Re: option 1 or option 2.....

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx 

In a message dated 11/11/05 2:56:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Original poster: "seanick" <edgarsbat@xxxxxxxxxxx>

I disagree with the statement that 940C's don't survive moderate use.
They aren't as good as 942C's, sure, but I have 4 strands of 10 3Kv
.1uF 940c's that have withstood a couple years so far. That includes
many times when the coil was misconfigured (most of the time? ) which
is worse on the caps than running perfectly tuned, if I am not
mistaken.


Snippp

     When I was much younger, Thor Heyerdahl and his crew 
successfully crossed the south Pacific on a balsawood raft (Kon Tiki) 
Years later, they successfully crossed the south Atlantic in a boat 
made of papyrus.(The Ra expedition). But, if a young sailor had asked 
him to recommend an ocean-going vessel, I doubt he would  have 
recommended either one. On the other hand, a friend of mine built a 
rowboat using tongue and groove lumber which naval acrhitechts agree 
is a terrible choice. It sank during its 43rd season.

Endorsements drawn from a sample of one experience need to be taken 
with enough salt to make several bucket caps. A more supportable 
original statement would have been that 940Cs are much more likely to 
have a significantly shorter life expectancy in TC service than 942Cs.

But here again, mortality tables do not determine the fate of a 
single individual, they only point out the better way to place long 
term bets. My suggestion: If you have the 940Cs, use them, run to 
failure, then get 942Cs. If you have the funds and a choice, go for the 942s.
Either WILL work for a while.

Matt D.

Matt D.