Re: Inductive Kick LTR Pig Systems

["Barton B. Anderson" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi Terry, 

Tesla list wrote: 
>
> Original poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net> 
>
> Of course, there may be unknows here we don't know about.  the fact that PFC 
> caps are rare with pig systems worrys me in that there may be something we 
> don't know?? 
>
> Cheers, 
>
>         Terry

I've always been under the assumption, that our ballasting is performing two
functions. One, limiting current. Two, correcting the lagging inductive
component by bringing the net reactance to zero, thus correcting for unity
power factor during the charge cycle before gap conduction. Jeff posted a
reference to this as a question to the list. From the lack of reply's, it
appears no one is real sure. It is seeming that pig ballasting is not
correcting the power factor and doing no more than limiting current, such as
the success Marc's recent use of PFC's. 

I've been looking through some books and haven't found anything regarding
inductive PF correction. Everything seems to point to capacitive correction
(which makes sense considering the component causing the problem is inductive).
Anyway, maybe the reason pigs haven't used PFC caps is as simple as a
misunderstanding regarding reactive ballasting action or just because no one
really thought about the need to do it since a pig can deliver several times
it's rated current due to their short circuit current construction. I think for
efficiency, even a pig could use PFC caps without a problem (just like the
power company's do with these pigs to correct inductive motor loads, etc.). 

Anyway, I think I'll turn on MicroSim and see if the model can answer this
question for me. 

Regards, 

Bart