Re: what happens if i use a marx cap arrangement on a TC?

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

Original poster: "Mark Fergerson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mfergerson1-at-home-dot-com>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Christopher Boden by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <chrisboden-at-hotmail-dot-com>

> >...  TC's aren't a fast rise
> >time kind of device.

  I'd quibble with that a bit; I thought Tesla's oft-quoted "high
rate-of-rise" was how you "rang" the secondary efficiently when the
gap breaks over. That's if you're using a gap; IIUC something similar
happens in the SSTC designs.

> >That said, there is something to be said for doing something different than
> >everybody else does.  Once you've got your vanilla TC running, try that
> >marx...
> 
> ok, but with a Marx it would still be pulsed DC into the tank circuit,
> right? How do you get the AC?

  The secondary rings, couples back to the primary circuit, and the
tank C sees some AC component.

  I guess that's not a problem if you dissipate _all_ the secondary
energy in sparks, but can that even happen (ideal first notch
scenario)? Will it do so repeatedly or won't small changes in
secondary loading tend to degrade resonance so that some AC will
eventually get back to the primary circuit?

  Anybody remember the SF film "This Island Earth" and those snazzy
red-plastic-bead ultracapacitors the Interossiter (sp?) used? I could
really use some of them. Pulse and HF AC tolerance are killing my mini
RF TC design. Oh, well.

  BTW, ISTR the SSTC people claim SS primary current control is what
gives those "sword-like" sparks. Is there any info on deliberately and
reliably generating them? Does that happen with SSTCs only? Any
caveats damage-potential-wise?

  Mark L. Fergerson