Re: Cap size (not sure...)

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Cap size (not sure...)
• From: Alex Crow <user-at-pupman-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 19:31:10 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

John,

I'm not quite sure I understand this - why do you have to increase the
input to the NST and how does this relate to having a lower output voltage?
Are you just trying to pump more power into the system? If so, then surely
if you get the same spark length for more power in you are actually
reducing the efficiency? I can't see why anyone would want this unless they
are totally paranoid about their components frying...

Feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions here!

Alex



On Thu, 20 May 1999 00:19:48 Tesla List wrote:
> Original Poster: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com 
> 
> In a message dated 99-05-19 06:35:06 EDT, you write:
> 
> << 
> > But are there any big advantages to using a LTR size cap.
> > Also will a LTR cap put more strain on the power supply?
>  
> > Cheers Mike Tucknott   >>
> 
> Mike, all,
> 
> Assuming you're using NST power with a sync rotary gap, an LTRS 
> cap can give the same
> output spark as a reso-cap, but a higher variac setting will be needed.
> It will be necessary to feed more than 120 volts to a 120 volt rated
> NST to equal the length that would be achieved at 120 volts with a
> reso-cap (depending on the gap phasing).  But the LTRS cap will 
> produce a given spark length with less voltage on the output of the
> NST.  For this reason, the LTRS cap may stress the NST less than
> a reso-cap, so that is an advantage.
> 
> I just built a new sync rotary gap that is simple to constuct.  I'll 
> post a photo at my webpage soon.  This work will be on my latest
> videotape which is gradually getting done, but is not ready yet.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John Freau
> 
> 
> 

• Prev: Re: Lexan Bobbin
• Next: Analysis of streamer observations
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread