Re: Continued Problems (fwd)

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Continued Problems (fwd)
• From: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
• Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 20:13:12 -0600 (MDT)
• Approved: mod1-at-pupman-dot-com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:35:16 EDT
From: Esondrmn <Esondrmn-at-aol-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Continued Problems (fwd)

In a message dated 98-05-05 10:32:22 EDT, you write:

<< 
 >  Your safety gap is firing when the voltage reaches the breakdown voltage
of
 > the gap. I am not sure what 5/8" is voltage wise, but if someone said use
 > 5/8" I would stick with it. By increasing the capacitance, you can increase
 > the current throughput without changing the voltage (i.e. causing the
safety
 > gap to fire).
 
 Makes sense to me. It would be interesting to know the breakover potential of
5/8"
 (of course, environment plays a large role). I wonder if the tank voltage
rise is
 finding it's way across the cap during the break, thus firing the safety gap.
If so,
 good thing it's there. Maybe way off on that one. Just thinking.
 
 Bart
  >>
Bart,

I asked Condenser Products to comment on my setting of the safety gap across
the cap.  W.I. Mason (President) says .50" spacing equates to approximately
38.5 kv peak voltage.  To be safe and within design limits of my cap, he
suggests setting the gap at .375" - which I would like to do if I can get my
problems resolved.

Ed Sonderman

• Prev: Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)
• Next: Re: Demos and Experiments? (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread