RE: Strike Rail

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: RE: Strike Rail
• From: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:59:27 -0700
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

I don't believe the tank cap is at risk from a strike to the primary.

One way to see this is conservation of energy.  The energy in Ctop
originated in Ctank.  There's no way that the voltage in Ctank can ever
exceed the level that it started from.  Even assuming NO losses (!) from the
primary to the secondary, then back from Ctop to the tank cap, a 40pF
topload charged to 400kV could only charge a 20nF tank cap to 17.9kV.  

I'm less certain about the vulnerability of an NST power supply.  While
bypass caps and safety gaps _should_ keep it safe, I'm concerned with the
possibility of stray inductance isolating the NST from these protective
devices.  Perhaps this is a good reason to keep safety gaps and bypass caps
as close to the NST as possible.

Gary Lau
Waltham, MA USA



>Original Poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net> 
>I was thinking that a high powered system may be better off with a strike
rail.
>Would either of you say a high powered (14.4kv/694mA pole pig driver)
strike to
>the primary have no ill effects on the cap? It just seems a 1.6MVp-p strike
may
>find it's way across the gap to the cap and possibly back to the
transformer.
>Does the low impedance of the primary actually stop this from occurring
>regardless of power levels? 
>
>Bart 
 

• Prev: Re: MMC cap failure
• Next: Re: toroid sizing
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread