Re: Safety Gap Question

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

Original poster: "Jason by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jasonp-at-btinternet-dot-com>

Generally the best ides is to put the PSG across the Main SG. That way the
impulse that needs to travel to the protective SG doesn't have to go through
your filter resistors. If it goes through the resistors it may damage them
or worse. Me, I play it safe and put a safety gap across my main gap and my
xfmr, but i have only had the xfmr gap fire once on me, after I exploded a
cap.

Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: Safety Gap Question


> Original poster: "Shaun Epp by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<scepp-at-mts-dot-net>
>
> Ok, so I'm building a tesla coil and I'm using 500 pF doorknob caps for my
> filter.  Would it be better to put the safty gap at the transformer or at
> the main spark gap?  my thoughts were that, if I put it at the
transformer,
> it protects the transformer from over voltages.  Please correct me if I'm
> wrong while we're discussing this topic.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 5:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Safety Gap Question
>
>
> > Original poster: "Peter Lawrence by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Peter.Lawrence-at-Sun-dot-com>
> >
> > Dave,
> >      I too have pondered this question. Here are some of my
observations,
> > which are based on using a static main gap so they may not be relevant
for
> > your SRSG situation...
> >
> > 1) safety gap next to NST (therefore power resistors between primary cap
> and
> > safety gap) results in "weak" spark in safety gap when it does fire,
> leading
> > me to wonder if it is really bleeding off much energy from the primary
cap
> > and if it is really protecting against resonant rise in the primary or
> not.
> >
> > 2) safety gap next to CAP (therefore power resistors between safety gap
> and
> > NST) results in "explosive" safety gap firing. For sure this prevents
any
> > resonant rise in the primary, but I wonder about the abuse to the
primary
> cap
> > due to the virtually unimpeded very high current pulse.
> >
> > I'm personally sticking with (2), until someone can show by direct
> electrical
> > measurements that (1) does eliminate resonant rise in the primary (and
can
> > show by EE what the resistance of the power R should be. And I try to
keep
> > my main spark gap adjusted so that the safety gap fires only
> occassionally.
> >
> > Peter Lawrence.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Original poster: "Dave Kyle by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> > <dave-at-kyleusa-dot-com>
> > >
> > >Last weekend I completed construction of the neon transformer
protection
> > >module. It consists of two 1K 100 watt resisters and 4 small doorknob
> caps
> > >wired in the usual RC configuration and a safety gap. I elected not to
> > >include the MOV devices at this time. My question is should the safety
> gap
> > >be on the neon side or the primary side of the resistors? I have seen
it
> > >shown both ways and I am curious what the arguments are for ether case.
I
> > >will be using a SRSG with a three x 15KV-at-30ma neon farm if that has any
> > >baring on the answer.
> > >
> > >Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=========================================
> > >Dave Kyle
> > >Austin, TX USA
> > >Email: dave-at-kyleusa-dot-com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>