Re: LTR Pig Project - Long Post!

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

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 1/27/01 11:46:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:

> The general consensus I've recieved on polepig powered coils is to
>  run a high breakrate, small capacitor, and crank the power to it.
>  The problems I see in that...the high RMS current is murder on the
>  caps.  The high power levels promote power-arcing on the RSG due to
>  poor quenching.  Most common comment I hear, "Resonant value isn't
>  important with a pig-based system."

Shad,all,

There are some folks who suggest high bps, small cap, but I've always
prefered low bps (preferably 120 bps sync), with large cap for best
overall efficiency.  However, the toroid will need to be larger at
120 bps for best results.  The resonant value has to be calculated
based on the ballast setting for a pig coil.  This is because a pig
rated at 10kVA, can actually deliver 20kVA or more if you let it.
Thus, there is no amount of current a pig "wants" to deliver.
You *tell* it how much current you want using the ballast setting.
I've found in my work, that doubling the bps gives only a 20%
gain in spark length.  But doubling the cap size and keeping
the bps the same gives a 40% spark length increase.  (Assuming
an optimal design in both cases.)  So it's twice as "efficient" to
use a low break-rate in this sense.

I'm still working on my 2400 turn secondary project.  So far it
seems to be about as efficient as the 660 turn secondary.  The
1600 turn secondary was 10% more efficient.  But I'm still not
done tuning it all up.

John Freau