[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ballasting the secondary side of transformers
Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Can someone please tell me why we are still ballasting on the LV side
of Pigs and PT's? This should be easy enough to do for a fixed
current limit. The costs associated with a LV ballast almost demands
we do this. The LV side is starting to appear very silly to me at the
moment. Granted, there are HV concerns, but is it really a big deal?
I get the feeling LV ballasting is simply convenient. However, it is
also expensive (unless one builds a ferrite ballast).
Just curious is anyone else has contemplated a high side ballast.
Tesla list wrote:
Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Original poster: Harvey Norris <harvich@xxxxxxxxx>
How can you even ascertain what a resonant cap value
would be if you are not using a current limited
secondary? Can a pole pig for example have a current
limited output measurement made by shorting out the
secondary outputs, simply by ballasting its primary?
Primary ballasting current limits the same as secondary ballasting.
Only the needed value of the ballast is different. If ballasting on
the seconary, the inductance needs to be n^2 larger than if
ballasting is done on the primary, yes??