[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Cap size (not sure...)
In a message dated 99-05-22 05:14:09 EDT, you write:
<< 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 >>
Alex,
With the LTRS cap, a higher variac input setting is needed to get
the same spark length, but the power input is actually lower, so the
LTRS set-up is actually more efficient.
But the sync gap phase *can* be adjusted to give equallly good
efficiency using the reso-cap, but then a higher than normal input
voltage will also be required. In this case, both the input variac
setting, and the spark length, and the efficiency, will be the same
for the reso, or LTRS caps.
But the reso-cap arrangement is the only one that can give the
long sparks at a normal (120V) variac setting, although the efficiency
will be a little lower than when a higher input voltage (along with the
appropriate gap phase setting), is used.
Basically, the LTRS set up "doesn't want" to draw more than the NST
rated power, so yes, a higher input voltage is needed to force more
power through. In the reso-cap system, the NST *is* capable of
drawing more than it's rated power, at a normal variac setting.
For a given power throughput, the same spark length will be obtained
with a lower voltage on the LTRS cap (than on the reso-cap), because
the LTRS is larger.
John Freau