Re: equidrive vs. non-equidrive

• To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: equidrive vs. non-equidrive
• From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
• Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:06:38 -0500
• Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

Subject:      Re: equidrive vs. non-equidrive
       Date:  Tue, 22 Apr 1997 07:51:27 +1200
       From:  "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization: Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
         To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com


Hi Richard,
             I'm delighted to see this post....
> >All,
> >
> >I've done direct comparisons of the equidrive and single leg cap
> >arrangements
> >and found absolutely no difference either way.  This was in a small neon
> >TC
> >which gave about a 28" spark.  I haven't made comparisons at any other
> >power
> >levels.
> >
> >Towards optimal coiling,
> >
> >John Freau
> >
> >
> 
> All,
> 
> John is absolutely correct.  I really don't know how some might come to
> think a positive electrical difference would be noted.  We have used the
> "Equidrive" circuit in all our magnifiers only because the stress is
> moved
> out to two capacitors (twice as expensive).  Lotsa' stress in magnifiers
> that the old two coilers never see! 
> 
>  The only observed advantage of the equidrive is the distribution of
> heat
> and electrical voltage stressed out over two units instead of one. 
> Since we
> have run this system we have never lost a capacitor.  That's a big
> enough
> advantage for me!
> 
> Capacitance is capacitance, no matter where it is in a tesla circuit.
> 
> 
> Richard Hull, TCBOR

I have always thought so too despite some people claiming it made a 
difference. I was never able to see how or why it should.

Malcolm

• Prev: Re: Opt. Qnch. update--loss of synergism
• Next: Re: A primary question
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread