Re: it works!
> Original Poster: Don Allen <dona-at-amigo-dot-net>
> At 11:14 PM 7/26/99 -0600, Tesla List wrote:
> >Original Poster: NickandSim-at-aol-dot-com
> >This may be irresponsible advice but I just put the gap as wide as I can
> >it and I have about 1+ hours run time and haven't lost a neon yet ( fizz,
> >bang - Oh ****) And I don't run the gap across the neon.
> Can you say "playing the odds" ? Sure you can.
> >Who needs a safety gap, the only capacitor I have ever lost was killed
> >safety gap taking it over the dv/dt ratings - I've run without one ever
> >and as your cap isn't reso you probably don't need one.
> It's your NST and your choice..but I'll keep my safety gap. It's always a
> idea to protect the neon, unless, of course you actually enjoy re-potting or
> buying another transformer when... -not if- ...the "fizz bang - Oh sh*t"
> incident inevitably happens.
I am betting heavily that a safety gap is only a "necessity" if the
main gap is placed across the transformer and the leads from the
transformer to the main gap are not as short as possible or there are
reactances inserted in them. If the transformer is placed across the
primary cap, voltage across the terminals cannot possibly exceed what
the cap has been charged to. However, zero crossing transients across
the main gap can easily exceed the primary cap charging voltage, low
energy notwithstanding. Perhaps it is time to get some real data on
how many transformers have died if the they are wired across the
primary cap and the gap has not been set wider than the peak o/c