[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SGTC



Original poster: Slurp812 <slurp812@xxxxxxxxx>

Well, I imagine the transformer side of the of both caps could be at
one potential, and the primary side could be at another. The caps
isolate each other from being shorted by the transformer. With one
cap, the primary connects the other end to the transformer. With 2 the
2nd cap isolates it. I wish I could explain it better, but I need a
picture...



On 4/28/07, Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Phil,

As long as the gap is parallel to the transformer, I can't see a
charge remaining. But, what if the gap was hooked in series on one or
even both legs (between caps and primary)? Then as the last cap
conducted at turn off, the opposite cap would remain with a charge.
In that situation, it is likely there would always be one of the caps
charged (and you would never really know which one). That type of
circuit would require an external bleeder for safety.

This must have been the circuit where statements of remaining charge
are referred to. Obviously it's not a good idea if that was the case
as it creates an unnecessary lethal condition in the circuit.
Parallel the gap and both caps will be discharged through the transformer.

Take care,
Bart


>I understand that, and I agree with the point WRT "Case 2" being better than
>"Case 1". But why does  "Case 3" behave any differently from "Case  2"?
>FWIW, Richard Hulls notes  indicate that "Case 3", the "Equi-Drive", is
>definitely preferable. This was a  setup that Tesla advocated.
>However, Hull wrote
>that the "Equi-Drive" system was more prone to leave a charge on the primary
>cap without bleed down. Again, I  don't see why.
>
>
>-Phil LaBudde