Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <4b3bd780.65747562@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Houston wrote:
>don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>>Power Factor affects total generating capacity.
>>
>>  But not so much for fuel consumption.  Reactive component of load does
>>not translate to turque required to turn the generator.
>>in torque load, not net torque.
>
>I don't believe I've ever encountered this claim before but it's been about
>50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything
>like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say
>exactly the opposite.
>
>http://www.cumminspower.com/www/literature/technicalpapers/PT-6004-PowerFactorTests-en.pdf
>
>Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging
>load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a
>resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and
>will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

  A generator at 80% of rated power at .8 pf will still be easier to turn
than one operating at same current and 1.0 pf (100% of rated power).

  Meanwhile, generator losses are a much smaller percentage of output
power for big ones owned by electric companies than for smaller ones of
only several KW.  Your example of full power at .8 pf is also 125% of
current delivered to a full power resistive load, and I^2*R losses may be
starting to blow up at that point.

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)