[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
-
To: tesla <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>
-
Subject: Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
-
From: Richard Hull <whitlock-dot-com!RICHARDH-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>
-
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:43:00 PST
-
>Received: from valriva.whitlock-dot-com (valriva.whitlock-dot-com [198.69.64.3]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29930 for <grendel!grendel.objinc-dot-com!tesla-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:54:02 -0700
-
Encoding: 95 TEXT
Ed,
I have to agree about the shunt gap being better overall and keeping the
shunt capacitance effectively isolated from the tank. It might be looked at
from another standpoint, too. The shunted gap, when firing, lets the
primary tank circuit ring up, true, but it also lets the neon secondary and
its capacitance ring up too! Interesting!
Let's face it, stuff is ringing up all over the place. The higher impedance
secondary of the shunted transformers makes them targets for over voltages
and, thereby, early deaths.
Richard Hull, TCBOR
----------
From: tesla
To: 73041.2215; 73663.1536; BrittB7556; JHERRON; JOHNBATES3; abourass;
atech; av599; davide; funkadelic; jbiehler; jmonty; kg7bz; koppemha; logue;
mackte; nwtnmike; osburnw; pinsky; richardh; rmessick; rnicker; rwstephens;
shu95mmc; stevej; twill19; yiorgos
Subject: Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
Date: Friday, March 29, 1996 2:03PM