Re: The Next Coil

From: 	FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
Sent: 	Saturday, August 02, 1997 1:32 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: The Next Coil

In a message dated 97-08-02 17:42:57 EDT, you write:

> Hmmm...  It's true that the '3 phase - sync gap - 360 BPS' system would
> have a better power factor, but such a scheme would require three
> primary capacitor banks and a rather novel commutating arrangement on
> the rotary gap.  I wrestled with this design choice on my present coil,
> and decided that a diode set would be easier to deal with than three
> primary capacitor banks and a three phase rotary gap.  It's also very
> convenient to control the thruput power using the rotary gap speed, 
> which eliminates the need for high power variacs.
> -GL


I was thinking in terms of using just one capacitor bank and a regular
sync-gap...I didn't realize that 3 cap banks would be needed.  The 
sync-gap would have 6 electrodes instead of the normal 2, to handle
the 3 phase...am I missing something?  I seem to remember that
someone tried this (maybe Tesla?) and it worked well.

I agree with you about the ease of power throughput adjustments...that's 
one of the disadvantages of any sync-gap.

John Freau