Re: Rotaries and Neons (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Rotaries and Neons (fwd)
From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:52:06 -0600 (MDT)
Approved: mod1-at-pupman-dot-com



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:42:19 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Rotaries and Neons (fwd)

Hi Gary,
         I should have elaborated a bit:

> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 98 08:44:14 EDT
> From: Gary Lau  05-Aug-1998 0817 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Rotaries and Neons (fwd)
> 
> >From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: Rotaries and Neons
> >
> >Terry, Gary Lau and all,
> >                          I'm seeking an opinion here: if one uses a
> >good RC filter with a NST, is there any remaining hurdle to using an
> >async rotary gap?
> >
> >Malcolm
> 
> As I understand it, the reason that async rotary gaps are not recommended
> for use with neons is not related to filterable high frequency transients.
> The same kinds of high voltage, high frequency resonances should occur
> regardless of sync or async, or static or rotary gaps.
> 
> The problem with async RSG's and NST's has due to the fact that mains
> resonance between the NST and primary cap will exceed the NST's breakdown
> voltage if and when a mains voltage peak does not coincide with a gap
> presentation.  Using a sync RSG guarantees this cannot happen.  Pole pigs
> are more robust and can survive a mains ring-up.

I quite understand this and for a long time have advocated planting a 
static gap firmly across the rotary to catch misses. If this is done,
do you still see any objections?

Thanks,
Malcolm