Re: New Testing

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: New Testing
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:35:04 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net


From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Monday, September 15, 1997 10:45 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: New Testing

Hi George,

> From:   George W. Ensley[SMTP:erc-at-coastalnet-dot-com]
> Sent:   Monday, September 15, 1997 11:34 AM
> To:     Tesla List
> Subject:    Re: New Testing
> 
<snip>
> >For my money, filter components should be at the primary gap and the 
> >safety gap should right at the transformer terminals and there should 
> >be sufficient damping resistance somewhere between the primary gap 
> >and safety gap. You can so arrange this resistance to provide damping 
> >for all reactive components (line included) by careful design.
> >
> >Malcolm
> >
> 
> Malcolm,
> 
> My theory is to clean it up before it gets to the transmission line thus
> reducing RFI. Using the coax shield grounded at the TC end only as
> additional precautions. I assume only the HV transformer the resides 
> at the supply side and all else is at the base of the TC. A second safety
> gap at the transformer is not a bad idea though.

I don't use safety gaps at all with my neon. I designed a filter 
circuit with a second-order Butterworth response and placed it 
between the main gap and the line running to the transformer. Since 
the gap transient is damped and the damping applies to the line as 
well, there is no need for a safety gap. Nothing short of the primary 
can ring in my neon setup. I scoped the final response to check this.

> Sorry to be so unclear, literacy was the price i paid for a very colorful
> youth.

Hee hee :)
Malcolm