Re: MMC voltage ratings

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

Original poster: "Mark Broker by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mbroker-at-thegeekgroup-dot-org>

I believe I used a factor of 1.5x resonant for static gaps.  It was an
"average" number I gathered from TCML postings.

We agree completely with John's comments below, and is the primary reason
why The Geek Group prefers LTR sized caps.  Also, and MMC may be cheaper,
as it may 
require fewer caps in a few cases.  The exception is for a pig-driven coil,
as there has been little "in-house" experience with them, and also because
very few people have 
run LTR pig coils due to the enormous cost of an MMC (prior to our offering
MMC caps for darn-near free!).

Mark Broker
The Geek Group's Chief Engineer


11-27-2001 7:05:32 PM, "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:

>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
>In a message dated 11/27/01 3:20:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
>
>> Surely a resonant or STR cap would be much better for a static gap - this
>>  allows the gap to fire more reliably because of a higher voltage across it.
>>  With an LTR cap the you dont get such a high firing voltage, particularly 
>if
>>  the cap is very LTR.
>>  
>>  Best Regards,
>>  Jason
>
>Jason,
>
>An STR cap will give shorter sparks though for a given NST.
>A resonant cap will demand a wider gap, for longest sparks,
>which may lead to NST failure.  For NST reliability and long
>sparks, an LTR seems to be the best choice.  I agree one
>should not go too far in the LTR direction with a static gap.
>Perhaps 2X resonant is a maximum LTR value for best results
>when using a static gap. 
>
>Cheers,
>John
>
>
>
>
>