditioner becomes your best friend. But here’s something most people forget. Your AC is only as safe as your power supply.
If the voltage in your area keeps changing, your AC could be in danger. Sudden voltage spikes or drops are common in Indian summers. These can damage or even destroy your AC. That’s why using a stabilizer for 1.5 ton ac is not just a good idea. It's crucial. Let’s find out more from this content.
During summer, people use various appliances, such as ACs, to stay relaxed. However, the usage of such appliances expands the demand for electricity. In return, this makes the voltage pretty unstable. Voltage swings and power outages are pretty common, and the AC is the appliance that suffers a lot during these times.
The voltage stabiliser is a sort of appliance that controls the electricity’s flow. The device guarantees that the appliance acquires steady and proper voltage. When the voltage goes higher or lower, the stabiliser helps adjust it. The AC will surely get a good amount of power when you have a stabiliser in place. It will also keep all the other appliances well-protected.
There are several reasons why you might require a good stabiliser. The pointers below will give you a detailed explanation:
Your AC needs a certain voltage range to work.
If the voltage drops, it struggles to function.
Cooling becomes poor, and the motor works harder.
This leads to overheating and wear and tear.
Over time, the internal parts can break down.
Sudden voltage spikes can be dangerous.
They can burn your AC’s internal circuits.
The compressor or the PCB may get damaged.
Replacing these parts is very expensive.
A stabiliser saves you from this risk.
Many new ACs come with a built-in stabiliser.
But this works only within a limited voltage range.
In India, voltage often goes beyond that range.
External AC stabilizers have a wider range of protection.
It's better to be secure than sorry.
After a power cut, when the power returns suddenly, the voltage can spike.
This sudden surge can hit your AC hard.
Without a stabiliser, there is nothing to stop that shock.
A stabiliser delays the power flow slightly.
It gives your AC time to adjust safely.
Your AC performs better with a stable power supply.
Cooling becomes more efficient.
It runs with less stress on the motor.
Lianfu are exported all over the world and different industries with quality first. Our belief is to provide our customers with more and better high value-added products. Let's create a better future together.
That means less noise and more comfort.
It also saves energy.
Repairs are costly.
A blown compressor or damaged board can cost thousands.
A stabiliser costs much less.
It protects your investment for years.
It also helps reduce maintenance costs.
An AC is a long-term appliance.
But without proper care, it may fail early.
Power fluctuations cause hidden damage over time.
A stabiliser adds years to your AC’s life.
It keeps everything running smoothly inside.
Microtek has gained a reputation for being a reliable company when it comes to power solutions and Stabilizer . We offer top-notch products that are made for Indian conditions and residences. Microtek’s stabilizer for air conditioner come in various models, which are perfect for different types of air conditioners. Their Stabilizer are built with advanced technology, fast response times, thermal protection, and digital monitoring. Microtek understands how power behaves in Indian summers. Their products are made to handle it.
Air Conditioners are viewed as a crucial component of a dwelling, particularly during the sizzling Indian summer. However, it is also sensitive to power changes. Voltage fluxes, ripples, and even drops are pretty ordinary and can induce severe damage. A stabiliser is your first and best defence against these risks.
Automatic stabilizers don’t just help families facing financial difficulties—they also help the overall economy by stimulating aggregate demand when times are bad and when the economy is most in need of a boost. When times are better, automatic stabilizers generally phase down or turn off. Most automatic stabilizers are federal; states and localities are generally required to balance their budgets, so they can’t run big deficits during downturns.
Both taxes and spending can have stabilizing effects on the economy. Most taxes have a stabilizing effect because they automatically move with economic growth. For example, personal and corporate income tax collections decline during recessions along with income and profits, and payroll tax collections decline when employment and wages fall. Spending on some transfer programs also depends on the state of the economy. For instance, outlays for unemployment insurance increase when the unemployment rate rises, and spending on anti-poverty programs like Medicaid and SNAP increases during recessions because bad economic times mean that more people are eligible.
As shown in the chart below, the bulk of the value of automatic stabilizers comes from changes in tax revenues, rather than from spending on programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), revenues have accounted for about three-quarters, on average, of the effect of automatic stabilizers on the budget over the past 50 years (CBO ).
One of the benefits of automatic stabilizers is that they do not require legislative action and respond quickly to economic downturns. Discretionary fiscal policy requires action from Congress, so there may be considerable time lags due to debates on the appropriate response, steps in the rulemaking process, and the administrative actions for funds to reach the pockets of consumers. During the Great Recession, Congress responded relatively quickly: the first fiscal action was the Bush Economic Stimulus Act, which was signed on February 13, , which turned out to be only two months after the recession was later determined to have begun (Furman ). But the largest stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of , was authorized five quarters after the start of the recession. By this time, spending on automatic stabilizers had already grown to 2 percent of potential GDP—the maximum sustainable output of the economy (Schanzenbach ). Examining economic stabilization policy from to , Sheiner and Ng () find that automatic stabilizers provide about half of the total fiscal stabilization, with the other half provided by discretionary fiscal policy.
