Ballasting the secondary side of transformers

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Harvey,
>
> > 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??
>
> Gerry R.