RE: question

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

Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>

Hi John,

>Are you saying that you're not using any ballasting (current limiting)for
the PT?  It's generally best to use ballasting (inductive or resistive), to
prevent power arcing at the gap, and for generally better performance.

Yes, that is what I was saying.  I've put my potential transformer back on
the shelf until I learn more about it.  If there is a dangerous transformer
(and all of them can be) the potential transformer has to be the most
dangerous from what I can tell.  I have some heavy duty RF chokes I can use,
but I want to study the math behind this to better protect myself from
accidents.  Fortunately I have not touched the potential transformer when
turning on the power.  Even with the variac turned down to minimum, this
transformer could have sent a deadly shock as the coils were charged.

Thanks for your input.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:45 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: question


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

In a message dated 2/1/02 10:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:

Dave,

Are you saying that you're not using any ballasting (current limiting)
for the PT?  It's generally best to use ballasting (inductive or resistive),
to prevent power arcing at the gap, and for generally better performance.

Cheers,
John



>
> I fully understand what you mean by the Potential Transformer is not
current
> limited.  I put it on my Tesla coil today.  The spark gap looked more like
> an arc welder.  My single thoriated tungsten, magnetically quenched,
static
> spark gap just couldn't handle it.  I've been working all day to build a
> spark gap to handle the power.