Re: Third try at first light

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Metlicka Marc" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net> 

terry,
thanks for this info, it puts my mind at ease with using my filter without the
mov's. i feel safe because i'm a "set the safety close rather then wide" kinda
guy. i'm thinking that the two transformers i lost in a row without the filter
may have been stressed from running them so much without. it was there time to
say, enough is enough. i suggest every one running nst's to use your filter.
again, good work helping the coilers terry.
marc

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> At 05:00 PM 12/8/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >i also have one of terry's filters that only use the resistors and caps, no
> >mov's. i haven't seen any difference in it over the one with the mov's? i
> guess
> >any thing is better then nothing because i have ran some really bad setups
> >since
> >then with no transformer failure, and i mean BAD. i'll send a pic of the
> quick,
> >cheap setup i made on a cutting board at your request.
> >marc
> >
>
> The MOVs typically do nothing at all.  I put them in because there are a
> 'few' coilers out there (and they know who they are ;-))) that set safety
> gaps a little "wide"!!  The MOVs cannot be set wrong and they provide a
> fail safe way to protect the NST from the user ;-))  The MOVs only act when
> all else fails as a last resort to saving the NST when things really go
> bad.  The MOVs themselves will typically fry and short out to still save
> the NST if the going really gets tough.
>
> I used to hear of NSTs with safety gaps blowing and my first question way
> always "how wide are the gaps set?".  The answers I got were "not pretty"
> ;-)) so I figured MOVs would make the thing "fool" proof ;-))
>
> Cheers,
>
>         Terry