Re: RQ Schematics

To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: RQ Schematics
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:15:33 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

Subject:       Re: RQ Schematics
       Date:   Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:37:31 -0700
       From:   Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
Organization:  Stoneridge Engineering
         To:   Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 References: 
            1

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> Subject:   Re: RQ Schematics
>   Date:    Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:08:21 -0400
>   From:    "George W. Ensley" <erc-at-coastalnet-dot-com>
>     To:    Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> 
> I use the standard RQ (xfmr - caps - safety  gaps - chokes - static gap)
> arrangement on my coil. The safety gap will fire very occasional on one
> side
> or the other when a strike from the toroid finds its way past the strike
> rail to the primary. I suspect the whole primary tank circuit, chokes,
> static gaps, cap and all are pulled off center as referenced to the
> center
> tap of the neon and the center point of the safety gaps. In any event
> the
> gaps fire the neon is somewhat protected and i feel good.
> 

George,

You've addressed a VERY good reason for the safety gaps and why they
should be referenced to ground. A simple gap only going between the HV
outputs of the transformers will NOT protect you from the condition you
describe above. The secondary hit to your primary WILL find a ground,
one way or another. If not through your safety gap, then through your
transformer's secondary winding to the case (or worse yet to the primary
winding and potentially through anything tied to that circuit!). 

Safe coilin' to you!

-- Bert --