Re: Welder ballasts vs. other types (was Oops)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Welder ballasts vs. other types (was Oops)
From: Teslaman-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:48:59 -0600
Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

In a message dated 10/9/98 5:56:41 PM Central Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:

> 
>  
>  I wonder if it's the welder that is creating the smooth running, or 
>  somethings else about Ed's systems that make them run smooth.
>  
>  I would find it *most* intriquing if someone did an experiment, and
>  replaced their welder with some other type of ballast to see if 
>  thumping problems arise.  Or, conversely, someone with thumping
>  problems without resistance might want to install a welder to see if
>  the problem goes away.
>  
>  Has anyone on the list ever done this comparison of welder vs.
>  other ballast types?
>  
>  John Freau

  John, all..

  I think it matters if a series static gap is run "with" the rotary gap.  My
system has been running with inductive and resistive ballast with smooth
operation at 8 kW.  It uses an async. rotary with a vacuum quenched static
series gap.  After all this discussion of welders I had to try it.  My Lincon
AC255 welder is only several feet from the controller, so I wired it in and
bypassed the resistor ballast's.  The coil ran horrible, even at low power and
at all different welder settings.  A lot of arcing from the primary to
secondary and erratic spark discharges from the toroid.  I then bypassed the
static gap keeping the welder in and using only the rotary.  It ran just fine
again, smooth with the same output sparks.

   From my experience above, it seems static/rotary combination gaps need the
resistance with inductive ballasting to work properly, however rotary gaps
alone work well with inductive only ballasting.  This is for my set up anyway,
others out there noting the same results?   

Kevin E