The responsiveness of automatic stabilizers to economic conditions has been fairly stable over time. According to CBO, automatic stabilizers averaged about 0.4 percent of potential GDP for each percentage point difference between GDP and potential GDP (“output gap”) from to . Likewise, Auerbach and Feenberg () find that the federal tax system’s impact as an automatic stabilizer has changed relatively little. Sheiner and Ng find that although the degree of cyclicality of overall fiscal policy has been somewhat stronger in the past 20 years than the previous 20 before that, the contribution to GDP growth of automatic stabilizers in response to a percentage point gap between the unemployment rate and the natural rate has been relatively steady, fluctuating between 0.3 and 0.5 between and .
From to , automatic stabilizers lowered revenues by 1.2 percent of potential GDP, and increased spending by 0.6 percent — a combined effect of 1.8 percent of potential GDP.[1] The increase in discretionary spending stemming from legislative action contributed on average about 1.3 percent of potential GDP over this period. As shown in the chart below, the stimulus from discretionary spending was cut off abruptly in , even though the unemployment rate was still high. Automatic stabilizers provided stimulus for much longer.
State and local governments have balanced budget requirements, meaning that any reductions in spending or increases in taxes that come from state and local automatic stabilizers have to be offset in order to balance the budget. Although states have rainy day funds intended to help balance budgets when tax revenues fall, most are too poorly financed to stave off the need for spending cuts and tax increases during recessions. When state and local governments increase taxes or decrease spending to meet their balanced budget requirements, they counteract their automatic stabilizers and put a drag on recovery efforts. Sheiner and Ng estimate that, from to , discretionary cuts to state and local spending fully offset the stimulative effects of the state and local automatic stabilizers.
But balanced budget requirements also mean that states are more likely to spend what they receive, so sending money to states is a particularly effective way for the federal government to stimulate the economy. For instance, during the Great Recession, the federal government increased its Medicaid spending share, and this was an effective relief to states.
Many analysts are worried that we are ill-prepared for the next recession. On average, the Federal Reserve typically cuts interest rates by five percentage points to combat recessions (Summers ). But with interest rates still well below 5 percent, monetary policy is likely to be constrained by the zero lower bound, increasing the importance of fiscal policy as a stabilizing tool. Further, with the debt-to-GDP ratio already very high by historical standards, it is unclear whether we can rely on Congress to enact measures to boost the economy during the next recession. But the benefits of using fiscal policy to fight recessions are likely to far exceed their costs. With interest rates so low, debt isn’t very costly (Elmendorf and Sheiner ; Blanchard ). Furthermore, to the extent that prolonged joblessness leads to lower labor force participation for an extended amount of time, using fiscal policy to fight recessions may even pay for itself in the long run (DeLong and Summers )
For automatic stabilizers to be effective, they should be timely and bolster aggregate demand. That is, people who are on the receiving end of a stimulus must get the money quickly, and then actually spend it. However, not all tax cuts or spending programs are created equal: cutting certain taxes or increased spending on certain programs have more “bang per buck.” For instance, lower income households are more likely to spend additional income than are higher income households, who are more likely to have the resources to maintain spending levels during hard times.
Thus, a good way to enhance automatic stabilizers is by strengthening the safety net. One option is to automatically increase the amount of food stamps one can receive during a downturn. This action could be administered quickly by raising the value of electronic benefit cards, and is well-targeted to the most vulnerable families (Bernstein and Spielberg ). Another option would be to extend or increase the value of UI benefits (currently, UI benefits are limited to 26 weeks). Indeed, research indicates that policies like SNAP and UI have high “bang per buck” as economic stimulus (Blinder ).
But these policies alone may not involve enough stimulus. One alternative could be to provide a temporary, refundable tax credit for working households (Sahm ). Refundable tax credits help lower-income households because they receive money even if it exceeds the amount of taxes they owe. On the other hand, a policy that reduces tax rates, which would give disproportionate benefits to higher-income households, may be less effective.
Other policies, such as increasing infrastructure spending or grants to states, may also be helpful by increasing spending substantially, but may not be optimal due to time lags. To get around the timing issue, Haughwout () proposes an infrastructure investment plan that delivers federal funds to state and local infrastructure projects that would be automatically triggered during a recession. Fiedler et al. () propose to tie the share of federal support for state Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) programs to state unemployment rates.
Automatic stabilizers are linked to the size of the government, and tend to be larger in advanced economies (Horton and El-Ganainy ). Among the advanced economies, the U.S. has relatively weaker automatic stabilizers. The chart below shows the size of automatic stabilizers—the automatic change in the fiscal balance due to a one percentage point change in the output gap—for each country calculated by Girouard and Andre (). Their finding that the U.S. has weaker automatic stabilizers than most of Europe is consistent with other studies (Dolls et al. ; Fatas and Mihov ). Instead, the U.S. has tended to use relatively more aggressive discretionary fiscal policy to compensate for weaker automatic stabilizers (Fatas and Mihov ).
Want more information on CAZN Stabilizer? Feel free to contact us.