Re: Success with PP Multi-Mini Cap

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Success with PP Multi-Mini Cap
• From: Esondrmn-at-aol-dot-com (by way of Terry Fritz <twf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 17:42:22 -0600
• Approved: twf-at-verinet-dot-com

In a message dated 4/3/99 2:17:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com 
writes:
   -snip-
> 
>  To Ed Sonderman:
>  There is no need to submerge the chains in oil. The volts/cap
>  doesn´t exceed the rated limit and the ends of the string (full
>  voltage) are far enough apart, so there is no need for oil. They
>  don´t get warm at all (Gary´s get very slightly warm). The oil
>  wouldn´t cool them anyway, because of the plastic case
>  surrounding each cap (= insulator). Plus the fact, that they
>  are in open air, lets you check (or replace) them, if needed,
>  much easier and faster, compared to them being submerged
>  in oil. Oil is necessary for homebrew caps, but it is a pain, too.
>  This is one of the reasons why I went for the MMC deal. The
>  MMC is nothing else than a commercial pulse cap. PC
>  manufacturers do the exact same thing, we do with the MMC
>  (seriesing). The MMC has a secondary benefit that a
>  commercial pulse cap do not (at least not the ones used in
>  TC work) have: We parallel many strings. This means the total
>  current is divided up equally among the strings, which further
>  means the pulse current per cap string and per cap is low.
>  Big commercial (µF range) pulse caps use this trick, too.
>  
>  Coiler greets from germany,
>  Reinhard
>  
Reinhard,

How large is the finished cap?  How do you have it mounted?

Ed Sonderman

• Prev: Re: Hazardous radiation produced by a Tesla Coil?
• Next: RE: What is going on??
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread