NST outer layers, was Re: chokes

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

Original poster: "Jon Tebbs by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jgtebbs-at-eos-dot-net>

Hi Ed, List,

I can provide first hand confirmation from two depotted NSTs that died
from excessive static gap width in the early 1990's. The voltage
distribution certainly seems to be concentrated in the outer layers. In
both of these cases the burned spot on the secondaries was about one
third in from the outside layer, on the side and had arced to the core.

Anyone else have a similar observation?
-- 
Jon G. Tebbs
<jgtebbs-at-eos-dot-net>


Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

snip--
 
>         Network simulation is not experimental, and the results are
valid.  It
> is obvious that a lot of chokes that have been described here would do
> nothing at all, and therefor at best be harmless.  Terry is correct and
> chokes are a waste of time.  Resistors will do more good, backed up with
> the MOV's or plain safety gap directly across the NST secondary.
> 
>         One useful contribution to general knowledge here would be for
someone
> to go to the trouble of trying to model the outer layers of an NST
> secondary and then determine current and voltage distribution during a
> discharge.  Can surely be accomplished by modern modeling techniques,
> but I don't know how to do it.
> 
> Ed